Sabra and Shatila Massacre Anniversary September 1982 – Never Forget

ARABI SOURI 

Sabra and Shatila Massacre - Lebanon September 1982

Sabra and Shatila massacre is the most horrific, most heinous, ugliest war crime deliberately committed by armed forces against innocent civilians, rather refugees in their houses in the camp they were sieged in, what makes it more heinous is the criminals are known and they are not prosecuted, they are celebrated as heroes by their supporters.

We are commemorating the 39th anniversary of this disgusting massacre that not even ISIS committed similar to it in the same place despite the number of beyond horrific massacres this US-sponsored anti-Islamic terrorist organization has committed.

The video is available here and on BitChute.

Video report transcript:

The massacre is one of the most horrific things written in the history of the entire world, it is the massacre of Sabra and Shatila, which was committed by the Israeli occupation forces in Beirut on this day, 39 years ago, which claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Palestinian people.

The massacre was pre-planned by the Israeli occupation forces, which set out in the dark on the night of September 16, 1982, to commit murders that lasted for 48 hours in collusion with groups of the Lebanese Forces militia and the so-called South Lebanon Army, the proxy agent at the time, against the Palestinians and Lebanese residing in Shatila camp and the neighboring Sabra neighborhood.

The Israeli occupation vehicles sealed the escape exits of the camp and did not allow entry until after the massacre ended on September 18, when the world woke up to one of the most heinous massacres in history and to find thousands of dead bodies of women, children and the elderly who were killed in a way that shames humanity.

Despite the ugliness of the massacre that the world woke up to, the ‘international community’ did not bring the perpetrators and try them by any court, and none of them were punished for what they have committed. The matter was limited to investigation committees that reached results that were not followed by legal follow-up.

The number of martyrs who fell as victims of this massacre is not clear, as estimates indicate the death of about seven thousand martyrs, and the pictures of children who did not exceed the age of three and four while they were in their pajamas and their blankets stained with their blood, and the families killed by the Israeli occupation forces while they slept, remain a living witness that will not go away and evidence of the ugliness of the crime.

End of the Report.

Samir Geagea, the head of the Lebanese Forces militia was sentenced to prison for life in Lebanon for a number of other crimes including the bombing of a church while holding a mass, the slaughtering of the whole family of his political opponent, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rachid Karami and a Lebanese army officer with him, and he was pardoned by the US and Saudi proxy Lebanese politicians, he didn’t spend the rest of his days repenting and asking for forgiveness, he’s the head of a block in the Lebanese parliament and a staunch opponent of the majority of the Lebanese people working publicly for the Saudi regime.

None of the Israeli officials is prosecuted or tried at a court of justice, some of them were left to commit series of other war crimes in Lebanon and in Palestine, including against Gaza, and around the world bombing, assassinating, and instigating strife, all in the guise of ‘fighting terrorism’ following the steps of their main patron, the United States of America post-September 11. the USA invaded two countries and slaughtered over a million people in Iraq alone, displaced millions of others avenging the killing of around 3000 of its people in the 2001 attacks, how should the relatives of the 7000 victims of the Sabra and Shatila massacre avenge the massacre? And we’re not talking about the Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans, Palestinians, Somalians, Yemenis, Serbians, to count a few.

The next time the US or European officials ever mention the need to prosecute war criminals around the world ask them about the accountability for Sabra and Shatila massacre victims, then ask them about the other war crimes they’ve committed and ask them to at least shut up.

If you want us to remain online, please consider a small donation, or see how you can help at no cost.
Follow us on Telegram: https://t.me/syupdates link will open the Telegram app.

An Everlasting Trauma: Sabra and Shatila by the Hours

September 16, 2021

Source: The Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1. 16 Sep 23:31

By Al Mayadeen

Ariel Sharon gave the commands, the Israeli-backed militiamen did the dirty work.

See the source image

On one occasion of forty hours of ruthless slaughter, “Israel’s” June 6, 1982 invasion of Lebanon, called “Operation Peace for Galilee,” hardly experienced any sense of peace. Linda Butler, an associate editor at the Journal of Palestine Studies, narrates it well

According to “Israel,” the aim of the operation was to push back the frontiers of the Palestinian resistance fighters to “protect the people of Galilee” – however, little did 3500 Palestinian and Lebanese know about how their death, sans criminal record, would protect settler colonialism miles and miles away. The second goal of the invasion was to station a government that has an affinity to Israeli settler colonialism. In this case, the president that was to assume office was right-wing leader Bashir Gemayel. 

Sharon called it, “ridding the world of international terrorism.” 

West Beirut, which engulfed the Sabra and Shatila camps, was besieged for 70 days. Three months into the invasion, 17,825 people were killed in occupied regions. West Beirut’s death toll alone, due to airstrikes, artillery and gunfire, took up 2,461 civilians.

As the death toll incessantly mounted, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) came to an understanding in August: to evacuate 11,000 Palestinian fighters and officials under the supervision and auspices of French, US, and Italian troops. The troops left by September 10, 1982. 

On the afternoon of the 14th of September, Bashir Gemayel was assassinated in the Kataeb (Arabic for Phalengist) headquarters in Achrafieh, East Beirut. Habib Shartouni, a member of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, was blamed for the explosion. 

Ariel Sharon, the security minister at the time, capitalized on the assassination to execute a plan that has impacted the lives of thousands.

Sharon immediately pused the narrative that the Palestinians were behind the assassination of the Christians’ leader, and that they must be avenged as soon as possible.

Accordingto an Israeli journalist, Amnon Kapeliouk, the horrendous operation to be launched by Sharon had been “meticulously planned long in advance.” 

At 3:00 AM on the 15th of September, Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, Major General Amir Drori, Chief of Intelligence Elie Hobeika, and the Lebanese militia’s new commander-in-chief Fadi Frem met to discuss entry into the Sabra and Shatila camps. Sharon instructed, “Only one element, and that is the IDF, shall command the forces in the area.” While the IDF gave the orders, the Phalangist militiamen did the dirty work:

Fighter jets flew at a low altitude and tankers and troops surrounded the camps from all sides. Israeli snipers were at work, tanks were shelling the premises, and all exits and entrances were blocked by the IDF. Families locked themselves in their homes. 

By 11:30 AM on the 16th of September, the Israelis announced that they had taken control of Beirut. 

At 4:00 PM, jeeps supplied by the Israeli occupation forces drove into Shatila with the guidance of arrows drawn on the walls by the Israelis. 

A platoon of 150 militia soldiers, armed with guns, knives, and axes, stormed the camp. Immediately, they entered homes, slit throats, axed, shot, and raped. On many occasions, they would also slit pregnant women’s bodies open, leaving them and their fetuses to bleed to death. Entire families and neighborhoods were lined up on the streets and shot ruthlessly. 

On Thursday and Friday, Israelis fired light flares into the camps to guide the militiamen in the massacre. One Dutch nurse described the camp as bright as “a sports stadium lit up for a football game.”

By 8:40 PM, a briefing by an army general, Yaron, took place: He said that the militiamen are confused as to what to do with the men, women, and children. They were concerned that they found no terrorists, which left them to wonder what to do with the population they have rounded up. 

At this point, the Israelis were divided on whether the operation should proceed or not. On the one hand, one commander thought things “may have gotten too far,” another commander was impressed with the militiamen’s work and that they should continue, as they called it, “mopping up” till Friday, 5 AM the next day. Upon requesting another bulldozer to “demolish illegal structures,” the Israelis unconditionally granted it to the Phalangists. 

On Friday the 17th of September, the systemic murdering persisted. Bulldozers were at work: they were digging mass graves, and scooping bodies into piles on trucks just outside the camps. The “illegal structures,” which were inhabited buildings, would be destroyed so that bodies would be buried under the wreckage. At the height of this round of massacre, 400 militiamen were involved.

On Saturday at 6 AM, loudspeakers passing through the camps would order civilians to give in to the militia, to exit their homes, and turn themselves in. At that point, it was reported that a thousand people marched out of their homes in lines. The Israeli-backed militiamen would take some of the civilians out of the line and execute them on the spot, whereas others would be dragged to trucks nearby the Kuwaiti embassy and kidnapped…never to be found again. 

At 9 AM, international journalists and media outlets entered the camps only to find piles of bodies lying down on the floor – many mutilated, maimed, and unidentifiable. Many graves were shallowly dug, leaving dead body parts to appear arbitrarily. 

By 10 AM, the militiamen left the camp and the Israelis stayed out of the “scene” as to not be blamed for anything, refusing any accountability and denying any involvement in the disaster. 

American Pravda: Seeking 9/11 Truth After Twenty Years

September 14, 2021

American Pravda: Seeking 9/11 Truth After Twenty Years

by Ron Unz, reposted with permission

The twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks is almost upon us, and although their immediacy has been somewhat reduced by the events of the last eighteen months, we must recognize that they have drastically shaped the world history of the last two decades, greatly changing the daily lives and liberties of most ordinary Americans.

The widespread doubts about the reality of the official story provided by our government and almost universally promoted by our media has severely diminished popular faith in the credibility of those two crucial institutions, with consequences that are still very apparent in today’s highest profile issues.

Over the years, diligent researchers and courageous journalists have largely demolished the original narrative of those events, and have made a strong, perhaps even overwhelming case that the Israeli Mossad together with its American collaborators played the central role. My own reconstruction, substantially relying upon such accumulated evidence, came to such conclusions, and I am therefore republishing it below, drawn from my previous articles which had appeared in late 2018 and early 2020, with the later material making heavy use of Ronen Bergman’s authoritative 2018 history of the Mossad, which ran more than 750 pages.

Immediately following my own analysis is a link to a particularly noteworthy article along the same lines by French writer Laurent Guyénot, which we had originally released simultaneously with my own, then followed by more than a dozen other significant articles of the previous decade, all published or republished on this website. In coming days, some of these may also be separately featured as part of the twenty-year commemoration.

The 9/11 Attacks – What Happened?

Although somewhat related, political assassinations and terrorist attacks are distinct topics, and Bergman’s comprehensive volume explicitly focuses on the former, so we cannot fault him for providing only slight coverage of the latter. But the historical pattern of Israeli activity, especially with regard to false-flag attacks, is really quite remarkable, as I noted in a 2018 article:

One of history’s largest terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 was the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by Zionist militants dressed as Arabs, which killed 91 people and largely destroyed the structure. In the famous Lavon Affair of 1954, Israeli agents launched a wave of terrorist attacks against Western targets in Egypt, intending to have those blamed on anti-Western Arab groups. There are strong claims that in 1950 Israeli Mossad agents began a series of false-flag terrorist bombings against Jewish targets in Baghdad, successfully using those violent methods to help persuade Iraq’s thousand-year-old Jewish community to emigrate to the Jewish state. In 1967, Israel launched a deliberate air and sea attack against the U.S.S. Liberty, intending to leave no survivors, killing or wounding over 200 American servicemen before word of the attack reached our Sixth Fleet and the Israelis withdrew.

The enormous extent of pro-Israel influence in world political and media circles meant that none of these brutal attacks ever drew serious retaliation, and in nearly all cases, they were quickly thrown down the memory hole, so that today probably no more than one in a hundred Americans is even aware of them. Furthermore, most of these incidents came to light due to chance circumstances, so we may easily suspect that many other attacks of a similar nature have never become part of the historical record.

Of these famous incidents, Bergman only includes mention of the King David Hotel bombing. But much later in his narrative, he describes the huge wave of false-flag terrorist attacks unleashed in 1981 by Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, who recruited a former high-ranking Mossad official to manage the project.

Under Israeli direction, large car bombs began exploding in the Palestinian neighborhoods of Beirut and other Lebanese cities, killing or injuring enormous numbers of civilians. A single attack in October inflicted nearly 400 casualties, and by December, there were eighteen bombings per month, with their effectiveness greatly enhanced by the use of innovative new Israeli drone technology. Official responsibility for all the attacks was claimed by a previously unknown Lebanese organization, but the intent was to provoke the PLO into military retaliation against Israel, thereby justifying Sharon’s planned invasion of the neighboring country.

Since the PLO stubbornly refused to take the bait, plans were put into motion for the huge bombing of an entire Beirut sports stadium using tons of explosives during a January 1st political ceremony, with the death and destruction expected to be “of unprecedented proportions, even in terms of Lebanon.” But Sharon’s political enemies learned of the plot and emphasized that many foreign diplomats including the Soviet ambassador were expected to be present and probably would be killed, so after a bitter debate, Prime Minister Begin ordered the attack aborted. A future Mossad chief mentions the major headaches they then faced in removing the large quantity of explosives that they had already planted within the structure.

I think that this thoroughly documented history of major Israeli false-flag terrorist attacks, including those against American and other Western targets, should be carefully kept in mind when we consider the 9/11 attacks, whose aftermath has massively transformed our society and cost us so many trillions of dollars. I analyzed the strange circumstances of the attacks and their likely nature at considerable length in my 2018 article:

Oddly enough, for many years after 9/11, I paid very little attention to the details of the attacks themselves. I was entirely preoccupied with building my content-archiving software system, and with the little time I could spare for public policy matters, I was totally focused on the ongoing Iraq War disaster, as well as my terrible fears that Bush might at any moment suddenly extend the conflict to Iran. Despite Neocon lies shamelessly echoed by our corrupt media, neither Iraq nor Iran had had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks, so those events gradually faded in my consciousness, and I suspect the same was true for most other Americans. Al Qaeda had largely disappeared and Bin Laden was supposedly hiding in a cave somewhere. Despite endless Homeland Security “threat alerts,” there had been no further Islamic terrorism on American soil, and relatively little anywhere else outside of the Iraq charnel house. So the precise details of the 9/11 plots had become almost irrelevant to me.

Others I knew seemed to feel the same way. Virtually all the exchanges I had with my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for Ronald Reagan, had concerned the Iraq War and risk it might spread to Iran, as well as the bitter anger he felt toward Bush’s perversion of his beloved NSA into an extra-constitutional tool of domestic espionage. When the New York Times broke the story of the massive extent of domestic NSA spying, Gen. Odom declared that President Bush should be impeached and NSA Director Michael Hayden court-martialed. But in all the years prior to his untimely passing in 2008, I don’t recall the 9/11 attacks themselves even once coming up as a topic in our discussions.

Admittedly, I’d occasionally heard of some considerable oddities regarding the 9/11 attacks here and there, and these certainly raised some suspicions. Most days I would glance at the Antiwar.com front page, and it seemed that some Israeli Mossad agents had been caught while filming the plane attacks in NYC, while a much larger Mossad “art student” spy operation around the country had also been broken up around the same time. Apparently, FoxNews had even broadcast a multi-part series on the latter topic before that expose was scuttled and “disappeared” under ADL pressure.

Although I wasn’t entirely sure about the credibility of those claims, it did seem plausible that Mossad had known of the attacks in advance and allowed them to proceed, recognizing the huge benefits that Israel would derive from the anti-Arab backlash. I think I was vaguely aware that Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo had published The Terror Enigma, a short book about some of those strange facts, bearing the provocative subtitle “9/11 and the Israeli Connection,” but I never considered reading it. In 2007, Counterpunch itself published a fascinating follow-up story about the arrest of that group of Israeli Mossad agents in NYC, who were caught filming and apparently celebrating the plane attacks on that fateful day, and the Mossad activity seemed to be far larger than I had previously realized. But all these details remained a little fuzzy in my mind next to my overriding concerns about wars in Iraq and Iran.

However, by the end of 2008 my focus had begun to change. Bush was leaving office without having started an Iranian war, and America had successfully dodged the bullet of an even more dangerous John McCain administration. I assumed that Barack Obama would be a terrible president and he proved worse than my expectations, but I still breathed a huge sigh of relief every day that he was in the White House.

Moreover, around that same time I’d stumbled across an astonishing detail of the 9/11 attacks that demonstrated the remarkable depths of my own ignorance. In a Counterpunch article, I’d discovered that immediately following the attacks, the supposed terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden had publicly denied any involvement, even declaring that no good Muslim would have committed such deeds.

Once I checked around a little and fully confirmed that fact, I was flabbergasted. 9/11 was not only the most successful terrorist attack in the history of the world, but may have been greater in its physical magnitude than all past terrorist operations combined. The entire purpose of terrorism is to allow a small organization to show the world that it can inflict serious losses upon a powerful state, and I had never previously heard of any terrorist leader denying his role in a successful operation, let alone the greatest in history. Something seemed extremely wrong in the media-generated narrative that I had previously accepted. I began to wonder if I had been as deluded as the tens of millions of Americans in 2003 and 2004 who naively believed that Saddam had been the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks. We live in a world of illusions generated by our media, and I suddenly felt that I had noticed a tear in the paper-mache mountains displayed in the background of a Hollywood sound-stage. If Osama was probably not the author of 9/11, what other huge falsehoods had I blindly accepted?

A couple of years later, I came across a very interesting column by Eric Margolis, a prominent Canadian foreign policy journalist purged from the broadcast media for his strong opposition to the Iraq War. He had long published a weekly column in the Toronto Sun and when that tenure ended, he used his closing appearance to run a double-length piece expressing his very strong doubts about the official 9/11 story, even noting that the former director of Pakistani Intelligence insisted that Israel had been behind the attacks.

I eventually discovered that in 2003 former German Cabinet Minister Andreas von Bülow had published a best-selling book strongly suggesting that the CIA rather than Bin Laden was behind the attacks, while in 2007 former Italian President Francesco Cossiga had similarly argued that the CIA and the Israeli Mossad had been responsible, claiming that fact was well known among Western intelligence agencies.

Over the years, all these discordant claims had gradually raised my suspicions about the official 9/11 story to rather strong levels, but it was only very recently that I finally found the time to begin to seriously investigate the subject and read eight or ten of the main 9/11 Truther books, mostly those by Prof. David Ray Griffin, the widely acknowledged leader in that field. And his books, together with the writings of his numerous colleagues and allies, revealed all sorts of very telling details, most of which had previously been unknown to me. I was also greatly impressed by the sheer number of seemingly reputable individuals of no apparent ideological bent who had become adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement over the years.

When utterly astonishing claims of an extremely controversial nature are made over a period of many years by numerous seemingly reputable academics and other experts, and they are entirely ignored or suppressed but never effectively rebutted, reasonable conclusions seem to point in an obvious direction. Based on my very recent readings in this topic, the total number of huge flaws in the official 9/11 story has now grown extremely long, probably numbering in the many dozens. Most of these individual items seem reasonably likely and if we decide that even just two or three of them are correct, we must totally reject the official narrative that so many of us have believed for so long.

Now I am merely just an amateur in the complex intelligence craft of extracting nuggets of truth from a mountain of manufactured falsehood. Although the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement seem quite persuasive to me, I would obviously have felt much more comfortable if they were seconded by an experienced professional, such as a top CIA analyst. A few years ago, I was shocked to discover that was indeed the case.

William Christison had spent 29 years at the CIA, rising to become one of its senior figures as Director of its Office of Regional and Political Analysis, with 200 research analysts serving under him. In August 2006, he published a remarkable 2,700 word article explaining why he no longer believed the official 9/11 story and felt sure that the 9/11 Commission Report constituted a cover-up, with the truth being quite different. The following year, he provided a forceful endorsement to one of Griffin’s books, writing that “[There’s] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” And Christison’s extreme 9/11 skepticism was seconded by that of many other highly regarded former US intelligence professionals.

We might expect that if a former CIA intelligence officer of Christison’s rank were to denounce the official 9/11 report as a fraud and a cover-up, such a story would constitute front-page news. But it was never reported anywhere in our mainstream media, and I only stumbled upon it a decade later.

Even our supposed “alternative” media outlets were nearly as silent. Throughout the 2000s, Christison and his wife Kathleen, also a former CIA analyst, had been regular contributors to Counterpunch, publishing many dozens of articles there and certainly being its most highly credentialed writers on intelligence and national security matters. But editor Alexander Cockburn refused to publish any of their 9/11 skepticism, so it never came to my attention at the time. Indeed, when I mentioned Christison’s views to current Counterpunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair a couple of years ago, he was stunned to discover that the friend he had regarded so very highly had actually become a “9/11 Truther.” When media organs serve as ideological gatekeepers, a condition of widespread ignorance becomes unavoidable.

With so many gaping holes in the official story of the events of seventeen years ago, each of us is free to choose to focus on those we personally consider most persuasive, and I have several of my own. Danish Chemistry professor Niels Harrit was one of the scientists who analyzed the debris of the destroyed buildings and detected the residual presence of nano-thermite, a military-grade explosive compound, and I found him quite credible during his hour-long interview on Red Ice Radio. The notion that an undamaged hijacker passport was found on an NYC street after the massive, fiery destruction of the skyscrapers is totally absurd, as was the claim that the top hijacker conveniently lost his luggage at one of the airports and it was found to contain a large mass of incriminating information. The testimonies of the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions just before the collapse of the buildings seems totally inexplicable under the official account. The sudden total collapse of Building Seven, never hit by any jetliners is also extremely implausible.

The 9/11 Attacks – Who Did It?

Let us now suppose that the overwhelming weight of evidence is correct, and concur with high-ranking former CIA intelligence analysts, distinguished academics, and experienced professionals that the 9/11 attacks were not what they appeared to be. We recognize the extreme implausibility that three huge skyscrapers in New York City suddenly collapsed at free-fall velocity into their own footprints after just two of them were hit by airplanes, and also that a large civilian jetliner probably did not strike the Pentagon leaving behind absolutely no wreckage and only a small hole. What actually did happen, and more importantly, who was responsible?

The first question is obviously impossible to answer without an honest and thorough official investigation of the evidence. Until that occurs, we should not be surprised that numerous, somewhat conflicting hypotheses have been advanced and debated within the confines of the 9/11 Truth community. But the second question is probably the more important and relevant one, and I think it has always represented a source of extreme vulnerability to 9/11 Truthers.

The most typical approach, as generally followed in the numerous Griffin books, is to avoid the issue entirely and focus solely on the gaping flaws in the official narrative. This is a perfectly acceptable position but leaves all sorts of serious doubts. What organized group would have been sufficiently powerful and daring to carry off an attack of such vast scale against the central heart of the world’s sole superpower? And how were they possibly able to orchestrate such a massively effective media and political cover-up, even enlisting the participation of the U.S. government itself?

The much smaller fraction of 9/11 Truthers who choose to address this “whodunit” question seem to be overwhelmingly concentrated among rank-and-file grassroots activists rather than the prestigious experts, and they usually answer “inside job!” Their widespread belief seems to be that the top political leadership of the Bush Administration, probably including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had organized the terrorist attacks, either with or without the knowledge of their ignorant nominal superior, President George W. Bush. The suggested motives included justifying military attacks against various countries, supporting the financial interests of the powerful oil industry and military-industrial complex, and enabling the destruction of traditional American civil liberties. Since the vast majority of politically-active Truthers seem to come from the far left of the ideological spectrum, they regard these notions as logical and almost self-evident.

Although not explicitly endorsing those Truther conspiracies, filmmaker Michael Moore’s leftist box office hit Fahrenheit 9/11 seemed to raise such similar suspicions. His small budget documentary earned an astonishing $220 million by suggesting that the very close business ties between the Bush family, Cheney, the oil companies, and the Saudis were responsible for the Iraq War aftermath of the terrorist attacks, as well as the domestic crackdown on civil liberties, which was part-and-parcel of the right-wing Republican agenda.

Unfortunately, this apparently plausible picture seems to have almost no basis in reality. During the drive to the Iraq War, I read Times articles interviewing numerous top oil men in Texas who expressed total puzzlement at why America was planning to attack Saddam, saying that they could only assume that President Bush knew something that they themselves did not. Saudi Arabian leaders were adamantly opposed to an American attack on Iraq, and made every effort to prevent it. Prior to his joining the Bush Administration, Cheney had served as CEO of Halliburton, an oil services giant, and his firm had heavily lobbied for the lifting of U.S. economic sanctions against Iraq. Prof. James Petras, a scholar of strong Marxist leanings, published an excellent 2008 book entitled Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power in which he conclusively demonstrated that Zionist interests rather than those of the oil industry had dominated the Bush Administration in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and promoted the Iraq War.

As for the Michael Moore film, I remember at the time sharing a laugh with a (Jewish) friend of mine, both of us finding it ridiculous that a government so overwhelmingly permeated by fanatically pro-Israel Neocons was being portrayed as being in thrall to the Saudis. Not only did the plotline of Moore’s film demonstrate the fearsome power of Jewish Hollywood, but its huge success suggested that most of the American public had apparently never heard of the Neocons.

Bush critics properly ridiculed the president for his tongue-tied statement that the 9/11 terrorists had attacked America “for its freedoms” and Truthers have reasonably branded as implausible the claims that the massive attacks were organized by a cave-dwelling Islamic preacher. But the suggestion that they were led and organized by the top figures of the Bush Administration seems even more preposterous.

Cheney and Rumsfeld had both spent decades as stalwarts of the moderate pro-business wing of the Republican Party, each serving in top government positions and also as CEOs of major corporations. The notion that they capped their careers by joining a new Republican administration in early 2001 and almost immediately set about organizing a gigantic false-flag terrorist attack upon the proudest towers of our largest city together with our own national military headquarters, intending to kill many thousands of Americans in the process, is too ridiculous to even be part of a leftist political satire.

Let’s step back a bit. In the entire history of the world, I can think of no documented case in which the top political leadership of a country has launched a major false-flag attack upon its own centers of power and finance and tried to kill large numbers of its own people. The America of 2001 was a peaceful and prosperous country run by relatively bland political leaders focused upon the traditional Republican goals of enacting tax-cuts for the rich and reducing environmental regulations. Too many Truther activists have apparently drawn their understanding of the world from the caricatures of leftist comic-books in which corporate Republicans are all diabolical Dr. Evils, seeking to kill Americans out of sheer malevolence, and Alexander Cockburn was absolutely correct to ridicule them at least on that particular score.

Consider also the simple practicalities of the situation. The gigantic nature of the 9/11 attacks as postulated by the Truth movement would have clearly required enormous planning and probably involved the work of many dozens or even hundreds of skilled agents. Ordering CIA operatives or special military units to organize secret attacks against civilian targets in Venezuela or Yemen is one thing, but directing them to mount attacks against the Pentagon and the heart of New York City would be fraught with stupendous risk.

Bush had lost the popular vote in November 2000 and had only reached the White House because of a few dangling chads in Florida and the controversial decision of a deeply divided Supreme Court. As a consequence, most of the American media regarded his new administration with enormous hostility. If the first act of such a newly-sworn presidential team had been ordering the CIA or the military to prepare attacks against New York City and the Pentagon, surely those orders would have been regarded as issued by a group of lunatics, and immediately leaked to the hostile national press.

The whole scenario of top American leaders being the masterminds behind 9/11 is beyond ridiculous, and those 9/11 Truthers who make or imply such claims—doing so without a single shred of solid evidence—have unfortunately played a major role in discrediting their entire movement. In fact, the common meaning of the “inside job” scenario is so patently absurd and self-defeating that one might even suspect that the claim was encouraged by those seeking to discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement as a consequence.

The focus on Cheney and Rumsfeld seems particularly ill-directed. Although I’ve never met nor had any dealings with either of those individuals, I was quite actively involved in DC politics during the 1990s, and can say with some assurance that prior to 9/11, neither of them were regarded as Neocons. Instead, they were the archetypical examples of moderate business-type mainstream Republicans, stretching all the way back to their years at the top of the Ford Administration during the mid-1970s.

Skeptics of this claim may note that they signed the 1997 declaration issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a leading Neocon foreign policy manifesto organized by Bill Kristol, but I would regard that as something of a red herring. In DC circles, individuals are always recruiting their friends to sign various declarations, which may or may not be indicative of anything, and I remember Kristol trying to get me to sign the PNAC statement as well. Since my private views on that issue were absolutely 100% contrary to the Neocon position, which I regarded as foreign policy lunacy, I deflected his request and very politely turned him down. But I was quite friendly with him at the time, so if I had been someone without strong opinions in that area, I probably would have agreed.

This raises a larger point. By 2000, the Neocons had gained almost total control of all the major conservative/Republican media outlets and the foreign policy wings of nearly all the similarly aligned thinktanks in DC, successfully purging most of their traditional opponents. So although Cheney and Rumsfeld were not themselves Neocons, they were swimming in a Neocon sea, with a very large fraction of all the information they received coming from such sources and with their top aides such as “Scooter” Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith being Neocons. Rumsfeld was already somewhat elderly while Cheney had suffered several heart-attacks starting at age 37, so under those circumstances it may have been relatively easy for them to be shifted toward certain policy positions.

Indeed, the entire demonization of Cheney and Rumsfeld in anti-Iraq War circles has seemed somewhat suspicious to me. I always wondered whether the heavily Jewish liberal media had focused its wrath upon those two individuals in order to deflect culpability from the Jewish Neocons who were the obvious originators of that disastrous policy; and the same may be true of the 9/11 Truthers, who probably feared accusations of anti-Semitism. Regarding that former issue, a prominent Israeli columnist was characteristically blunt on the matter in 2003, strongly suggesting that 25 Neocon intellectuals, nearly all of them Jewish, were primarily responsible for the war. Under normal circumstances, the president himself would have surely been portrayed as the evil mastermind behind the 9/11 plot, but “W” was too widely known for his ignorance for such accusations to be credible.

It does seem entirely plausible that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other top Bush leaders may have been manipulated into taking certain actions that inadvertently fostered the 9/11 plot, while a few lower-level Bush appointees might have been more directly involved, perhaps even as outright conspirators. But I do not think this is the usual meaning of the “inside job” accusation.

So where do we now stand? It seems very likely that the 9/11 attacks were the work of an organization far more powerful and professionally-skilled than a rag-tag band of nineteen random Arabs armed with box-cutters, but also that the attacks were very unlikely to have been the work of the American government itself. So who actually attacked our country on that fateful day seventeen years ago, killing thousands of our fellow citizens?

Effective intelligence operations are concealed in a hall of mirrors, often extremely difficult for outsiders to penetrate, and false-flag terrorist attacks certainly fall into this category. But if we apply a different metaphor, the complexities of such events may be seen as a Gordian Knot, almost impossible to disentangle, but vulnerable to the sword-stroke of asking the simple question “Who benefited?”

America and most of the world certainly did not, and the disastrous legacies of that fateful day have transformed our own society and wrecked many other countries. The endless American wars soon unleashed have already cost us many trillions of dollars and set our nation on the road to bankruptcy while killing or displacing many millions of innocent Middle Easterners. Most recently, that resulting flood of desperate refugees has begun engulfing Europe, and the peace and prosperity of that ancient continent is now under severe threat.

Our traditional civil liberties and constitutional protections have been drastically eroded, with our society having taken long steps toward becoming an outright police state. American citizens now passively accept unimaginable infringements on their personal freedoms, all originally begun under the guise of preventing terrorism.

I find it difficult to think of any country in the world that clearly gained as a result of the 9/11 attacks and America’s military reaction, with one single, solitary exception.

During 2000 and most of 2001, America was a peaceful prosperous country, but a certain small Middle Eastern nation had found itself in an increasingly desperate situation. Israel then seemed to be fighting for its life against the massive waves of domestic terrorism that constituted the Second Palestinian Intifada.

Ariel Sharon was widely believed to have deliberately provoked that uprising in September 2000 by marching to the Temple Mount backed by a thousand armed police, and the resulting violence and polarization of Israeli society had successfully installed him as Prime Minister in early 2001. But once in office, his brutal measures failed to end the wave of continuing attacks, which increasingly took the form of suicide-bombings against civilian targets. Many believed that the violence might soon trigger a huge outflow of Israeli citizens, perhaps producing a death-spiral for the Jewish state. Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other major Muslim powers were supporting the Palestinians with money, rhetoric, and sometimes weaponry, and Israeli society seemed close to crumbling. I remember hearing from some of my DC friends that numerous Israeli policy experts were suddenly seeking berths at Neocon thinktanks so that they could relocate to America.

Sharon was a notoriously bloody and reckless leader, with a long history of undertaking strategic gambles of astonishing boldness, sometimes betting everything on a single roll of the dice. He had spent decades seeking the Prime Ministership, but having finally obtained it, he now had his back to the wall, with no obvious source of rescue in sight.

The 9/11 attacks changed everything. Suddenly the world’s sole superpower was fully mobilized against Arab and Muslim terrorist movements, especially those connected with the Middle East. Sharon’s close Neocon political allies in America used the unexpected crisis as an opportunity to seize control of America’s foreign policy and national security apparatus, with an NSA staffer later reporting that Israeli generals freely roamed the halls of the Pentagon without any security controls. Meanwhile, the excuse of preventing domestic terrorism was used to implement newly centralized American police controls that were soon employed to harass or even shut down various anti-Zionist political organizations. One of the Israeli Mossad agents arrested by the police in New York City as he and his fellows were celebrating the 9/11 attacks and producing a souvenir film of the burning World Trade Center towers told the officers that “We are Israelis…Your problems are our problems.” And so they immediately became.

General Wesley Clark reported that soon after the 9/11 attacks he was informed that a secret military plan had somehow come into being under which America would attack and destroy seven major Muslim countries over the next few years, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya, which coincidentally were all of Israel’s strongest regional adversaries and the leading supporters of the Palestinians. As America began to expend enormous oceans of blood and treasure attacking all of Israel’s enemies after 9/11, Israel itself no longer needed to do so. Partly as a consequence, almost no other nation in the world has so enormously improved its strategic and economic situation during the last seventeen years, even while a large fraction of the American population has become completely impoverished during that same period and our national debt has grown to insurmountable levels. A parasite can often grow fat even as its host suffers and declines.

I have emphasized that for many years after the 9/11 attacks I paid little attention to the details and had only the vaguest notion that there even existed an organized 9/11 Truth movement. But if someone had ever convinced me that the terrorist attacks had been false-flag operations and someone other than Osama had been responsible, my immediate guess would have been Israel and its Mossad.

Certainly no other nation in the world can remotely match Israel’s track-record of remarkably bold high-level assassinations and false-flag attacks, terrorist and otherwise, against other countries, even including America and its military. Furthermore, the enormous dominance of Jewish and pro-Israel elements in the American establishment media and increasingly that of many other major countries in the West has long ensured that even when the solid evidence of such attacks was discovered, very few ordinary Americans would ever hear those facts.

Once we accept that the 9/11 attacks were probably a false-flag operation, a central clue to the likely perpetrators has been their extraordinary success in ensuring that such a wealth of enormously suspicious evidence has been totally ignored by virtually the entire American media, whether liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing.

In the particular case at hand, the considerable number of zealously pro-Israel Neocons situated just beneath the public surface of the Bush Administration in 2001 could have greatly facilitated both the successful organization of the attacks and their effective cover-up and concealment, with Libby, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Richard Perle being merely the most obvious names. Whether such individuals were knowing conspirators or merely had personal ties allowing them to be exploited in furthering the plot is entirely unclear.

Most of this information must surely have long been apparent to knowledgeable observers, and I strongly suspect that many individuals who had paid much greater attention than myself to the details of the 9/11 attacks may have quickly formed a tentative conclusion along these same lines. But for obvious social and political reasons, there is a great reluctance to publicly point the finger of blame towards Israel on a matter of such enormous magnitude. Hence, except for a few fringe activists here and there, such dark suspicions remained private.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement probably feared they would be destroyed by media accusations of deranged anti-Semitism if they had ever expressed even a hint of such ideas. This political strategy may have been necessary, but by failing to name any plausible culprit, they created a vacuum that was soon filled by “useful idiots” who shouted “inside job!” while pointing an accusing finger toward Cheney and Rumsfeld, and thereby did so much to discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement.

This unfortunate conspiracy of silence finally ended in 2009 when Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks, writing a series of columns on the subject, and eventually presenting his views in a number of media interviews, along with additional analyses.

Obviously, such explosive charges never reached the pages of my morning Times, but they did receive considerable if transitory coverage in portions of the alternative media, and I remember seeing the links very prominently featured at Antiwar.com and widely discussed elsewhere. I had never previously heard of Sabrosky, so I consulted my archiving system and immediately discovered that he had a perfectly respectable record of publication on military affairs in mainstream foreign policy periodicals and had also held a series of academic appointments at prestigious institutions. Reading one or two of his articles on 9/11, I felt he made a rather persuasive case for Mossad involvement, with some of his information already known to me but much of it not.

Since I was very busy with my software work and had never spent any time investigating 9/11 or reading any of the books on the topic, my belief in his claims back then was obviously quite tentative. But now that I have finally looked into the subject in much greater detail and done a great deal of reading, I think it seems quite likely that his 2009 analysis was entirely correct.

I would particularly recommend his long 2011 interview on Iranian Press TV, which I first watched just a couple of days ago. He came across as highly credible and forthright in his claims:

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/tpYjyFbJzPZh/

He also provided a pugnacious conclusion in a much longer 2010 radio interview:

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/BigWEQyw6Cb7/

Sabrosky focused much of his attention upon a particular segment of a Dutch documentary film on the 9/11 attacks produced several years earlier. In that fascinating interview, a professional demolition expert named Danny Jowenko who was largely ignorant of the 9/11 attacks immediately identified the filmed collapse of WTC Building 7 as a controlled-demolition, and the remarkable clip was broadcast worldwide on Press TV and widely discussed across the Internet.https://www.youtube.com/embed/Sl2RIqT-4bk?feature=oembed

And by a very strange coincidence, just three days after Jowenko’s broadcast video interview had received such heavy attention, he had the misfortune to die in a frontal collision with a tree in Holland. I’d suspect that the community of professional demolition experts is a small one, and Jowenko’s surviving industry colleagues may have quickly concluded that serious misfortune might visit those who rendered controversial expert opinions on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers.

Meanwhile, the ADL soon mounted a huge and largely successful effort to have Press TV banned in the West for promoting “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,” even persuading YouTube to entirely eliminate the huge video archive of those past shows, notably including Sabrosky’s long interview.

Most recently, Sabrosky provided an hour-long presentation at this June’s Deep Truth video panel conference, during which he expressed considerable pessimism about America’s political predicament, and suggested that the Zionist control over our politics and media had grown even stronger over the last decade.

His discussion was soon rebroadcast by Guns & Butter, a prominent progressive radio program, which as a consequence was soon purged from its home station after seventeen years of great national popularity and strong listener support.

The late Alan Hart, a very distinguished British broadcast journalist and foreign correspondent, also broke his silence in 2010 and similarly pointed to the Israelis as the likely culprits behind the 9/11 attacks. Those interested may wish to listen to his extended interview.

Journalist Christopher Bollyn was one of the first writers to explore the possible Israeli links to the 9/11 attacks, and the details contained in his long series of newspaper articles are often quoted by other researchers. In 2012, he gathered together this material and published it in the form of a book entitled Solving 9-11, thereby making his information on the possible role of the Israeli Mossad available to a much wider audience, with a version being available online. Unfortunately his printed volume severely suffers from the typical lack of resources available to the writers on the political fringe, with poor organization and frequent repetition of the same points due to its origins in a set of individual articles, and this may diminish its credibility among some readers. So those who purchase it should be forewarned about these serious stylistic weaknesses.

Probably a much better compendium of the very extensive evidence pointing to the Israeli hand behind the 9/11 attacks has been more recently provided by French writer Laurent Guyénot, both in his 2017 book JFK-9/11: 50 Years of the Deep State and also his 8,500 word article “9/11 was an Israeli Job”, published concurrently with this one and providing a far greater wealth of detail than is contained here. While I would not necessarily endorse all of his claims and arguments, his overall analysis seems fully consistent with my own.

These writers have provided a great deal of material in support of the Israeli Mossad Hypothesis, but I would focus attention on just one important point. We would normally expect that terrorist attacks resulting in the complete destruction of three gigantic office buildings in New York City and an aerial assault on the Pentagon would be an operation of enormous size and scale, involving very considerable organizational infrastructure and manpower. In the aftermath of the attacks, the US government undertook great efforts to locate and arrest the surviving Islamic conspirators, but scarcely managed to find a single one. Apparently, they had all died in the attacks themselves or otherwise simply vanished into thin air.

But without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly round up and arrest some 200 Israeli Mossad agents, many of whom had been based in exactly the same geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of these agents while they were publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks, and others were caught driving vans in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces. Most of these Mossad agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but under massive political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel. A couple of years ago, much of this information was very effectively presented in a short video available on YouTube.

There is another fascinating tidbit that I have very rarely seen mentioned. Just a month after the 9/11 attacks, two Israelis were caught sneaking weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but which was greeted by total silence in the American media. Eventually, under massive political pressure, all charges were dropped and the Israeli agents were deported back home. This remarkable incident was only reported on a small Hispanic-activist website, and discussed in a few other places. Some years ago I easily found the scanned front pages of the Mexican newspapers reporting those dramatic events on the Internet, but I can no longer easily locate them. The details are obviously somewhat fragmentary and possibly garbled, but certainly quite intriguing.

One might speculate that if supposed Islamic terrorists had followed up their 9/11 attacks by attacking and destroying the Mexican parliament building a month later, Latin American support for America’s military invasions in the Middle East would have been greatly magnified. Furthermore, any scenes of such massive destruction in the Mexican capital by Arab terrorists would surely have been broadcast non-stop on Univision, America’s dominant Spanish-language network, fully solidifying Hispanic support for President Bush’s military endeavors.

Although my growing suspicions about the 9/11 attacks stretch back a decade or more, my serious investigation of the topic is quite recent, so I am certainly a newcomer to the field. But sometimes an outsider can notice things that may escape the attention of those who have spent so many years deeply immersed in a given topic.

From my perspective, a huge fraction of the 9/11 Truth community spends far too much of its time absorbed in the particular details of the attacks, debating the precise method by which the World Trade Center towers in New York were brought down or what actually struck the Pentagon. But these sorts of issues seem of little ultimate significance.

I would argue that the only important aspect of such technical issues is whether the overall evidence is sufficiently strong to establish the falsehood of the official 9/11 narrative and also demonstrate that the attacks must have been the work of a highly sophisticated organization with access to advanced military technology rather than a rag-tag band of 19 Arabs armed with box-cutters. Beyond that, none of those details matter.

In that regard, I believe that the volume of factual material collected by determined researchers over the last seventeen years has easily met that requirement, perhaps even ten or twenty times over. For example, even agreeing upon a single particular item such as the clear presence of nano-thermite, a military-grade explosive compound, would immediately satisfy those two criteria. So I see little point in endless debates over whether nano-thermite was used, or nano-thermite plus something else, or just something else entirely. And such complex technical debates may serve to obscure the larger picture, while confusing and intimidating any casually-interested onlookers, thereby being quite counter-productive to the overall goals of the 9/11 Truth movement.

Once we have concluded that the culprits were part of a highly sophisticated organization, we can then focus on the Who and the Why, which surely would be of greater importance than the particular details of the How. Yet currently all the endless debate over the How tends to crowd out the Who and the Why, and I wonder whether this unfortunate situation might even be intentional.

Perhaps one reason is that once sincere 9/11 Truthers do focus on those more important questions, the vast weight of the evidence clearly points in a single direction, implicating Israel and its Mossad intelligence service, with the case being overwhelmingly strong in motive, means, and opportunity. And leveling accusations of blame at Israel and its domestic collaborators for the greatest attack ever launched against America on our own soil entails enormous social and political risks.

But such difficulties must be weighed against the reality of three thousand American civilian lives and the subsequent seventeen years of our multi-trillion-dollar wars, which have produced tens of thousands of dead or wounded American servicemen and the death or displacement of many millions of innocent Middle Easterners.

The members of the 9/11 Truth movement must therefore ask themselves whether or not “Truth” is indeed the central goal of their efforts.

Other Noteworthy 9/11 Articles Available on this Website

Related Reading:

Palestine On the Way to Another Intifada – Olmert

1/5/2021

Palestine On the Way to Another Intifada - Olmert

By Staff

In an opinion piece published by the ‘Jerusalem Post’, former Zionist Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wrote that the events that have transpired in occupied al-Quds these last few days are not a coincidental occurrence that will disappear so quickly.

“We are on the brink of a violent awakening that could intensify and lead to violence on our streets. These clashes could end in a significant number of casualties,” according to Olmert.

The former Zionist premier cited the recent days to conclude that new circumstances have arisen, which could drag ‘Israel’ into a new round of ‘violent’ activity, which he described as ‘terrorist’, and bloodshed on both sides.

The first Palestinian Intifada was a sustained series of Palestinian protests and riots in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the ‘Israeli’-occupied territories. The protests were against the Zionist occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that had begun twenty years prior, in 1967. The intifada lasted from December 1987 until the Madrid Conference in 1991, though some date its conclusion to 1993, with the signing of the so-called ‘Oslo Accords.’

The intifada began on 9 December 1987, in the Jabalia refugee camp after an ‘Israeli’ occupation force truck collided with a civilian car, killing four Palestinian workers.

The Second Intifada, also known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada, started in September 2000, after then Zionist Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made a highly provocative visit to the holy al-Aqsa Mosque. The visit sparked protests and riots which the occupation police put down with rubber bullets and tear gas.

The Bullshit Meter Pegs: Jewish Groups Demand Israeli Owned Fox Fire Tucker Carlson for His Zionist Sponsored Nazism

By VT Editors -April 10, 202104

VT: The term “offensive” has jumped a notch.  Israel’s most powerful voice in the US has always been Fox News, owned by Israeli Likudist Rupert “Greenbaum” Murdoch. Christopher Bollyn’s work on Murdoch is below.

Then we note that the article we are referencing from the Daily Beast is also curious.  They are part of the Newsweek organization, part of a foundation owned by the Harmon family of JBL/Harman Kardon audio group.

The controlling interest there is Jane Harman, former member of congress who tried to have infamous Soviet-Israeli superspy Jonathan Pollard released.  She was also accused of using her influence to allow Israeli spies to escape prosecution during the infamous AIPAC espionage trial, now erased from history. See Appendix I.  Appendix II will be Kevin McDonald’s parallel article on these same issues.  McDonald is a critic of Israel and supports “white identity” which is quite different than “supremacist.”

So, let’s get it straight;

  • The ADL wants Tucker Carlson fired
  • Rupert Murdoch is the most important member of the ADL board
  • Rupert Murdoch employs Tucker Carlson
  • Rupert Murdoch politically supports white supremacists continually, in the US, in the UK, in Australia and around the world.
  • Rupert Murdoch is a Jew (outlined below with slam dunk facts) and a Zionist extremist close to Netanyahu…perhaps his “boss”
  • The article we cite is owned by a similar organization, tied directly to Israeli intelligence and now complaining about Tucker Carlson who many feel is a tool of both Russian and Israeli  intelligence.
  • Tucker Carlson’s reports, when analyzed, direct parallel, based on daily analysis, with RT and Sputnik, cited by DHS as Russian influence organizations targeting the US, making Tucker Carlson extremely suspect
  • What does that make Rupert Murdoch?

We begin with an article written by Christopher Bollyn in 2011 for the American Free Press:

Murdoch’s Deeply Hidden Jewish Roots — A Biography

By Christopher Bollyn – American Free Press

Christopher Bollyn is an investigative journalist who has written extensively on the events of September 11, 2001 in the Washington-based American Free Press. He has researched different aspects of the 9/11 attacks and uncovered facts and evidence that challenge the official version of events. tried to smear Bollyn as an “anti-Semite” in order to discredit him and diminish the significance of his work. At the helm of both organizations, the ADL and Fox News, is an Australian-born Zionist named Keith Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch’s Jewish Roots

Murdoch “became an American citizen for business reasons,” according to Richard H. Curtiss, editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Keith Rupert was born in Melbourne, Australia, on March 11, 1931. “Rupert’s father, Sir Keith Murdoch, was a newspaper publisher, and his mother an Orthodox Jew,” Curtiss wrote, “although Murdoch never offers that information in his biographies.”

Murdoch’s father married Elisabeth Joy Greene, daughter of Rupert Greene in 1928. They had one son, Keith Rupert and three daughters. Later in life, Keith Rupert chose to use Rupert, the first name of his Jewish maternal grandfather.

The young Keith Rupert was educated at Australia’s fashionable Geelong private school, and went on to the elitist and aristocratic Oxford University in England, according to Candour (UK) magazine.

“Rupert’s father Sir Keith Murdoch attained his prominent position in Australian society through a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, née Elisabeth Joy Greene. Through his wife’s connections, Keith Murdoch was subsequently promoted from reporter to chairman of the British-owned newspaper where he worked. There was enough money to buy himself a knighthood of the British realm, two newspapers in Adelaide, South Australia, and a radio station in a faraway mining town,” Candour wrote in 1984. “For some reason, Murdoch has always tried to hide the fact that his pious mother brought him up as a Jew.”

While Murdoch may have “tried to hide” his Jewish roots, he has been quite forthright about his support for extreme right-wing Zionists, such as Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon.

Netanyahu, who wrote a book entitled The War on Terror: How the West Can Win in 1986, is a frequent commentator on Murdoch’s Fox News.

Murdoch’s support for Zionism extremists is well known and a matter of record. As New York Governor George Pataki said, “There is no newspaper in the U.S. more supportive of Israel than the [Murdoch’s] New York Post.”

It is through a network of Zionist organizations, in which Murdoch plays a central role, that Murdoch is connected to the individuals who arranged the privatization – and obtained control of the World Trade Center – shortly before its destruction.

These key individuals are: Larry Silverstein and the former Israeli commando Frank Lowy, the lease holders of dubious repute who gained control of the WTC property six weeks before 9/11, and Port Authority Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg, who authorized the transfer of the leases.

Murdoch belongs to, and has been honored by, a number of leading Zionist organizations in which Silverstein, Lowy, and Eisenberg all hold senior positions. These organizations include the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), and the New York-based Museum of Jewish Heritage – A Living Memorial to the Holocaust.

Fifty days before 9/11, Silverstein Properties and Lowy’s Westfield America secured 99-year leases on the WTC. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey turned control of the World Trade Center over to the private hands of Silverstein and Lowy on July 24, 2001.

Silverstein and Lowy then took control of the 10.6 million-square-foot complex, which included the twin towers office buildings and two nine-story office buildings. Silverstein and the former Israeli commando Lowy then controlled all access to the World Trade Center.

Lowy leased the shopping concourse called the Mall at the World Trade Center, which comprised about 427,000 square feet of retail space.

“Six weeks before the WTC towers were destroyed, the Port Authority completed the process of leasing them for 99 years to Larry Silverstein, the developer who had built 7 World Trade Center [which mysteriously self-demolished at 5:25 p.m. on 9/11].

“Simultaneously, the retail space underneath the complex was leased to Westfield America, the US division of an Australian company that is one of the world’s largest operators of shopping malls.” Paul Goldberger wrote in New Yorker, May 20, 2002.

“Silverstein and Westfield were given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed, and Westfield has the right to expand the retail space by 30 percent,” Goldberger wrote.

Silverstein is suing for some $7.2 billion in insurance money for the loss of the destroyed World Trade Center – and his expected earnings – for property he had leased with a down payment of $100 million – of borrowed funds.Murdoch the Zionist

“Murdoch is a close friend of Ariel Sharon,” Sam Kiley, The Times (UK) veteran journalist on the Middle East wrote about the man who took over the once famous British paper. Kiley said Murdoch’s friendship with the Israeli prime minister had caused senior staff at the paper to rewrite important copy.

“Murdoch’s executives were so afraid of irritating him that, when I pulled off a little scoop of tracking down and photographing the unit in the Israeli army which killed Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy whose death was captured on film and became the iconic image of the conflict, I was asked to file the piece ‘without mentioning the dead kid.’” Kiley wrote. “After that conversation, I was left wordless, so I quit.”

Sharon and Murdoch are old friends. On Oct. 15, 1982, a month after the massacres of thousands of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps of Beirut, war crimes which occurred under Sharon’s direct command, the Israeli defense minister held meetings with Rupert Murdoch and others, reportedly in order to advance his “West Bank real estate grab.”

The visit with Sharon included a trip for Murdoch and his editors from New York and London that “took them on a bird’s-eye tour of Israel aboard a helicopter gunship, flying over the Golan Heights, West Bank and settlements.”

“I have always believed in the future of Israel and the goals of the international Jewish community,” Murdoch said at a spring fund-raiser for the Museum of Jewish Heritage – A Living Memorial to the Holocaust on April 29, 2001.

From the beginning, News Corp., his global media company, “has been supportive of the Jewish national cause,” Murdoch said.

Larry Silverstein, who had not yet acquired the lease on the World Trade Center, attended the fund-raiser with Murdoch and reportedly said about museum chairman Robert Morgenthau’s plans to expand the museum: “I’ll support you…as long as you keep it under 110 stories.”Murdoch and the ADL

“Henry Kissinger, Rupert Murdoch and Mortimer Zuckerman are on the [ADL] dinner committee,” according to a recent New York Times report on the ADL’s recent fund-raiser in which the controversial Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi received the ADL’s Distinguished Statesman Award.

Silverstein and Eisenberg have both held senior leadership positions with the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a billion dollar Zionist “charity” organization, to which Murdoch and Lowy generously contribute. In 1997, Henry Kissinger presented Murdoch with the UJA’s award for “Humanitarian of the Year.”

Silverstein is a former chairman of UJA. This organization raises hundreds of millions of dollars every year for a network of Zionist agencies in the United States and Israel. Eisenberg, who was instrumental in obtaining the lease for Silverstein, is on the Planning Board of UJA.

Eisenberg in his role with the Port Authority was the key person who negotiated the 99-year leases for Silverstein and Frank Lowy’s Westfield America, who were in fact the low-bidders for the lease on the 110-story towers and the retail mall.

Murdoch and the Czechoslovakian-born Israeli commando Frank Lowy, a former fighter in Israel’s Golani Brigade, who emigrated to Australia in the 1950s, have had a long friendship, which Murdoch recounted during an American Australian Association fund-raising dinner in honor of Frank’s son, Peter S. Lowy, in New York on November 20, 2002. Larry Silverstein and his wife also attended the American Australian event.

Some reporters refer to the American Australian Association, whose membership includes James Wolfensohn, the president of the World Bank, who raised cash for Rupert Murdoch when he first expanded into the United States, as “the kangaroo mafia.”

“Frank was a brave and determined fighter,” Rafi Kocer, Lowy’s former commander, said. Lowy has donated some $350,000 to build a memorial museum in Israel for his former brigade.

Today, Lowy and his three sons control Westfield Corporation, one of the largest operators of shopping centers in the United States – and the world.Insured Against Terrorist Attacks

On September 12, 2001, The Jerusalem Post reported: “Frank Lowy, who emigrated to Australia from Israel in 1952, owns the 99-year lease for the 425,000 square foot retail portion of the destroyed World Trade Center…Westfield said today that it has insurance cover against terrorist attacks and its earnings will not be materially affected.”

Lowy, is described by the Sydney Morning Herald as “a self-made man with a strong interest in the Holocaust and Israeli politics.”


Jewish Groups Blast Carlson for Openly Endorsing White Supremacist Theory: ‘Tucker Must Go’

‘RACIST AND TOXIC’

The Fox News star on Thursday evening defended the “white replacement theory,” which has served as inspiration for white-supremacist murderers in the U.S. and abroad.

The Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups on Friday morning blasted Fox News host Tucker Carlson after the TV talker offered up a passionate defense of the racist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory the night prior.

The theory is a “white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-white,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted on Friday morning, noting that the concept has also served as motivation for several high-profile mass murders.

“It is antisemitic, racist and toxic. It has informed the ideology of mass shooters in El Paso, Christchurch and Pittsburgh,” the ADL leader wrote, adding a call for the TV star’s ouster: “Tucker must go.”

Later on Friday, the ADL released a letter addressed to Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott, listing off other examples of anti-semitic Carlson commentary. “We believe in dialogue and giving people a chance to redeem themselves, but Carlson’s full-on embrace of the white supremacist replacement theory on yesterday’s show and his repeated allusions to racist themes in past segments are a bridge too far,” the organization wrote.

During a Thursday evening guest appearance on Fox News Primetime, ostensibly to promote his new daytime show on streaming service Fox Nation, Carlson inevitably began to talk about one of his favorite topics: immigration.

Speaking with guest-host Mark Steyn, who has previously touted the white supremacist novel The Camp of the SaintsCarlson rallied to the defense of those who believe the white race is under threat of being replaced and eradicated by immigrants and minorities.  read more..

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-defamation-league-calls-for-tuckers-firing-for-endorsing-white-supremacist-great-replacement-theory?ref=home


Appendix I

Jane Harman, Haim Saban, and AIPAC: The Disloyalty Issue in Multicultural America

April 25, 2009 by Kevin MacDonald

Disloyalty is an age-old issue with Jews, and for a simple reason: Jews often have interests as Jews that stretch beyond national boundaries. Even before the existence of Israel, Diaspora Jews often could be said to have a “foreign policy” in the sense that there was a general consensus among Jews to favor some nations and disfavor others.

For example, the Spanish Inquisition targeted Jews who pretended to be Christians, with the result that Jews in other countries sought Spain’s downfall. From 1881 until the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was seen as an enemy of Jews. As a result, the organized Jewish community in other countries often opposed Russian interests. Jacob Schiff, the preeminent Jewish activist of the period, financed the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, and he financed revolutionaries in Russia.

At times, Jewish foreign policy interests were in conflict with those of the wider society. In 1908 Schiff also led the successful effort to abrogate the Russian Trade Agreement which was opposed by the Taft Administration as not in the interests of the United States. Schiff’s motive for helping Jews in Russia conflicted with US national interests as understood by the US government.

Questions of disloyalty are by no means unique to Jews. Loyalty issues are common for minority groups living as a Diaspora, as with Overseas Chinese and Indian groups living as minorities abroad. In the US, issues of divided loyalties arose among pre-1965 immigrants who retained attachments to their countries of origin. During World War I, many German-Americans were reluctant to support the Allied cause against Germany because of their ties with their homeland.

The German-Americans eventually assimilated completely, at least partly because of their racial similarity to other White Americans. However, assimilation is  unlikely for post-1965 immigrant minorities given their racial dissimilarities to the traditionally dominant people and culture of America. This is even more so because of the rise of multiculturalism as a paradigm for Western societies. As I noted in my review of Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby,

dual loyalty has become legitimate because of the rise of multiculturalism in America — a phenomenon that is due in no small part … to Jewish activism. … Beginning with Horace Kallen, Jewish intellectuals have been at the forefront in developing models of the United States as a culturally and ethnically pluralistic society. … Within the multicultural perspective, there is tolerance for different groups but the result is a tendency to deprecate the importance or even the existence of a common national identity. If there is no national identity, it’s hard to see how there can be a concept of national interest.

However, until the multicultural utopia legitimizes all loyalties in the name of world citizenship, divided loyalties will likely be a chronic issue.  For example, ethnic Chinese who are American citizens have been convicted of spying for China. An April, 2008 Washington Post article listed 12 cases of ethnic Chinese spying on the United States.

We should not, therefore, be surprised that at least some American Jews may be more loyal to Israel than  to the United States. Unlike the German-Americans who assimilated to America, Israel remains a powerful source of identity for the great majority of American Jews. Chi Mak, the Chinese spy who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for sending information on military technology to the Chinese, has as his counterparts Jonathan Pollard and Ben-Ami Kadish, convicted of spying on behalf of Israel.

Besides Pollard and Kadish, there is a bumper crop of neoconservatives who have been credibly accused of spying for Israel: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, and Michael Ledeen.

None of the neocons were convicted, and now we have the AIPAC espionage trial in which former AIPAC employees Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman have been accused of providing information to Israeli Embassy employees. Jewish Congresswoman Jane Harman has allegedly been caught agreeing to “waddle in” to help get the charges against Rosen and Weissman reduced.

As part of her defense in the media, Harman pointedly noted that “anyone I might have talked to was an American citizen, and these were conversations that took place in the United States.”

This is the multicultural defense par excellence. Harman was talking to an American about the business of AIPAC, an American organization that has not been required to register as an agent of a foreign government. What could possibly be wrong with that?

One problem with that is that the American citizen that Harman may well have been talking to was Haim Saban who is not only an American citizen but also a citizen of Israel. Saban’s commitment to Israel seems almost a caricature of a nut case Zionist — someone who makes Alan Dershowitz and  Martin Peretz seem lukewarm by comparison.

Saban’s commitment to Israel really knows no bounds. This is from an interview with Haaretz in 2006; Saban’s comments are in quotes.

You said once that you are a one-note person, and that note is Israel. Why?

“You can’t explain love.”

It’s really love?

“More than love. Passion. A love that is passion.”

Please explain.

“When we approach Israel I always ask the pilots of my plane to let me sit in the chair between them. We don’t play ‘Heveinu Shalom Aleichem,’ but when I see the coast coming up my heart starts to go boom, boom, boom.”

Is Israel also part of your everyday life here, in Los Angeles?

“At 9 A.M. I start with London and Kirschenbaum [Channel 10’s evening current events program]. After that, throughout the day, if I see something about Israel on one of the four channels that are always on in my office, on mute, I immediately turn on the sound. And I have Israeli music on my computer, classics and contemporary singers, too.

“Let me tell you a story. A few years ago I got some new albums and I put them on the computer. Suddenly ‘The Photos in the Album’ [sung by Haim Moshe] comes up. I’m standing there, shaving, listening to the lyrics. And the tears stream over the soap, without my even being able to explain why. Grandma, mom cooking, I promised you wouldn’t fight against anyone. A knife in the heart. That is the heart of the nation. And I love this nation. I love the Jewish people, even more the Israeli people. I feel a very deep bond which I can’t explain.”

Haim Saban is an American citizen, but can there really be any question where his loyalty lies? I suspect it’s the same with the neocons accused of spying, and with AIPAC’s Rosen and Weissman. A big part of my article on neocons was simply to document their intense commitment to Israel.

Nevertheless, I suppose that if we asked these people whether they are more loyal to Israel than the US, they would deny it and they may be utterly sincere in their denial.

But how could any reasonable person believe what they are saying? 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. They may well believe that their recommendations also benefit the United States, but they might not even be aware of how their commitment to Israel can bias their judgment.

The big picture here is that the Israel Lobby has managed to create a climate in which issues of the loyalty of American Jews are off limits at the highest reaches of government. However, this sensitivity to Jewish concerns (and susceptibility to Jewish pressure) has not filtered down into the intelligence and military establishment, especially at the lower echelons.

Commenting on the Harman case, “an official with an American Jewish organization,” stated that suspicion of the loyalties of American Jews is “rooted deep in the system and it comes from the bottom up.” An Israeli official is paraphrased as claiming that “suspicion toward Israel [is] prevalent in the military and intelligence establishments but [is] not common at the political and diplomatic levels.”

These lower-level people are less susceptible to public pressure because they represent an institutional consensus that has not yet embraced multiculturalism and the slavish American commitment to Israel. Instead, they seem committed to the quaint view that America is a nation state with interests that are different from other nations, including Israel.

This in turn suggests that the powers that be may eventually get the charges against Rosen and Weissman dropped.  As a result of court rulings in favor of the defense, this certainly looks to be the case. Elite culture is far more influenced by Jewish sensibilities and far more on board with the multicultural zeitgeist than those responsible for initiating these investigations.

Rosen and Weissman may be exonerated, but the lower-level people still have quite a bit of power. The American intelligence community is doubtless the only reason Jonathan Pollard languishes in prison despite huge public relations campaigns proclaiming the injustice of his sentence. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were strongly pressured to pardon him so that he can return to a hero’s welcome in Israel. However, as an Israeli commentator has noted, “Each time, over the last 2 decades that there has been some sense that a commutation or a pardon might be in the offing, there have been official leaks to the media, creating such devastating press about Jonathan that it made it difficult for the president to proceed with commutation.”

The notorious Mark Rich received a pardon by throwing enough money at Bill Clinton. But there was no powerful constituency opposing Rich. It’s different with Pollard. No president dare release Pollard, even though Bill Clinton, at least, would have loved to do so. Clinton agreed to release Pollard but changed his mind when CIA Director George Tenet threatened to resign if Pollard was released.

It’s noteworthy that the Israeli official quoted above exempts the diplomatic service from the charge of being insufficiently sensitive to Israel. This was not always the case. The State Department  was famously an anti-Israel bastion beginning with Secretary of State George Marshall in the Truman Administration. Jewish foreign policy activists — most notably the neocons — viewed the State Department, and particularly the Near East Desk, as dominated by Protestant Ivy Leaguers who were insensitive to Jewish concerns and particularly Israel.

But all of that is long gone — an early casualty of the demise of the East Coast Yankee Protestant elite and Jewish ascendancy in those same circles. But the intelligence and military establishments have still not capitulated entirely. As a result, we see little  flare-ups of rebellion from time to time, like the current AIPAC case, the investigations of so many neocons, and the continued incarceration of Jonathan Pollard.

It is doubtless noteworthy that the Whites who remain influential in the intelligence and military establishments are relatively unlikely to be East Coast Ivy Leaguers. They are more likely to be Southerners or have other White identities. As the co-author of a recent academic report noted, “Politically and economically, the South remains the heart of our country’s military.” The FBI remains a whipping boy of liberals unhappy because it is insufficiently diverse.

The concern of the Israeli official that suspicions of Israel remain prevalent in the US military and intelligence establishments is particularly interesting. The attraction of White Southerners for the military is on a par with the attraction of White descendants of Puritans to moralistic aggression. The Southern military tradition is a legacy of the Scots-Irish Celtic culture so well described in David Hackett Fisher’s classic Albion’s SeedKevin Phillips’ The Cousin’s Wars,and James Webb’s Born Fighting.

As I have noted elsewhere, this is the only significant group of American White people with any cultural confidence. For this group of Whites — and only this group — there is  “a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead—a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with ‘the real America.’”

This is implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture.

The current angst about  the obvious examples of Jewish disloyalty is part of a larger cultural struggle. The old East Coast Protestant elite and its bastions, such as the State Department and the Ivy League universities, have fallen to the new multicultural zeitgeist in which Jewish disloyalty is more or less inconceivable. But there are still some holdouts. And therein lies the hope.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.


Appendix II

Tucker Carlson mentions replacement in the context of immigration. Hatred ensues.

April 10, 2021 by Kevin MacDonald

The ADL, always attuned to any indication that their subjects are getting restless, is insisting that Tucker Carlson be fired. What brought on their ire was Tucker’s use of the word ‘replacement’ in the context of a discussion of Joe Biden’s Open Border policy. Mentioning replacement in the context of immigration is pretty much in the same category as doubting that all races have the same potentialities or the official holocaust narrative. Be prepared for hatred. Tucker, as quoted in The Hill:

“I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate,” Carlson said. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually. Let’s just say it. That’s true.

Of course it’s true, and what’s being replaced is the traditional White population of the country. But Tucker couldn’t say that without even more outrage. So he made it all about the current electorate, which is certainly not just White people.

“I mean, everyone’s making a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement? No, no, this is a voting rights question,” Carlson added later, saying changes to the population “dilute the political power” of current registered voters.

This is disingenuous but I suppose it’s what you have to say to keep your job in the mainstream media—and even that might not be enough. Carlson’s statement is consistent with his repeated assertions of color-blindness, and he’s careful to restrict his comments to illegal immigration. His argument is completely color-blind: “every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter”—an argument that would apply to any American citizen no matter what their race. “How dare you think I care particularly about White voters!” But isn’t it obvious that such an argument would also apply to legal immigration?

Of course the ADL immediately labeled his comments as “white supremacy”:  read more…

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/04/10/tucker-carlson-mentions-replacement-in-the-context-of-immigration-hatred-ensues/

ABOUT VT EDITORS

VT EditorsVeterans Today

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

editors@veteranstoday.com

In Memory of Robert Fisk: “The Forgotten Massacre” – Reposted

In Memory of Robert Fisk: “The Forgotten Massacre” – Reposted

By Staff

In memory of Robert Fisk, a journalist who was “renowned for his courage in questioning official narratives” and publishing “frequently brilliant prose”.

During his decades-long career, Fisk covered key international events including the Lebanese civil war, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian revolution, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, conflicts in the Balkans and the Arab Spring.

Fisk was particularly renowned for his war reporting.

The Forgotten Massacre

Robert Fisk, Sunday 15 September 2013

The memories remain, of course. The man who lost his family in an earlier massacre, only to watch the young men of Chatila lined up after the new killings and marched off to death. But – like the muck piled on the garbage tip amid the concrete hovels – the stench of injustice still pervades the camps where 1,700 Palestinians were butchered 30 years ago next week. No-one was tried and sentenced for a slaughter, which even an “Israeli” writer at the time compared to the killing of Yugoslavs by Nazi sympathizers in the Second World War. Sabra and Chatila are a memorial to criminals who evaded responsibility, who got away with it.

Khaled Abu Noor was in his teens, a would-be militiaman who had left the camp for the mountains before “Israel’s” Phalangist allies entered Sabra and Chatila. Did this give him a guilty conscience, that he was not there to fight the rapists and murderers? “What we all feel today is depression,” he said. “We demanded justice, international trials – but there was nothing. Not a single person was held responsible. No-one was put before justice. And so we had to suffer in the 1986 camps war [at the hands of Shia Lebanese] and so the “Israelis” could slaughter so many Palestinians in the 2008-9 Gaza war. If there had been trials for what happened here 30 years ago, the Gaza killings would not have happened.”

He has a point, of course. While presidents and prime ministers have lined up in Manhattan to mourn the dead of the 2001 international crimes against humanity at the World Trade Centre, not a single Western leader has dared to visit the dank and grubby Sabra and Chatila mass graves, shaded by a few scruffy trees and faded photographs of the dead. Nor, let it be said – in 30 years – has a single Arab leader bothered to visit the last resting place of at least 600 of the 1,700 victims. Arab potentates bleed in their hearts for the Palestinians but an airfare to Beirut might be a bit much these days – and which of them would want to offend the “Israelis” or the Americans?

It is an irony – but an important one, nonetheless – that the only nation to hold a serious official enquiry into the massacre, albeit flawed, was “Israel”. The “Israeli” army sent the killers into the camps and then watched – and did nothing – while the atrocity took place. A certain “Israeli” Lieutenant Avi Grabowsky gave the most telling evidence of this. The Kahan Commission held the then “defense” minister Ariel Sharon personally responsible, since he sent the ruthless anti-Palestinian Phalangists into the camps to “flush out terrorists” – “terrorists” who turned out to be as non-existent as Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction 21 years later.

Sharon lost his job but later became prime minister, until broken by a stroke which he survived – but which took from him even the power of speech. Elie Hobeika, the Lebanese Christian militia leader who led his murderers into the camp – after Sharon had told the Phalange that Palestinians had just assassinated their leader, Bashir Gemayel – was murdered years later in east Beirut. His enemies claimed the Syrians killed him, his friends blamed the “Israelis”; Hobeika, who had “gone across” to the Syrians, had just announced he would “tell all” about the Sabra and Chatila atrocity at a Belgian court, which wished to try Sharon.

Of course, those of us who entered the camps on the third and final day of the massacre – 18 September, 1982 – have our own memories. I recall the old man in pajamas lying on his back on the main street with his innocent walking stick beside him, the two women and a baby shot next to a dead horse, the private house in which I sheltered from the killers with my colleague Loren Jenkins of The Washington Post – only to find a dead young woman lying in the courtyard beside us. Some of the women had been raped before their killing. The armies of flies, the smell of decomposition. These things one remembers.

Abu Maher is 65 – like Khaled Abu Noor, his family originally fled their homes in Safad in present-day “Israel” – and stayed in the camp throughout the massacre, at first disbelieving the women and children who urged him to run from his home. “A woman neighbor started screaming and I looked out and saw her shot dead and her daughter tried to run away and the killers chased her, saying “Kill her, kill her, don’t let her go!” She shouted to me and I could do nothing. But she escaped.”

Repeated trips back to the camp, year after year, have built up a narrative of astonishing detail. Investigations by Karsten Tveit of Norwegian radio and myself proved that many men, seen by Abu Maher being marched away alive after the initial massacre, were later handed by the “Israelis” back to the Phalangist killers – who held them prisoner for days in eastern Beirut and then, when they could not swap them for Christian hostages, executed them at mass graves.

And the arguments in favor of forgetfulness have been cruelly deployed. Why remember a few hundred Palestinians slaughtered when 25,000 have been killed in Syria in 19 months?

Supporters of “Israel” and critics of the Muslim world have written to me in the last couple of years, abusing me for referring repeatedly to the Sabra and Chatila massacre, as if my own eye-witness account of this atrocity has – like a war criminal – a statute of limitations. Given these reports of mine [compared to my accounts of Turkish oppression] one reader has written to me that “I would conclude that, in this case [Sabra and Chatila], you have an anti-“Israeli” bias. This is based solely on the disproportionate number of references you make to this atrocity…”

But can one make too many? Dr. Bayan al-Hout, widow of the PLO’s former ambassador to Beirut, has written the most authoritative and detailed account of the Sabra and Chatila war crimes – for that is what they were – and concludes that in the years that followed, people feared to recall the event. “Then international groups started talking and enquiring. We must remember that all of us are responsible for what happened. And the victims are still scarred by these events – even those who are unborn will be scarred – and they need love.” In the conclusion to her book, Dr. al-Hout asks some difficult – indeed, dangerous – questions: “Were the perpetrators the only ones responsible? Were the people who committed the crimes the only criminals? Were even those who issued the orders solely responsible? Who in truth is responsible?”

In other words, doesn’t Lebanon bear responsibility with the Phalangist Lebanese, “Israel” with the “Israeli” army, the West with its “Israeli” ally, the Arabs with their American ally? Dr al-Hout ends her investigation with a quotation from Rabbi Abraham Heschel who raged against the Vietnam war. “In a free society,” the Rabbi said, “some are guilty, but all are responsible”.

Related

أكتوبر 17 يوم الرأس بالرأس ويوم طار رأس زئيفي في القدس – نضال حمد

  الصفصاف

في السابع عشر من تشرين الأول – أكتوبر 2001 كانت فلسطين على موعد مع تنفيذ شعار ” الرأس بالرأس” الذي أطلقه القائد الفذ أحمد سعدات وكذلك رفاق الشهيد القائد الكبير أبو علي مصطفى الأمين العام للجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين، الذي اغتاله الاحتلال الصهيوني نهاية شهر آب – أغسطس  في مكتبه برام الله المحتلة.يوم 17-10-2001 على باب الغرفة رقم 816 في فندق بالقدس المحتلة تلقى الوزير الصهيوني الارهابي رحبعام زئيفي خمس رصاصات في الصدر والرأس أدت الى وفاته على الفور.

في تعليقه على عملية الاغتيال قال الارهابي شارون رئيس وزراء الكيان الصهيوني آنذاك: “كل شيء تغيّر”، مع إطلاقه وابلاً من التهديدات ضد الفلسطينيين” تكللت باجتياح رام الله وحصار مكتب رئيس السلطة ياسر عرفات حيث كان يعتقل سعدات ورفاقه بعد أن غدر بهم وتم اعتقالهم بقرار شخصي من ياسر عرفات نفذه توفيق الطيراوي.

زئيفي لم يكن كأي شخص صهيوني، فقد كان من الآباء والقادة المؤسسين للكيان الصهيوني. كما كان واحداً من أكثرهم ارهابا واجراما وعنصرية.. بالاضافة لعدائه الشديد لكل الفلسطينيين والعرب. كان من أشد دعاة الترانسفير وترحيل كل الفلسطينيين من أرضهم المحتلة.

بعد اغتيال زئيفي قامت أجزهة أمن السلطة الفلسطينية المنسقة مع الاحتلال الصهيوني بالاحتيال على “سعدات” الذين كان متخفيا ومتورايا عن الأنظار، وهو الخبير في ذلك لتجربته الطويلة في هذا المجال. طلب توفيق الطيراوي عقد لقاء مع سعدات لبحث شؤون وطنية ملحة، حصل اللقاء في احد فنادق رام الله، حيث تم اعتقال سعدات ورفاقه اعضاء الخلية الجبهوية التي نفذت عملية اغتيال زئيفي.

نقطة... وأول السطر - شخصيات: ما لا تعرفه عن بساطة توفيق الطيراوي ..ماذا طلب  منه ياسر عرفات ؟

بهذا العمل الشنيع أضافت سلطة اوسلوستان وصمة عار جديدة على الوصمات الكثيرة التي لطخت وتلطخ سيرة النضال الوطني الفلسطيني.

تعتبر عملية اغتيال وئيفي في قلب القدس المحتلة وفي فنندق للرسميين الصهاينة من أهم وأشجع العمليات الفدائية الفلسطينية على مر تاريخ الصراع مع العدو الصهيوني. فهي كانت عملية نوعية وجرئية ومميزة بكل المقاييس والمعايير.

باغتيال الارهابي زئيفي ثأر الفلسطينيون لكرامتهم الوطنية ولشهدائهم، كما سددوا ضربة موجعة ودقيقة جداً للعدو الصهيوني. وضربة مؤلمة وشخصية للارهابي شارون صديق زئيفي وللصهاينة بشكل عام، ومن خلال قدرتهم على الرد المؤلم والدقيق والسريع والمميز، كما من خلال تنفيذ الوعد والعهد، وعد “الرأس بالرأس والعين بالعين” في وقت قياسي وسريع، وفي دقة عملياتية واختيار الشخص والمكان والزمان، وعودة وانسحاب منفذي العملية بسلام.

خزي اوسلوستان لم يتوقف عند اعتقال سعدات ورفاقه .. ففي الرابع عشر من آذار – مارس 2006 اقتحمت قوات الاحتلال الصهيوني سجن أريحا التابع للسلطة الفلسطينية. حيث اعتقلت القائد المناضل أحمد سعدات صاحب ومطلق شعار ” الرأس بالرأس والعين بالعين” مع رفاقه منفذي عملية اغتيال زئيفي. بالاضافة للواء فؤاد الشوبكي وهو أحد قادة حركة فتح ومساعد لرئيسها ورئيس السلطة والمنظمة الراحل ياسر عرفات.

بينما خرج سعدات رافع الراس ومكبل اليدين والقدمين محاطا بعشرات الجنود الصهاينة،

خرج وقائيو الأوسلة وأجزهتها الأمنية، حراس السجن من عناصر وضباط أجهزة شرطة وأمن سلطة اوسلوستان عراة وفقط بالكلاسين، مستسلمين، رافعين أيديهم فوق رؤوسهم، في مشهد مؤلم ومفجع ومخجل ومعيب ومهين للشعب العربي الفلسطيني كله صغيرا وكبيرا حياً وشهيدا وحرا وأسيرا.

014430

مشهد لا يغيب عن أعيينا ولن يغيب مدى الحياة.

أين نحن اليوم من شعاراتنا؟أين نحن اليوم من حرية أسرانا؟

الوحدة الوطنية الفلسطينية تجسدها الأعمال والأفعال ضد الاحتلال لا الشعارات الفارغة والكاذبة ولا اللقاءات والاجتماعات والتصريحات وتقاسم السلطات والمحسوبيات. تجسدها أعمال النضال والكفاح الشعبية والمسلحة فلا نضال شعبي ولا مقاومة شعبية بدون مقاومة مسلحة، أي العمل الحقيقي في الميادين وعلى أرض المواجهات. فطريق تحرير فلسطين لا يمر من خلال الكذب على شعبنا بل من خلال تقديم الولاء والطاعة والتوبة للبعض، في بيت الشعب العربي الفلسطيني. بيت المقاومة الفلسطينية المتمسكة بثوابت شعب فلسطين. فالفصائل التي تدعي المقاومة ولا تتمسك بالثوابت لا فائدة ترجى منها ولا من مقاومتها.

Ex-IOF Cmdr.: By Responding With Force to 2nd Intifada “Israel” “Won the Battle But Lost the War”

Ex-IOF Cmdr.: By Responding With Force to 2nd Intifada “Israel” “Won the Battle But Lost the War”

By Staff, Sputnik

“Israel” has learned a lot from the second intifada, which erupted in September 2000, says a retired colonel, who back then served as deputy commander of the combat intelligence corps. The primary lesson was to prevent a repeat of such bloody events, something that the “Israeli” entity has managed to master.

It was a decision that sparked mass protests against the entity, triggering a fire.

Twenty years ago, on 28 September, then head of the “Israeli” entity’s opposition Ariel Sharon paid a visit to al-Haram Sharif [Temple Mount] in al-Quds [Jerusalem].

The official reason for the visit was to inspect the construction work that has been done in the area, but Palestinians regarded it as an attack on their holiest of holies and didn’t want it to go unnoticed.

A day after the visit, the Palestinian Authority [PA] announced three days of mourning and the fire of the Second Intifada, or the Palestinian popular uprising, lit by Sharon, started spreading, just 13 years after the first intifada.

Protests in Jerusalem inspired more protests by Palestinians across the West Bank and even Arabs within Israel. In the eight days following the visit, 13 Palestinians were killed amid violent clashes with Israeli security forces. Hundreds on both sides were wounded.

No Surprise

But the events didn’t catch the entity’s military by surprise.

Miri Eisin, now a retired colonel, who back then served as deputy commander of combat intelligence corps, says the army has been preparing for a possible Palestinian uprising from late 1990s, collecting information and following the Palestinian leaderships’ movement.

For her, as well as the security apparatus she represented, the question was not if the riots would start but rather when and what would ignite them.

Apparently, Sharon’s visit provided that spark, but Palestinian leaders have admitted that that was only an excuse and that the violent uprising would have happened regardless, with or without his move.

The entity’s response was quick and harsh, and Eisin says that magnitude probably “ignited an additional cycle [of violence]” that could have been avoided otherwise.

“In the first few months we were harsh against different types of events that started the intifada. They were instigating and we were responding”.

Programed to Respond with Force

During that time, the “Israeli” Occupation Forces [IOF] fired back at young people that threw stones at “Israeli” soldiers and responded violently in clashes with the Palestinian security forces.

It also rounded up and jailed hundreds of those who planned attacks or simply those who obstructed regular life, filling up “Israeli” prisons with Palestinian inmates.

Back then, Eisin admits, the IOF was programed to treat such events as a security challenge, and cared little about the media factor and the public diplomacy that has been used by the Palestinians to tilt international opinion in their favor.

As a result, “‘Israel’ was winning the battle but losing the war,” because while the entity was effective in combating Palestinian operations, it was condemned far and wide in the international arena.

The mass media gave the Palestinian riots a central stage in their coverage, whereas NGOs were scrutinizing the entity’s conduct and published reports on its human rights violations.

During the years of fighting, the “Israeli” entity lost more than 1,100 people. Over 8,000 were injured in Palestinian operations.

فتّش عن المستفيد لتتعرّف على المجرم

د. جمال شهاب المحسن

ما صدر مؤخّراً بشأن اغتيال رئيس الوزراء اللبناني الأسبق رفيق الحريري عن المحكمة الدولية الخاصة بلبنان التي نشأت خارجَ الأصول الوطنية السيادية اللبنانية والقوانين الدولية ولم يفاوضْ بشأنها رئيس الجمهورية اللبنانية ولم يصادقْ عليها مجلس النواب في خرقٍ فاضحٍ للدستور اللبناني، وبعد تنصّلِها من صلاحيتها في ملاحقة الشهود الزور واعتمادها على «أدلة ظرفية» قاصرة وغير ذات قيمة ثبوتية من خلال الاتصالات «الهاتفية المتزامنة» دون معرفة مضامينها وما دار فيها كأحد ركائز التحقيق والمحكمة والحكم والتي لا ترقى الى مستوى القرينة والدليل الفعلي، لا يُنتظر من هذه المحكمة إحقاقُ الحق ولا إقامةُ العدل.. وهنا لا بدَّ من التساؤل عن غياب وتغييب كلّ الفرضيات والحقائق والشواهد في مسار التحقيق الدولي والمحكمة الدولية منذ خمسة عشر عاماً التي تؤدي إلى توجيه أصابع الاتهام للكيان الصهيوني الإرهابي المجرم والولايات المتحدة الأميركية وأدواتهما المستفيدين الحقيقيين من الانقلاب السياسي والإعلامي والأمني الذي حصل في لبنان بعد اغتيال الحريري، وهذا يأخذُنا مباشرةً الى موضوع تضليل التحقيق الدولي والشهود الزور الذين ضلّلوا التحقيق ضمن خطةٍ مصمّمةٍ لذلك لاتهام سورية وحزب الله والضباط الأربعة وإبعاد التهمة عن المستفيدين الحقيقيين من عملية الاغتيال.

قبل سنوات صدر كتاب بعنوان: «النفاق الأميركي» لمؤلّفه عمران أدهم الوثيق الصلة بالأميركيين، سلِّط فيه الضوءَ على كثيرٍ من المخططات الأميركية في «الشرق الأوسط» وفي العالم، وأخطر ما فيه هو أنّ الولايات المتحدة الأميركية و»إسرائيل» كانتا وراء اغتيال رئيس الوزراء اللبناني رفيق الحريري. ويتضمّن الكتاب شهادات يقول المؤلف إنها نُقلت إليه شخصياً من أصحابها الذين كانوا مسؤولين كباراً في المخابرات الأميركية ويوردُ أسماءهم الصريحة، ويؤكد في الوقت نفسه أنه يملك ما يوثِّق هذه الإفادات وهو مستعدٌّ لعرضها إذا لزم الأمر، إذ يقول حرفياً: «إنني أحتفظ بعناية بالمستندات التي رفدتني بالمعلومات والأسرار الكبيرة والصغيرة وأنا على استعداد كامل للكشف عنها إذا لزم الأمر» ص 78.

ويتابع : يقول «جون بيركنز، أحد كبار المسؤولين في المخابرات المركزية الأميركية (قبل تقاعده)، روى لي القصة كاملة وأنقل وقائعها على لسانه حيث قال: «المسؤول عن موكب الحريري كان يعرف جيداً الساعة الصفر، ولأنه كان يعرف، فقد امتنع عن مرافقته عندما كان يستعدّ للانتقال من مجلس النواب إلى دارته في قريطم، بل إنه هو الذي أشار على الموكب بسلوك الطريق البحري في طريق العودة». مضيفاً: «إنّ الأقمار الأميركية والإسرائيلية صوّرت عملية الاغتيال، إضافةً إلى طائرة هليكوبتر إسرائيلية كانت في الجو في محاذاة الشاطئ اللبناني وكانت تراقب سير العملية، وقد رفضت الإدارة الأميركية أن تتولى لجنة تحقيق لبنانية التحقيق في العملية.. وفي تلفيق التهم، تمّ اختيار المحقق الألماني ديتليف ميليس كي يرأس لجنة تحقيق دولية ووافق على تشكيلها الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة كوفي أنان». ص 80 .

ويضيف أيضاً: «وبالمناسبة، أقول (والكلام لبيركنز) إنّ سيارة الحريري كانت مزوّدةً بأجهزة رصد تقنية متقدّمة لا تستطيع أيّ دولة ـ باستثناء الولايات المتحدة الأميركية و»إسرائيل» ـ تعطيلها. كذلك، مهمة التعطيل هذه أوكلت إلى الباخرة الإسرائيلية التي كانت ترابط على حدود المياه الإقليمية اللبنانية تساندها من الجو طائرة أواكس أميركية وهليكوبتر إسرائيلية». ص 81.

ثم يقول في الصفحة 84: «أعود إلى اغتيال الحريري، على لسان بيركنز إيّاه، لأتوقّف عند ما قاله المحقق السويدي في طاقم المحكمة الدولية «بو أستروم»، وهو كبير المحققين ونائب رئيس فريق التحقيق، من أن الإسرائيليين والأميركيين رفضوا تزويد التحقيق بالصور التي التقطتها الأقمار مما يحمل دلالات مهمة على أن واشنطن لا تريد الإسهام في كشف الحقيقة. لقد اكتفت الحكومة الأميركية بالقول إن مشاكل تقنية حصلت خلال فترة إغتيال الحريري. ولهذا السبب، لم نحصل على أي معلومات حيوية ولعلّ الأمر مجرد سياسة.

ثم يتوقّفُ صاحب الكتاب أمام إفادة لمسؤول سابق آخر في المخابرات المركزية الأميركية هو «دافيد وين» الذي يصفه بأنه كان مسؤولاً طوال ثماني سنوات على امتداد الشرق الأوسط وشمال أفريقيا حتى آخر أيار 2014، فيروي التالي:

قال لي «وين» إنّ أسباباً عدة تجمّعت وأدّت في النهاية إلى اتخاذ القرار . وأبرز هذه الأسباب اقتناع إسرائيل بأن الحريري شخصية عربية قوية تتمتع بحضور مؤثّر على المستويين الإقليمي والدولي، كما أنّ هذا الرجل نسَج شبكة علاقات بالغة الأهمية، عربياً وأوروبياً وأميركياً، وظّفها في مساندة المقاومة ومساندة سوريا، كما وظّفها في خدمة لبنان وتعزيز دوره المالي والإقتصادي كقطبٍ جاذبٍ للرساميل والاستثمارات الخليجية، وما حصل عقب الإكتشافات النفطية الأخيرة، أنّ لجنة أمنية ـ سياسية نبّهت الحكومة الإسرائيلية إلى أنّ وجود الحريري في الحكم سوف يتسبّب بمتاعب لـ «إسرائيل»، خصوصاً في عملية ترسيم الحدود بين قبرص ولبنان، الأمر الذي يضع الدولة العبرية أمام ما يشبه «الأمر الواقع» في ما يتعلق بحجم ثروتها النفطية والغازية».

وقد ورد في التقرير بالحرف الواحد: لا بدّ من التخلص من هذا الرجل، لأنّ تطلعاته وطموحاته لا تنسجمان مع تطلعاتنا وطموحاتنا ونظرتنا إلى مستقبل المنطقة ودور «إسرائيل» في المدى الإقليمي.

وطوال أسابيع عدة، كان رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي يتشاور مع القيادات الأمنية في الصيغة الفضلى لتصفية الحريري من دون إلحاق الضرر بـ «إسرائيل». وبعد مداولات طالت، استقرَّ الرأي على اغتيال الرجل في بلد أوروبي أو عربي، لكن خبراء «الموساد» رفضوا هذا التوجه لأنه قد يرتّب عواقب وخيمة على «إسرائيل».

هنا اقترح رئيس الوزراء «أرييل شارون» استبدال كلّ الخطط الموضوعة بخطة تقضي بتنفيذ العملية داخل بيروت وبذلك تصيب «إسرائيل» عصفورين بحجر واحد: التخلص من الرجل والتأسيس لصراع داخلي طويل في لبنان بين أنصار الحريري من جهة ومؤيدي سورية وحزب الله من جهة أخرى، ما يؤدي إلى إنسحاب القوات السورية في نهاية المطاف ومَذْهَبَة الصراع السياسي الداخلي . ص87.

أردتُ من استحضار ما ورد في الكتاب المذكور، أن أشير الى أنه يتقاطع مع تقارير استقصائية ومعلومات استخبارية أعلن عنها العديد من المتابعين والإعلاميين والخبراء.

وفي مثل هذه الجرائم، فتش عن المستفيد لتتعرّف على المجرم، وهذا ما لم تفعله، لا لجنة التحقيق الدولية التي استعانت بالشهود الزور والروايات المضللة، ولا المحكمة الدولية التي وُلدت ميتة في قضيتي الحق والعدالة وفي سياق الابتزاز: إمّا الإستجابة للطلبات الأميركية وهذا مستحيلٌ عند الأحرار المقاومين في سورية ولبنان، وإمّا أن تواجه «سيف» المحكمة والمسرحيات الإعلامية الدعائية المسمومة التي تريد تزوير الحقائق وقلبها والتلاعب فيها.. وهنا نتذكّر شهادة السفير الأميركي الأسبق في لبنان جيفري فيلتمان أمام الكونغرس الأميركي في الثامن من حزيران عام 2010، حيث اعترف بأن الإدارة الأميركية قدّمت منذ عام 2006، أكثر من 500 مليون دولار أميركي عبر الوكالة الأميركية للتنمية ومبادرة الشراكة الشرق ـــــ أوسطية لتشويه حزب الله، وشدّد على أنّ العنوان الأساسي لهذه الأموال: «الحدّ من جاذبية حزب الله لدى الشباب اللبناني».. وطبعاً هناك مَن يدفع كالأميركي وغيره ومَن يقبض تحت مسمّيات وجمعيات وأقنعة سياسية وإعلامية و»مدنية» مختلفة.. ولكن كلّ هذا التآمر والتشويش المعادي لن يؤثّر على محور المقاومة المنتصر.

إعلامي وباحث في علم الإجتماع السياسي

War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 28, 2020

Global Research 8 January 2009

Eleven years ago, Israel invaded Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”.

The following article was first published by Global Research in January 2009 at the height of the Israeli bombing and invasion under Operation Cast Lead.

***

.

Author’s Note and Update

The purpose of Operation Cast Led was to confiscate Palestine’s maritime natural gas reserves. In the wake of the invasion, Palestinian gas fields were de facto confiscated by Israel in derogation of international law.

A year following “Operation Cast Lead”,  Tel Aviv announced the discovery of  the Leviathan natural gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean “off the coast of Israel.”

At the time the gas field was: “ … the most prominent field ever found in the sub-explored area of the Levantine Basin, which covers about 83,000 square kilometres of the eastern Mediterranean region.” (i)

Coupled with Tamar field, in the same location, discovered in 2009, the prospects are for an energy bonanza for Israel, for Houston, Texas based Noble Energy and partners Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration and Ratio Oil Exploration. (See Felicity Arbuthnot, Israel: Gas, Oil and Trouble in the Levant, Global Research, December 30, 2013

The Gazan gas fields are part of the broader Levant assessment area.

What has been unfolding is the integration of these adjoining gas fields including those belonging to Palestine into the orbit of Israel. (see map below).

It should be noted that the entire Eastern Mediterranean coastline extending from Egypt’s Sinai to Syria constitutes an area encompassing large gas as well as oil reserves.

While the debate regarding  Trump’s “Deal of the Century” has largely concentrated on the de facto annexation of the Jordan Valley and the integration and extension of  Jewish settlements, the issue of the de facto confiscation and ownership of  Palestine’s offshore gas reserves have not been challenged.

Michel Chossudovsky, February 28, 2020


War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields

by Michel Chossudovsky

January 8, 2009

The December 2008 military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves. 

This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline. 

British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon’s Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.

The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21,  2007).

The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).

The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.

The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine’s gas reserves could be much larger.Will Israel’s Gas Hopes Come True? Accused of Stealing Gas from the Gaza Strip


Map 1

Map 2

Who Owns the Gas Fields

The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.

The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.

British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.

The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine’s sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that “Israel would never buy gas from Palestine” intimating that Gaza’s offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.

In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza’s offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)

The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.

In 2006, British Gas “was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt.” (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.

The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert  “to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority.” The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.

Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:

Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government.” (Ibid, emphasis added)

The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.

Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza’s offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.

The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:

 “Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror”. (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on “The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas,” March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza’s Coastal Waters Threaten Israel’s National Security?  Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)

Israel’s intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).

Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board

The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under “Operation Cast Lead” was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:

“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza’s natural gas:

“Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel’s wish to renew the talks.

The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel’s request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials.” (Globes online- Israel’s Business Arena, June 23, 2008)

The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.

Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new “post war” political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.

In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.

In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG’s offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)

“Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government’s decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.

The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender.” (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)

Gaza and Energy Geopolitics 

The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.

What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?

What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine’s Natural Gas reserves?

A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or “peacekeeping” troops?

The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?

The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas?

If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel’s offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above).

These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel’s energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport – pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline. “What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)


Map 3The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2020


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

إردوغان يتوعّد “إسرائيل”.. الأوسمة تكشف حقيقة الموقف

حسني محلي

باحث علاقات دولية ومختصص بالشأن التركي

يقول الرئيس التركي إنه “سيدافع عن فلسطين إلى الأبد، كما فعل السلطان عبد الحميد”، ناسياً أو متناسياً أن كلّ ما قيل عن موقف عبد الحميد من فلسطين ليس صحيحاً بالكامل، فقد قدّم الأخير الكثير من التسهيلات والمساعدات لليهود، وسمح لهم بالهجرة إلى فلسطين.

إردوغان مع رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي الأسبق إيهود أولمرت (أرشيف)

منذ الإعلان عما يُسمى “صفقة القرن”، أخذ الرئيس إردوغان يهدّد “إسرائيل” ويتوعَّدها، متهرباً من استهداف صديقه وحليفه الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب، الَّذي سبق أن هدَّده بتدميره وتدمير الاقتصاد التركي في حال هجومه على كرد سوريا.

وبعيداً من اتهامات المعارضة له بالمتاجرة بالقضية الفلسطينية من منطلقات عقائديَّة تنافسيَّة مع إيران، وعدم اتخاذ أيِّ موقف عملي في هذا الموضوع، سنكتفي هنا بالتذكير بالمحطات الرئيسية في مسار إردوغان من أجل القدس وفلسطين بعد استلام حزب العدالة والتنمية السلطة في بداية تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 2002.

قبل هذا التاريخ وبعده فوراً، زار إردوغان واشنطن، والتقى قيادات اللوبي اليهودي ومسؤولين أميركيين، معظمهم من اليهود، ومن بينهم بول فولفويتز وريتشارد بيرل، نائبا وزير الدفاع، وعاد إلى أنقرة ليدافع بحماسٍ عن ضرورة العمل المشترك مع أميركا خلال احتلال العراق في بداية آذار/مارس 2003، وهو ما رفضه البرلمان التركي آنذاك. 

وجاءت مشاركته في قمة مشروع الشرق الأوسط الكبير في 8 حزيران/يونيو 2004 لتضع أنقرة على طريق التنسيق والتعاون التركي الأميركي من أجل إعادة رسم خريطة المنطقة، مع مساعي واشنطن لتسويق تجربة حزب العدالة والتنمية في بلد مسلمٍ وديمقراطيٍ وعلمانيٍ في دول المنطقة.

وكانت زيارة إردوغان إلى “إسرائيل” في الأول من أيار/مايو 2005 بمثابة التحول الأكثر إثارةً في سياسات الرجل الَّذي استقبله شارون وقال له: “أهلاً بك في القدس عاصمة إسرائيل الأبدية”، فلم يعترض عليه، وهو الذي تعرَّض آنذاك لانتقادات عنيفة جداً من زعيمه السابق نجم الدين أربكان، بعد أن اتَّهمه “بالتواطؤ مع الصهيونية العالمية وأميركا ومنظَّمات اللوبي اليهودي” إثر زيارته متحف ضحايا النازية. ولم تتأخَّر رابطة مكافحة التشهير “ADL” اليهوديَّة الأميركية في منح الرئيس إردوغان وسام الشجاعة السياسية في 10 حزيران/يونيو 2005، وسبقتها في ذلك منظَّمة المؤتمر اليهودي الأميركي “AJC”، التي منحته وساماً مماثلاً في 25 كانون الثاني/يناير 2004. وبدأت بعد ذلك علاقات إردوغان مع منظّمات اللوبي اليهودي وتوطَّدت، والتقى قياداتها في أميركا وتركيا عشرات المرات حتى آخر زيارة له إلى أميركا في أيلول/سبتمبر 2019.

فضيحة اردوغان الاعتراف ب القدس عاصمة ل إسرائيل عام ٢٠٠٥ مع شارون
 اردوغان يضع الزهور على قبر مؤسس الحركة الصهيونية

وجاءت زيارة خالد مشعل إلى أنقرة في 15 شباط/فبراير 2006 لتلفت انتباه الجميع، وخصوصاً بعد أن تهرَّب إردوغان من اللقاء به خوفاً من “إسرائيل” وأميركا، فاستقبله عبد الله جول في مقر الحزب لا في وزارة الخارجية، وأوصاه بالتخلّي عن العمل المسلّح ضد “إسرائيل”، ولا سيما أنَّ الزيارة جاءت بعد فوز حماس في الانتخابات الفلسطينية.

ولم يتأخّر إردوغان في دعوة الرئيس بيريز إلى أنقرة في 13 تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 2007، ليكون أوَّل رئيس إسرائيلي يتحدَّث في البرلمان التركي، ثم لحق به محمود عباس في اليوم نفسه، في محاولةٍ من إردوغان لتحقيق التوازن في العلاقة بين الطرفين، ناسياً أو متناسياً أنَّ الطائرات الإسرائيلية التي قصفت مبنى قيل إنه مصنع كيماوي في دير الزور السورية في 8 أيلول/سبتمبر 2007، دخلت الأجواء التركية في طريق عودتها، ثم رمت خزانات الوقود على الأراضي التركية.

وقد شجَّعت العلاقةُ مع تل أبيب من جهة، ودمشق من جهة أخرى، الرئيسَ إردوغان، فدخل على خطِّ الوساطة بين العاصمتين، إلا أنَّ رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي أولمرت غدر به، فشنَّ عدوانه الغاشم على غزة في 27 كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2008، على الرغم من موقف الرئيس الأسد الإيجابي من المساعي التركية.

وجاء ردّ إردوغان على موقف أولمرت بهجومه العنيف على بيريز في دافوس في سويسرا في 29 كانون الثاني/يناير 2009، عندما قال له: “إنَّكم مجرمون وقتلة”. وأثار هذا الموقف ضجة كبيرة على الصعيدين السياسي والشعبي، وساهم في زيادة شعبية إردوغان في العالمين العربي والإسلامي، وخصوصاً فلسطين.

لم يتأخَّر الردّ على موقف إردوغان، فقام الجيش الإسرائيلي في 31 أيار/مايو 2010 بالهجوم على سفينة مرمرة التي كانت تنقل المساعدات إلى غزة، وقتلت 10 مواطنين أتراك. كان هذا الحادث بداية التدهور السريع والخطير في العلاقات التركية – الإسرائيلية، إلى أن أقنع الرئيس أوباما نتنياهو خلال زيارته إلى “إسرائيل” في 22 آذار/مارس 2013 بضرورة الاتصال هاتفياً بإردوغان والاعتذار عن الهجوم على سفينة مرمرة، وهو ما فعله نتنياهو أمام أوباما، صديق الطرفين.

وقد جلس الطرفان بعد هذا الاعتذار الشفهي على طاولة المفاوضات في جنيف، واتفقا في 10 نيسان/أبريل 2016 على أن تتبرّع “إسرائيل” (تبرع وليس تعويضات) بمبلغ 20 مليون دولار لعائلات الضحايا، في مقابل أن يصدر إردوغان تعليماته للمحاكم بإسقاط كلّ الدعاوى المرفوعة ضد المسؤولين الإسرائيليين في المحاكم التركية والدولية، وهو ما حصل في كانون الثاني/يناير 2016، بعد أن حمّل إردوغان منظمة الإغاثة الإنسانية “İHH”، صاحبة سفينة مرمرة، مسؤولية الأزمة مع “إسرائيل”.

وجاءت المفاجأة من رئيس هذه المنظَّمة، بولنت يلدرم، المقرّب جداً من إردوغان، عندما علَّق على القصف الأميركي والبريطاني والفرنسي على مواقع سورية في 14 نيسان/أبريل 2018، وقال: “هذا القصف لم يشفِ غليلنا. كنت أتوقَّع المزيد”.

لم يكن هذا الموقف مفاجئاً بالنسبة إلى الرأي العام التركي، وهو يعرف أنَّ سيارات الإسعاف التابعة للمنظمة كانت تنقل الأسلحة والمعدات الحربية للإرهابيين في سوريا، وتعود بالجرحى منها وتنقلهم إلى مستشفياتها في غازي عنتاب. 

وعلى الرغم من كلِّ ذلك، لم يحالف إردوغان الحظّ في زيارة غزة التي قال إنَّه صالح “إسرائيل” من أجل فكِّ الحصار عنها، فسبقه إليها الأمير القطري في 23 تشرين الأول/أكتوبر 2012 في قمة التحالف والعمل المشترك في سوريا.

ولم يتذكّر أحد كيف تخلّى إردوغان عن استخدام الفيتو ضد انضمام “إسرائيل” إلى منظمة التعاون الاقتصادي والتنمية “OECD” في أيار/مايو 2010، قبل أيام من حادث سفينة مرمرة، ولم يعترض في 4 آذار/مارس 2016 على قرار القمة الأطلسية بالسماح لـ”إسرائيل” بفتح ممثلية دائمة في مقرّ الحلف في بروكسل، على الرغم من أنها ليست عضواً فيه. 

بالعودة إلى الماضي أيضاً، فقد قرَّر إردوغان في العام 2009 منح شركة إسرائيليّة حقّ نزع الألغام المزروعة على الحدود التركية مع سوريا، كما منح شركة أميركية كندية يهودية حقّ الاستثمار السياحي في ميناء إسطنبول الرئيسي، وهو ما أثار ضجة كبيرة إعلامياً وسياسياً، ما اضطره إلى التراجع عن القرارين، ولكنَّه استمر في علاقاته التجارية مع “إسرائيل”، ليصل حجم التبادل التجاري بين الدولتين في العام 2018 إلى 6 مليارات دولار تقريباً، فيما وصل عدد السياح الإسرائيليين الذين زاروا تركيا في العام نفسه إلى 320 ألف سائح.

وتحدَّث الإعلام التركي عن قيام السفن التي يملكها براق إردوغان، نجل الرئيس إردوغان، بنقل البضائع التركية والبترول الكردي العراقي إلى “إسرائيل”، وغزت منتجاتها الزراعية الأسواق التركية بعد أن سمح إردوغان باستيراد البذور الإسرائيلية المعدلة جينياً.

وجاء الربيع العربي والتدخّل التركي والعربي في سوريا وضد إيران وحزب الله ليغيّر موازين القوى في المنطقة لصالح “إسرائيل”، المستفيد الوحيد من دمار سوريا والعراق وباقي دول المنطقة، وأثبتت التطورات اللاحقة أنَّ لسياسات إردوغان الفضل الأكبر في هذا الدمار، بعد أن نجح، ومعه الدوحة، في نهاية العام 2011 في إقناع حماس بإغلاق مكاتبها في دمشق، وهي لولا سوريا لما كانت موجودة أصلاً الآن.

هذا التناقض لم يمنع الرئيس إردوغان من شنّ هجماته التقليدية على “إسرائيل”، وفي كلِّ مناسبة يراها مناسبة، كما هو الحال عندما اعترف الرئيس ترامب في 6 كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2018 بالقدس عاصمة لـ”إسرائيل”، إذ دعا بصفته آنذاك رئيس منظَّمة مجلس التعاون الإسلامي إلى قمة عاجلة في إسطنبول، لم يحضرها سوى 19 من زعماء الدول الأعضاء، وأرسلت الدول الأخرى ممثلين من مستويات مختلفة.

وتكرَّرت هذه القمة في أيار/مايو عندما تمَّ نقل السفارة الأميركية إلى القدس، من دون أن يخطر على بال إردوغان أو أيٍّ من الزعماء العرب والمسلمين اتخاذ أيّ موقف عملي ضد أميركا أو “إسرائيل”.

وعلى الرغم من قرارات القمَّتين وتهديدات الرئيس إردوغان لكلٍّ من الدولتين، وكما هو الحال الآن في ردِّ فعله على “صفقة القرن”، فقد هدَّد “إسرائيل” وتوعَّدها، “متهماً الدول العربية بالخيانة وبيع القضية الفلسطينية”، وقال إنه “سيدافع عنها إلى الأبد، كما فعل السلطان عبد الحميد”، ناسياً أو متناسياً أن كلّ ما قيل عن موقف عبد الحميد من فلسطين ليس صحيحاً بالكامل، فقد قدّم الأخير الكثير من التسهيلات والمساعدات لليهود، وسمح لهم بالهجرة إلى فلسطين.

وكانت تركيا الدولة الإسلامية الأولى التي اعترفت بالكيان الصهيوني الَّذي قام على أرض فلسطين بعد عامٍ واحد من إعلان “دولة إسرائيل”، كما كانت الدولة الإسلامية الوحيدة التي استقبلت بن غوريون في العام 1957، وبحث الأخير مع نظيره التركي عدنان مندريس (مصدر الإلهام الحقيقيّ لإردوغان) تفاصيل التنسيق والتعاون المشترك، كما فعل مع شاه إيران ضد المدّ القومي العربي الناصري. 

ويبقى الرهان الأكبر والأهم على الموقف المحتمل للرئيس إردوغان، ويقال إنه براغماتي، والَّذي سعى حتى العام 2017 لإقناع تل أبيب بمدِّ أنابيب الغاز من شرق الأبيض المتوسط إلى تركيا، مقابل مد أنابيب للمياه التركية إلى “إسرائيل” عبر شمال قبرص التركية وجنوبها.

فيا ترى أيهما أهمّ بالنسبة إلى إردوغان: التخلّص من الرئيس الأسد، مهما كلَّفه ذلك، أو استمرار التوتر مع تل أبيب، ما دامت هذه الضجة لا تكلّفه شيئاً، وتزيد من شعبيته بين الإسلاميين، ولا تؤدي إلى توتر حقيقي في العلاقة مع الحليف الأكبر واشنطن التي لا يريد أن يزعجها، مهما فعلت في فلسطين، وهو لم يزعجها، بل اتّفق معها في شرق الفرات؛ حدود “إسرائيل” الكبرى المزعومة!؟

فلسطين سند طرمان

فلسطين مقالة وليد شرارة السبت 8 شباط 2020

سند طرمان، لِمَن لا يعرفه، هو الفدائي الفلسطيني الشابّ الذي قام بدهس 12 جندياً فجر الخميس في السادس من شباط/ فبراير الحالي. وقد ترك الفدائي، الذي بات أسيراً لدى الاحتلال، عبارة «وجدتُ أجوبتي»، وهي عنوان كتاب الشهيد باسل الأعرج وختام وصيّته، على صفحته في «فايسبوك» بضعَ ساعات قبل تنفيذ العملية. وسرعان ما تلت هذه الأخيرةً عمليتان في القدس ورام الله ضدّ جنود الاحتلال وعناصر شرطته. أبرز التعليقات، الفلسطينية والصهيونية على السواء، حول هذه العمليات، تقاطعت عند اعتبارها ردّاً على «صفقة القرن».

أبو حمزة، الناطق باسم «سرايا القدس»، الجناح العسكري لحركة «الجهاد الاسلامي»، رأى أنها «تأكيد بالدم والسلاح على رفض شعبنا لصفقة القرن وتهويد المقدّسات»، قبل أن يدعو «كلّ المقاومين الفلسطينيين لحمل السلاح، ومهاجمة الحواجز الإسرائيلية، وأن يباشروا حالة من الاشتباك الشامل والمباشر بما يتوفّر لهم من إمكانات». الطرفان، الصهيوني الرسمي، والفلسطيني المقاوِم، متّفقان على تحديد الوظيفة الفعلية لـ«صفقة القرن»: تسريع عملية استيطان وضمّ وتهويد الأرض الفلسطينية. المشروع الصهيوني، كما أثبتت التجربة التاريخية على مدى قرن كامل، هو مِن نمط مشاريع الاستعمار الاستيطاني الإحلالي، الذي يقوم على اقتلاع السكان الأصليين وإحلال المستوطنين في مكانهم، كما جرى في الولايات المتحدة وأستراليا ونيوزيلندا، مثلاً لا حصراً. وككلّ عمليات الاستعمار الاستيطاني الممتدّة زمنياً، عَرف المشروع الصهيوني فترات تتسارع فيها وتيرة التطهير العرقي للفلسطينيين والاستيلاء على أرضهم، كحربَي 1948 وبدرجة أقلّ 1967، وفترات تتراجع فيها هذه الوتيرة لكن من دون أن تتوقف أبداً، بحيث يستمرّ الاقتلاع والاستيطان والضمّ على «نار هادئة». صفقة ترامب تهدف إلى تسريع مسار الاقتلاع. هذا ما فهمه الشعب الفلسطيني وقواه المقاومة من جهة، وقطعان الصهاينة وقياداتهم من جهة أخرى، والنتيجة المباشرة هي تصاعد المواجهة في فلسطين، وفي سياق إقليمي ملتهب

صفقة ترامب تهدف إلى تسريع مسار اقتلاع الفلسطينيين

في مقابلة شهيرة مع «هآرتس» أجراها بعدما أصبح رئيساً للوزراء في شباط/ فبراير 2001، لخّص آرييل شارون، «آخر ملوك إسرائيل»، حسب أنصاره، بدقّة وصراحة شديدتَين، طبيعة المشروع الصهيوني عندما جزم، على رغم ما سمّي آنذاك بمسار التسوية، أن «حرب الاستقلال لم تنتهِ». وأكّد شارون أن المطلوب هو الاستمرار في الاستيلاء على الأرض الفلسطينية واستيطانها «متراً بعد متر وحجراً بعد حجر». أهمية هذه المقابلة تكمن في قطعها مع الخطاب التضليلي الذي اعتُمد خلال تسعينيات القرن الماضي مِن قِبَل «الحمائم» الصهاينة، كإسحاق رابين وشمعون بيريس، عن التسوية بين الشعبَين والتنازلات المتبادلة وبناء الثقة وغيرها من الترّهات. مرّ 19 عاماً على حديث شارون، ومن الواضح اليوم أن الحكومات الإسرائيلية المتعاقبة مضت بالسياسة نفسها. وقد أصبحنا أمام إدارة أميركية تُزايد بصهيونيتها على حكومة إسرائيلية تضمّ اليمين واليمين المتطرّف. انتهت أكذوبة التسوية وانكشفت حقيقة العرّاب الأميركي وحلفائه من «المعتدلين» العرب. حَشْرُ الفلسطينيين في أرخبيل المعازل الذي رسمت «صفقة القرن» حدوده التقريبية القابلة دائماً للتعديل وفقاً لرغبات إسرائيل، واستكمال الاستيلاء على ما بقي من أرضهم، هو عنوان المرحلة الراهنة مِن مسار الاقتلاع. الأهوال التي ستنجم عن هذه المرحلة لم تدفع السلطة الفلسطينية، إلى الآن، على رغم إعلان معارضتها صفقة ترامب ووقفها التعامل مع الحكومتين الأميركية والإسرائيلية، إلى إجراء مراجعة جدّية للنهج الذي تبنّته، واتّخاذ الخطوات التي تَفرض نفسها دفاعاً عن بقاء الشعب الفلسطيني في أرضه، وأولاها وقف التنسيق الأمني والسماح لجماهيره ولقواه المقاومة بمواجهة الاحتلال. لكن، بما أن الصراع في طريقه إلى الاحتدام نتيجةً لتسارع مسار الاقتلاع، لن تستطيع السلطة الاستمرار في النهج ذاته، وهي ستضطر إمّا للتحول إلى مجرّد قوة رديفة للاحتلال تحرس المعازل وتصطدم بشعبها، أو على الأقل أن تتركه ومقاوميه، أمثال سند طرمان، يتصدّون لهذا الاحتلال. إن انطلاق انتفاضة ثالثة، شعبية ومسلّحة، في ظلّ تحوّلات تدريجية في موازين القوى في الإقليم لمصلحة محور المقاومة، الحليف الوحيد للشعب الفلسطيني، كفيل بأن يفرض متغيّرات ميدانية وسياسية، محلية وإقليمية ودولية، تفتح آفاقاً جديدة أمام نضاله. وتستطيع شعوب الأمة وقواها الحية المشاركة في هذه المعركة، من خلال استهداف الوجود الأميركي، راعي سار الاقتلاع وداعمه، بجميع الوسائل الضرورية. وما يزيد من فرص الانتصار في هذه المعركة الوجودية، هو أن جبهة الأعداء الأميركية – الإسرائيلية أضعف مِن السابق، وهي ستُجبَر على التراجع وتقديم التنازلات عندما توقن أن المنطقة ستتحوّل إلى كتلة من لهب.

مقالات مرتبطة

ISRAEL MUST PERISH! The Book that the Jews Fear By Arthur Topham

by admin on January 17, 2020

The Book that the Jews Fear
By Arthur Topham

May 27, 2011

Author’s Preface:

What is contained herein is but a synopsis and partial review of the verbatim text of an actual book first published in the USA back in early 1941 when America was still a neutral country. That book, Germany Must Perish! was written by a Jewish writer by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman. Its exact proposals are those contained herein.

It is assumed that the reader will already be fully cognizant of the Zionist agenda for global governance that is a given in today’s political reality, especially within the alternative media and on the Internet where Zionist “hate” laws are still not fully in place to restrict the natural flow of ideas and opinions that proceed from historical research and experience.

In 1941 Kaufman’s book was a brilliant piece of Zionist Jew propaganda designed to stir up anti-German hatred in America. Some say that it formed the basis of the infamous “Morgenthau Plan” that was later signed in Quebec, Canada by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill; one designed to dismember Germany after its defeat and reduce it to the status of “a goat pasture.” It was, and probably remains to this day, the foremost example of hate literature ever to have been published and dispensed to the general public.

As the reader will surmise from viewing the image of the back page of Kaufman’s book some of America’s most prestigious newspapers and magazines were in full support of the objectives set down in this classic book of Jewish hate literature. Again, the reader is cautioned to bear in mind that I have changed the word “Nazi” to “Jew” in the quote from the Philadelphia Record as I have changed all the other words “German” and “Nazi” to “Jew” and “Zionist,” etc.

The striking thing about the vileness of the text is how, today, it seems to roll off the mind’s tongue as if it were as truthful and factual as the rising sun. As such I firmly believe that all of what the Zionist Jews write about others is actually but a reflection of their own inner, perverse, dislocated self. By projecting outward on to others their innate paranoid and deep-seated hatred for the rest of the world they’re able to meet the requirements of the Israeli state’s motto which reads, “By Way of Deception Though Shalt Cause War” and feel a sense of superiority and self-righteousness in doing so.

I would humbly ask the reader to be aware of these features as they read both the text and the context in which it was first written. I have, as the saying goes, only changed the names to protect the innocent. As for any further extrapolation I will leave that up to the reader.

________________

ISRAEL MUST PERISH! The Book that the Jews Fear By Roy Arthur Topham

Beginning with the Table of Contents page Topham makes this dramatic initial statement:

“This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the Jewish nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people.”

How do you like those apples so far? Talk about cutting to the chase!

from Chapter One: About This Book

“Today’s wars are not wars against Netanyahu.

Nor are they wars against the Zionists…

Netanyahu is no more to be blamed for these Israeli wars than was Sharon for the last one. Nor Begin before. These men did not originate or wage Israel’s wars against the world. They were merely the mirrors reflecting centuries-old inbred lust of the Jewish nation for conquest and mass murder.

These wars are being waged by the Jewish people. It is they who are responsible. It is they who must be made to pay for the wars.

…This time Israel has forced a TOTAL WAR upon the world.

As a result, she must be prepared to pay a TOTAL PENALTY.

And there is one, and only one, such Total Penalty:

Israel must perish forever!

In fact – not in fancy!”

*******************

“For quite patently, to fight once more in democratic defense against Israel with any goal in view save that country’s extinction constitutes, even though it lose the war, a Jewish victory. To fight, to win, and not this time to end Jewish Zionism forever by exterminating completely those people who spread its doctrine is to herald the outbreak of another Jewish war within a generation.”

When this day of reckoning with Israel comes, as come it will, there will be only one obvious answer. No statesman or politician or leader responsible for post-war settlements will have the right to indulge in the personal luxury of false sentiment and specious sanctimony and declare that Israel, misled by her leaders, shall deserve the right of resurrection!

… the beast that is Israel shall never roam the earth again!

It is a definite obligation which the world owes to those who struggled and died against the Jews…to make certain that the vicious fangs of the Jewish serpent shall never strike again. And since the venom of those fangs derives its fatal poison not from within the body, but from the war-soul of the Jews, nothing else would assure humanity safety and security but that that war-soul be forever expunged, and the diseased carcass which harbors it be forever removed from this world. There is no longer any alternative:

Israel Must Perish!

… And so it is with the people of Israel. They may respond for a while to civilizing forces; they may seemingly adopt the superficial mannerisms and exterior behaviorisms of civilized peoples but all the while there remains ever present within them that war-soul which eventually drives them, as it drives the tiger, to kill. And no amount of conditioning, or reasoning, or civilizing – past, present or future – will ever be able to change this basic nature. For if no impress has been made upon this war-soul over the period of some two thousand years is it to be expected that of a sudden, on the morrow, this miracle will occur?

This analogous linking of the people of Israel with a savage beast is no vulgar comparison. I feel no more personal hatred for these people than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. If the Jewish people wish to live by themselves, in darkness, it would be strictly their own affair. But when they make constant attempts to enshroud the souls of other people in those fetid wrappings which cloak their own, it becomes time to remove them from the realm of civilized mankind among which they can have no place or right to existence.

We need not condemn the Jews. They stand self-condemned. For it suffices us to read and hear those words written and spoken only by Jews; to observe deeds performed solely by Jews; to endure sufferings and dislocations caused solely by the Jewish people in pursuit of their megalomaniacal ideals and daemonic aspirations to realize that it is the Jews themselves who decree, almost demand, their ostracism from their fellow man. They have lost the wish to be human beings. They are but beasts; they must be dealt with as such.

This is an objective viewpoint, carefully considered and factually sustained. It is the viewpoint taken of them in this book.

War must be fought … with penalties infinitely more frightful and hazardous than war itself.

This book sincerely believes that it has found such a penalty; and by its imposition upon the people of Israel, this book believes that not only would a great scourge be removed from the world, but a great good born to it.”

from Chapter Two: Background of Jewish Zionism

“Jews are an execrable people! They think and dream of nothing but chicanery. Their great joy consists in fault-finding, shrieking and threats. They brandish arms which are like barbed clubs; from their mouths instead of ordinary human speech, issue the rumbling of artillery and the clash of steel; their life is one of perpetual explosion. The Jew does not live on the heights; he avoids light, and from his hiding place he picks to pieces treaties, exercises his malign influence on newspaper articles, pores over maps, measures angles, and traces with gloating eagerness the lines of frontiers. To love their country is for them to despise, flout and insult every other country. They are capable of little else but cheating and lying, even to themselves. They meddle in everyone else’s affairs, poking their nose into matters that do not concern them, criticizing everything, bossing everything, lowering and distorting everything. What a pity that twenty-three centuries after Socrates and Plato, two thousand years after Christ, the voice of men like these should still be heard in the world, worse still that they should be listened to, and worst of all that any one should believe them! Country for them is an isolated organism and they admit it is possible for them to live and breathe in an atmosphere of haughty contempt for their neighbors. They conceive their country as a permanent element of dissolution like a devouring and insatiable monster, a beast of prey, whose one function is to plunder. All that it does not possess it has been robbed of. The universe belongs to it by right. Whoever attempts to escape from its tyranny is a rebel. This jingo country, this bloodthirsty fetish of which they are the champions, they endow, with the capriciousness of potentates, when it suits their purpose, with every marvelous and charming attribute. Whoever does not at once agree with their extravagances is a barbarian. You must love their country in full armor, with dervish-like celebrations and howls, eyes shut and body trembling with ecstasy; a deaf ear must be turned to the rest of the world on its failings. Everything that is not Jewish must be hated. Hate is sacred. Love and hate are in connection with your country two terms proceeding from one condition of mind. For them Industrial progress is not a happy sign of national prosperity but a means of domination. Geography is not the science of the earth, but a mere revelation of the boundaries between which are elaborated strategical schemes of conquest. Every neighbor is of necessity a jealous one, and the enemy who is vigilant is jealous too. The world is populated by hyenas crouching on the plots of earth from which they ought to be dislodged.

The Jew has decided that his race has been elected by God to order the modern world. Anyone who resists him will be an arrogant usurper, who ought to be crushed. The Jew professes to want peace, but it must be his own sort of peace, after the pattern of the Persian satrap’s who, out of love for peace and concord, throws everyone to the lions who dares dispute him. His voice is raucous and resounding; he does not argue but makes sweeping assertions and lays down the law. At the first sign of resistance he grows crimson in the face, and has recourse to thunder and lightning. He holds forth on the authority of a sacred categorical imperative which stands in the stead of truth and order; he respects nothing and no one. Should he find himself confronted by the law, he says that it needs reforming. Ministers are mere clerks to be used as pawns in his maneuvering. He is exacting and cantankerous; whoever undertakes to shout with him never shouts loud enough. To give in to him means becoming enlisted as his civil agent. He is an agitator and swashbuckler. He dips his pen in gall and he sets in motion with his antics the marionettes which appeal to the nation and may come to conquer it. The fundamental superiority of the Jewish race, the necessity of expanding Jewish prestige in all quarters of the globe, of protecting the Jew wherever he may be found, no matter what he may be, because he bears within him a residuum of the race; that is what the educators of youth coming down the years in disciplined array like battalions crossing the maneuver fields, have never ceased to drum into the popular understanding and the flame of victory rising to the sky will be the signal for it to boil over.

…Time cannot change the infernal breed, whatever its label. Time merely enlarges the field in which the Jew can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, practice those monstrous acts which his fevered, war-intoxicated brain dictates, and his vile instincts and barbaric, savage soul prompts. If today the urge of his war-soul can prompt the Jew to murder innocent hostages imagine, if you can, how that same soul will express itself through the thousandfold-more-fanatic Jew of tomorrow?

…Make no mistake about it; world-dominion is not a mirage to the Jew; it never was, and so long as Israel exists as a nation, it never will be. A belief to the contrary, if too-long sustained, may well result in the world’s enslavement by the Jew.

As fantastic and as cyclonic as Zionist “accomplishments” might seem, it is still more fantastic to note as a fact that in the entire annals of history no doctrine ever existed which has all its major beliefs so clearly defined, its methods so concisely detailed, and its aims so vividly, comprehensively, and boldly stated beforehand. It is in every respect a deliberate, ruthlessly calculated plot to rule the world or, failing that, to annihilate it! And so long as the Jewish nation exists it intends, in one form or another, now or later, to bring about just such a catastrophe.

…The poisonous wine of destruction has long before been distilled; Netanyahu is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle, which is the Jewish war-soul, into the jug that is world humanity. In detailing those ingredients which combine to constitute the toxic formula of Jewish Zionism the author shall quote, wherever confirmation of his statements may be deemed advisable, principally from Jewish sources. For after all no one can explain the Jew so well as he himself. He has made no secret of his character, his ambitions and his intentions. By his acts he has himself bared his heart and soul; by his words, by his own hand he will someday come to dig his own grave.

It is not to be wondered at that the nations of the Western world regard the avowed program of the Zionist Jew for world conquest and dominion with a great deal of amazement and incredulity. For such an idea is entirely alien to those basic principles and instincts of the western civilization which, painfully and gradually, arose out of the chaos of the past thousands of years. Such civilized nations regard individual rights, the sacredness of human life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the virtues of mankind and itself, the individual States, as guarantor of those rights. And though, at one time or another during their existence nations may have sought political and economic adjustments, even territorial aggrandizement through force of arms, it must be noted that no Western nation has ever made such a religion of war, such idolatry of armaments, and such a cult of mass murder and destruction as has Israel and her peoples.

According to her own writers, teachers and statesmen Israel has but one great reason for existing; that of achieving world-dominion! Since that is its highest aim, therefore, Israel constantly claims that it has every right to make free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution and oppression, in order to achieve that goal. Consequently such a perverted nation, such a State of human negation, views its vice as being the only true virtue in life, whereas to the Jews the virtues as they are known and may be practiced by the rest of the world are merely vices due to the latter’s decay and degeneration! As though there exists anywhere in the world a nation which can boast of degeneration in the same degree as Israel!

The primary reason which stirs Jewish lust for world dominion was best summarized by a Jewish professor who declared that since Israel will never be able to understand the world, the latter must be conquered and reformed so that it will be able to conform to Jewish thought!

It is just such mass megalomania, crass egoism and intellectual aberrancy which stirred the demented brain of the Jew of yesterday to foment his wars; which animates the insane Zionist today in continuing those wars and which will, if the schizophrenic Ashkenazim continue to exist, direct the policies and actions of any party in control of Israel in the future. For, to reiterate, the Jewish idea of world-dominion and enslavement of its peoples is no political belief: it is a fierce and burning gospel of hate and intolerance, of murder and destruction and the unloosing of a sadistic blood lust. It is, in every literal sense, a savage and pagan religion which incites its worshippers first to a barbaric frenzy and then prompts them to vent their animal ferocity in the practice of every horrible, ruthless and unmentionable atrocity upon innocent men, women and children. Such are the true Jewish virtues! And the world will feel their sting so long as they continue to tolerate Israel and her peoples on the earth, for those Jewish traits are the same as those which, emanating from the Jewish soul, animated the Jewish tribes of yore. We have but to examine the development of those tribes to perceive just to what extent within the Jewish soul, the Jewish ideal of world conquest and dominion really lies.

… Such is the ” Chosen Master-Race” of the world!

from Chapter 3. Organized Jewish Zionism

…Zionism — the theory of a master race of Jews destined to enslave a weak world by force and brutality — had been an unvoiced doctrine of Jewish belief since tribal days until the latter part of the last century when it reached its maturity by becoming fashioned into a vast and well-organized movement [World Zionist Organization. A.T.]. Its astounding and ambitious program amalgamated all the major doctrines and beliefs of such Jewish teachers, writers, statesmen and philosophers as Rabbi Yehudah Akalai, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, Moses Hess, Eliezer Ben-Yehudah, Moshe Leib Lilienblum, Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau, Ahad Ha-am aka Asher Zvi Ginsberg, Hayyim Nahman Bialik, Jacob Klatzkin, Nahman Syrkin, Rabbi Samuel Mohilever, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, Martin Buber, Bernard Lazare, Solomon Schecter, Nahum Sokolow, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, Mordecai Menahem Kaplan, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion. And because the doctrine which it preached touched upon the very roots of the Jewish soul, and embraced the fundamental tenets of the Jewish intellect, the movement met with immediate and tremendously popular response. In fact its program was so popular with the Jews that within ten years after its inception its malignant dogma was already spread throughout the entire world.

…The World Zionist Organization combined various doctrines into a program of action and issued, among its statutes, four main principles which lay down broadly its chief objectives. They were:

1. To watch over and support all Jewish national movements in all countries where Jews have to sustain a struggle in support of Zionism with the object of embracing and uniting all Jews on the globe.

2. To promote an active Jewish policy in interests in Europe and across the seas and especially to further all colonial movements for practical purposes.

3. To treat and solve all questions bearing upon the bringing up of children and higher education in the Jewish sense.

4. To quicken patriotic self-consciousness of Jews, and to offer opposition to all movements antagonistic to Israeli national development.

…Branches of the World Zionist Organization (now working covertly under the name B’nai Brith International) sprang up in major cities of the world…. With the spread of its propaganda, B’nai Brith International Israel’s Mossad scattered a large number of secret agents throughout the world for the purpose of supplying it with confidential reports relating to the gospel of Zionism. These agents were the forerunners of the present day fifth-columnists [working within the Zionist media and on the Internet. A.T.]; it was their work which started the compilation of the notorious Jewish “scrap-book” in which the Israeli government listed all its enemies, and enemies to the idea of a Jewish-dominated world. To a nation such as Israel blackmail pales in insignificance to its other crimes. And so, with every passing hour, the members of B’nai Brith International continued with their nefarious work which, teaching and enforcing the great common Zionist Jew ideal of world-enslavement, quickly became an integral part of the average Jew’s life and dreams…. The vicious virus of Zionism had been injected into the life stream of the public, and the Jews awaited the epidemic which they felt must sooner or later infest the world.

As a matter of fact, the work and program as well as the propaganda which they spread had reached such a pitch that as far back as 1897 various Jewish writers were already busy prophesying how and when the ideological goal of Zionist world-dominion would be attained! These prophets were by no means few in number; there exists a large number of serious works by Jewish authors in which the destiny of Israel is elaborately worked out in full detail and the deification of Zionism and the Holocaust Myth as a world religion depicted.

from Chapter 4. Jewish Zionism Abroad

…The task of spreading the heathenish cult of Zionism in foreign lands was delegated to the World Zionist Organization, an organization maintained by the Rothschilds and B’nai Brith International. Beginning its operations in 1897 that association was the first to prepare the ground and develop and test the tactics which are being used today by all Zionist Jew fifth-columnists.

…True Zionism, being as it is a purely primitive paganism with some modern “refinements” finds that it can express itself best by committing truly barbaric and bestial acts of violence against innocent civilized peoples [such as the Palestinians. A.T.] Thus, if Zionism were ever to prevail upon this earth, we can be sure that every step would be taken — though few indeed are these steps which the Jews have not already taken! — to reawaken every dormant animal instinct and vicious trait in man.

Thus it has been a chief aim of the Jew to eradicate each and every one of the three principal religions from the earth. However, the Jew was practical enough to realize that he could not successfully combat all these religions at one time with any hope of emerging supreme. But since their extinction was absolutely necessary to the propagation of the Zionist dogma of hate and destruction, the Jews conceived their now infamous and oft-tried trick of pitting first the believers in one religion against those of another until, at a single coup, they could deliver the final knock-out blow against the single remaining adversary.

…Zionism was born ages ago, its growth has been proceeding for centuries, and it has now reached an advanced stage of flowering. Netanyahu is but a bud indicative of what kind of “flower” when it comes to full bloom, the world may expect to see!

Because she made no effort thousands of years ago, to become civilized as did her neighbors, Israel today is an outsider among all civilized nations. The processes which it has taken other nations thousands of years to absorb, cannot be suddenly absorbed by Israel overnight. Consequently, the continued existence of Israel among them becomes increasingly inimical to the best interests of civilized nations.

The deliberate and perverse distortions of what should have been a sane and normal course of development — as in other nations — now gives to Israel and her people a capacity unexcelled by any other peoples on earth, for fostering and propagating every indecent and inhuman precept of life. And as she seeks to distribute her own poisonous brew she has herself become so intoxicated by its ingredients that she can no longer escape the ever-constant desire, the urgent compulsion and the burning lust which it incites in her to extinguish any and all signs of good which she sees developed or practiced in other lands. Thus in self-justification Israel would excuse her own unnatural and perverse life by polluting others with her malignant infection. Israel is now well beyond all saving. The world had best look to its own preservation and welfare, lest some of those Jewish poisons run through her system also and come to destroy it!

With each succeeding world war which she plans, plots and starts Zionism comes ever closer and closer to her goal of world-dominion. At the present time Netanyahu, who has merely striven to remedy mistakes which previous Jewish leaders made in attempts at world-subjection, may bring the Jewish people very close to realizing their goal. And Netanyahu is not the last of the Jewish leaders!

How much misery, suffering, death and destruction are needed before it becomes apparent to the world that any compromise with Zionism will, of itself, be a certain guarantee that soon thereafter, Israel must again embark upon her unholy crusade to dominate it. How many more chances will be vouchsafed it to beat back Zionism? Suppose there comes a time when Israel can not be halted? Dare we risk waiting? One never knows the exact hour one is scheduled to die; can we, with any more certitude and assurance tell which opportunity shall be our last? It may well be that this is our last chance. Suppose we pass it by; look ahead. Next time, the so-called elder generation of Israel will be the Mossad-trained youth of today, and this elder generation, now mothers and fathers, will already have instilled and encouraged their children with the idea of world-dominion. Thus the next Israeli leader may come to lead a nation of born fanatics! As a consequence of this there may come to be welded a machine so gigantic in proportions, so overwhelming in destructive power, that it may well overcome every possible obstacle in its path. For assuredly the Israeli youth of the next generation — today schooled in Talmudic Zionist schools — will find a leader, as past generations of Jewish youth have always found a leader, to incarnate and personify the body and soul of that nation and dominate its collective Will.

A leader who will feed that Israeli body and soul the only food upon which it can subsist: War!

from Chapter 6. A Middle Road?

…With Zionism shown thus to be the very soul of conquest and world-dominion, may we not then pose this question: Is it possible for the world, in any manner, to find some compromise that will allow both it and Israel to exist side by side in peace and justice? In concrete terms, were peace declared tomorrow to Israel’s apparent satisfaction, could this nation born and bred on blood, be expected to be appeased for more than the immediate future?

We should like to hope so; but the history of that nation cuts the hope out of our heart.

…What then of a democratic Israel?

Democracy for a people who believe only in superiority, not equality?

…Israel already has given us her answer:

“Israel does not want a share of anything. She wants, she demands, all or nothing.

…A final solution: Let Israel be policed forever by an international armed force?

Even if such a huge undertaking were feasible life itself would not have it so. As war begets war, suppression begets rebellion. Undreamed horrors would unfold.

Thus we find that there is no middle course; no act of mediation, no compromise to be compounded, no political or economic sharing to be considered. There is, in fine, no other solution except one: That Israel must perish forever from this earth!

And, fortunately, as we shall now come to see, that is no longer impossible of accomplishment.

from 7. Death to Israel

…When an Individual commits premeditated murder, he must be prepared to forfeit his own life in consequence. When a nation commits premeditated murder upon its fellow nations, it must be prepared to forfeit its own national life.

On that point the laws of man and God are explicit:

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life.”

But what is the law of man or God to Israel? Nothing.

She recognizes only Jewish law; so be it.

It must then be Jewish law, if such a law there be, which decrees her penalty — the penalty of death.

And there is such a Jewish law which decrees that death to her:

As in all human affairs, there must also be in every system of punishment a last limit, a ne plus ultra that no punishment can overstep. Thus even from the point of view of pure theory the necessity of the depth-penalty is postulated; it is, as the ultimate punishment on earth, the indispensable keystone of every ordered system of criminal law. No apparent reasons which are alleged against it can withstand any serious criticism. The State, which has the right to sacrifice for its own protection the flower of its youth, is to feel so nice a regard for the life of a murderer? We much rather allow to the State the right to make away with men who are undoubtedly injurious to the common weal. That the powers that be must bear the sword is an expression which runs deep in the blood of the honest man; if this truth is to be banished out of the world, great wrong is done to the simple moral feeling of the people. The ultimate problems of the moral life are to be solved in the domain of the practical, not of the theoretical, reason. The conscience of every earnest man demands that blood be atoned by blood, and the common man must simply grow doubtful of the existence of justice on earth, of this last and highest punishment is not inflicted. The State makes itself ridiculous and contemptible if it cannot finally dispose of a criminal. There must be a limit for mercy and indulgence, as for the law, a last limit at which the State says: “This is the end, humanity is not longer possible here.” It must be possible to inflict at last a punishment beyond which there is nothing, and that is the punishment of death.

Let Jewish Will be done!

There remains now but to determine the best way, the most practical and expeditious manner in which the ultimate penalty must be levied upon the Israeli nation. Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out. In addition to being impractical when applied to a population of some five million, such methods are inconsistent with the moral obligations and ethical practices of civilization. There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forces of Zionism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Israel from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal.

Sterilization is not to be confused with castration. It is a safe and simple operation, quite harmless and painless, neither mutilating nor unsexing the patient. Its effects are most often less distressing than vaccination and not more serious than a tooth extraction. Too, the operation is extremely rapid requiring no more than ten minutes to complete. The patient may resume his work immediately afterwards. Even in the case of the female the operation, though taking longer to perform, is as safe and simple. Performed thousands of times, no records indicate cases of complication or death. When one realizes that such health measures as vaccination and serum treatments are considered as direct benefits to the community, certainly sterilization of the Jewish people cannot but be considered a great health measure promoted by humanity to immunize itself forever against the virus of Zionism.

…Concerning the males subject to sterilization the army groups, as organized units, would be the easiest and quickest to deal with. Taking 2,000 surgeons as an arbitrary number and on the assumption that each will perform a minimum of 25 operations daily, it would take no more than one month, at the maximum, to complete their sterilization. Naturally the more doctors available, and many more than the 2,000 we mention would be available considering all the nations to be drawn upon, the less time would be required. The balance of the male civilian population of Israel could be treated within three months. Inasmuch as sterilization of women needs somewhat more time, it may be computed that the entire female population of Israel could be sterilized within a period of a year or less. Complete sterilization of both sexes, and not only one, is to be considered necessary in view of the present Jewish doctrine that so much as one drop of true Jewish blood constitutes a Jew.

Of course, after complete sterilization, there will cease to be a birth rate in Israel. At the normal death rate of 2 per cent per annum, Jewish life will diminish considerably. Accordingly in the span of two generations that which cost millions of lives and centuries of useless effort, namely, the elimination of Zionism and its carriers, will have been an accomplished fact. By virtue of its loss of self-perpetuation Israel will have atrophied and Jewish power reduced to negligible importance.

Reviewing the foregoing case of sterilization we find that several factors resulting from it firmly establish its advocacy.

Firstly, no physical pain will be imposed upon the inhabitants of Israel through its application, a decidedly more humane treatment than they will have deserved.

Secondly, execution of the plan would in no way disorganize the present population nor would it cause any sudden mass upheavals and dislocations. The consequent gradual disappearance of the Jews from Arab territory will leave no more negative effect upon that continent than did the gradual disappearance of the Indians upon this.

…A detailed program of the manner in which the outraged victims of the Zionism onslaught might make certain that Israel leave no gap might be put hypothetically:

Israel has lost its war. She sues for peace. The imperative demands of the victor people that Israel must perish forever makes it obligatory for the leaders to select mass sterilization of the Jews as the best means of wiping them out permanently. They proceed to:

1. Immediately and completely disarm the Israeli army and have all armaments removed from Israeli territory.

2. Place all Israeli utility and heavy industrial plants under heavy guard, and replace Jewish workers by those of Allied nationality.

3. Segregate the Israeli army into groups, concentrate them in severely restricted areas, and summarily sterilize them.

4. Organize the civilian population, both male and female, within territorial sectors, and effect their sterilization.

5. Divide the Israeli army (after its sterilization has been completed) into labor battalions, and allocate their services toward the rebuilding of those cities which they ruined.

6. Partition Israel and apportion its lands to the existing Arab population.

7. Restrict all Jewish civilian travel beyond established borders until all sterilization has been completed.

8. Compel the Jewish population of the apportioned territories to learn the language of its area, and within one year to cease the publication of all books, newspapers and notices in the Hebrew language, as well as to restrict Hebrew-language broadcasts and discontinue the maintenance of Hebrew-language schools.

9. Make one exception to an otherwise severely strict enforcement of total sterilization, by exempting from such treatment only those Jews whose relatives, being citizens of various victor nations, assume financial responsibility for their actions. Thus, into an oblivion which she would have visited upon the world, exits Israel.

from 8. ‘Lest We Forget …’

Perhaps in the Future …

United States has entered the war. The struggle is long and bitter but at last the Allies forge ahead. Their armies surround Israel.

Israel realizes that she has lost. She does not want invasions. She fears the vengeance long overdue her. So she sues for peace. Comes the Armistice!

And immediately thereafter, as once before, Israel finds that the words “Humanity” — which she has debased; “Justice” — which she has distorted; and “God” whom she has profaned, have an irresistible sales appeal to Allied Statesmen.

Israel puts her Zionist propaganda machine to work.

Soon men in the victor nations are urging:

“Peace with Honor!” — “Justice without Rancor!” — “God and Mercy!”, and all those other weak, sticky phrases which befuddle the weary minds and exhausted emotions of the long-suffering people of the war-decimated democracies.

Forgotten in the sudden lush of a peace that is no peace, are all the brave sons who were sacrificed to the monster Israhell: forgotten is the plight of the countries whose resources were drained, and whose energies were sapped in stemming the Talmudic onslaught. Forgotten, too, is the duty owed to generations yet to be born.

Yes: all forgotten because the Allies cannot resist such an appeal. And so, even though a hundred years and a hundred instances have shown the hypocrisy of a Jewish promise, the Allies fall once again its victim.

They forget that the struggle they waged was not a sport’s contest: that their adversary was a beast, not a human being! And so, filled to overflowing with the infectious germ of sentiment, they stretch out their hand to their fallen opponent and help him arise. They pat him on the back with a hearty “No hard feelings, old man!” and, happy that the war is now over and done with, return to their homes.

Believing, sincerely, that Jewish war will not come again.

Believing that somehow, in some inexplicable manner, Israel has accepted Christ.

A decade passes. A decade of hard work and many sacrifices.

A decade of much sweat and little pleasure.

But the democratic peoples do not mind. They are building a better world for their children.

So they think.

Meanwhile Israel grows strong and robust.

Her army is larger and more powerful than ever before; she has developed new weapons whose frightfulness surpass all imagination. She had found a new leader. And her war-souled people are bent once again upon conquering the world. Once more the earth trembles beneath the depleted uranium missiles of the Jewish defense forces.

Like a cobra Israel is poised:

She strikes!

The people of the civilized nations are stunned.

They exclaim, “But it cannot be again!”

But it is.

And this time it is Too Late!

For Israel wins. She is master of the world.

…and so a thousand years of peace was sold to the Devil for a moment’s respite! And only because men tried to placate the body, instead of expunging forever the bestial war-soul, of the Jew!

The sun now shivers as it rises upon a Dark world.

For slaves to the Jews are children once free.

Civilization is no more. Perversity is raged rampant.

Even the moon shudders as it wanes in a frightening chill.

This is, finally the, “New World Order!”

Shall it be so?

Our choice lies still before us:

False sentiment or courageous decision —

Which shall it be?

The End

Netanyahu’s Real Crimes

Global Research, November 26, 2019
Arab American Institute 23 November 2019

After years of investigation and months of delay, Israel’s Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit formally indicted Benjamin Netanyahu for crimes ranging from his violation of public trust to bribery and fraud. Israel’s apologists will argue that the fact that a sitting Prime Minister has been charged with crimes against the state and people presents compelling evidence of the country’s democracy and commitment to the rule of law. This is the very point that Mandelblit made in announcing the indictments – “The public interest requires that we live in a country where no one is above the law.” However, this is only partially true since it appears that in Israel the principles of democracy or the rule of law only apply to Israeli Jews or the interests of the state, itself. In fact, Netanyahu’s entire sordid career is evidence of the selectiveness of Israelis’ sense of justice.

In the past the Netanyahu household has been charged with some of the pettiest forms of corruption imaginable. For example, his wife was found guilty of taking the empty bottles from beverages consumed at official state functions and keeping the money she received for turning them for recycling. The Netanyahus were also known to bring three weeks of dirty laundry on two-day official state trips and sending them to the hotel in which they were staying for a night so that the cleaning bill would be charged to the state’s budget. This is the sort of past petty thievery for which the Netanyahus were famous.

Looking at the recent indictments, it is clear that the Prime Minister has graduated to bigger and better forms of fraud and corruption. What’s striking, however, is that all of the crimes with which he is charged were focused on feeding his ego or his appetites. In some instances, they were favors done for a businessman in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts, in others they were the corrupt deals he made with various media tycoons in which he promised them benefits in exchange for their guaranteeing him positive coverage in their news outlets.

There is no doubt, that in all of these cases, Netanyahu’s behavior has been clearly criminal and reprehensible, and, as described by the Attorney General, a breach of the public’s trust. But what I find so striking and disturbing, is that these crimes pale in significance when compared to what Netanyahu has done to the Palestinian people and the prospect for Israeli-Palestinian peace – crimes for which he will not be called to account.

After Oslo, Netanyahu organized a back-door lobby to mobilize US Congressional opposition to the peace accords. This was the first time an Israeli lobby worked in the US to oppose their own government. He should have been charged with treason.

Back in Israel, during the same period, he organized with Ariel Sharon and a few others a smear campaign of incitement against Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The campaign was so virulent and threatening that many Israelis, including Rabin’s wife, held Netanyahu responsible for Rabin’s assassination. Netanyahu should have been charged with incitement.

Image result for yitzhak rabin death

In 1996, he was elected Prime Minister on a platform dedicated to ending the peace process and he did everything he could to slow down, distort, and ultimately sabotage the Oslo Peace Process. Even the agreement he signed with the Palestinians at Wye so encumbered the process that by the end of his first term in office, peace was on life support.  He should have been charged with destroying the prospects for peace and putting at risk the lives of millions.

During his last three terms in office, he incited violence and hatred against Palestinians, both those who are citizens of Israel and those living under occupation. This has fueled extremist settler movements that have engaged in daily acts of violence, destruction of property, and murder. He also encouraged soldiers in the Israeli army to murder defenseless Palestinians and supported them when they were charged with crimes. In addition, as he did with Rabin, he has falsely accused his Israeli opponents of being too close to the Arabs and accused the Palestinian citizens of Israel of being enemies of the state. He should have been charged with hate crimes.

During his time in office he has: expanded settlements on stolen Palestinian land and the demolition of Palestinian property; overseen a number of devastating assaults on Gaza resulting in the indiscriminate massacre of thousands of innocent civilians and the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure; instituted and maintained a cruel blockade of Gaza’s population, as an act of collective punishment, in which, for long periods of time, food, medicine, and other essential items were restricted or severely regulated – resulting in death, disease, and impoverishment of millions of innocents. He should have been charged with war crimes.

The list could go on, but this should suffice.

The bottom line is that, to be sure, Netanyahu is a criminal. But in today’s Israel he can’t be found guilty of his most serious crimes – treason, incitement, destroying peace, hate crimes, and war crimes. Instead, he will be asked only to answer for his narcissistic appetites and corruption.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

The Middle East Agenda: Oil, Dollar Hegemony & Islam in Imperialism

By Professor Francis A Boyle

May 11, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –  Assalamu’alaikum. Dr. Mahathir, Mrs. Mahathir, distinguished Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Little has changed in the imperialist tendencies of American foreign policy since the founding of the United States of America in seventeen eighty-nine. The fledgling United States opened the nineteenth century by stealing the continent of North America from the Indians, while in the process ethnically cleansing them and then finally deporting the pitiful few survivors by means of death marches (à la Bataan) to Bantustans, which in America we call reservations, as in instance of America’s “Manifest Destiny” to rule the world.

Then, the imperial government of the United States opened the twentieth century by stealing a colonial empire from Spain — in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, then inflicting a near-genocidal war against the Filipino people. While at the same time, purporting to annex, the kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the native Hawaiian people to near-genocidal conditions from which they still suffer today. All in the name of securing America’s so-called place in the sun.

And today at the dawn of the twenty first century, the world witnesses the effort by the imperial government of the United States of America to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Moslem states and peoples, surrounding central Asia and the Persian Gulf under the pretext of fighting a war against international terrorism or eliminating weapons of mass destruction or promoting democracy, which is total nonsense.

For the past two hundred and sixteen years, the imperialist foreign policy of the United States of America since its foundation, has been predicated upon racism, aggression, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, war crimes and outright genocide. At the dawn of the third millennium of humankind’s parlous existence, nothing has changed about the operational dynamics of American imperial policy. And we see this today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and what appears to be an illegal attack upon Iran.

Now the assigned topic today is The Middle East Agenda : Oil, Dollar Hegemony and Islam. So, I’m only going to limit my comments to that subject. We have to begin the story with the Arab oil embargo in 1973. As you know in 1967, Israel launched an illegal war of aggression against the surrounding Arab states, stole their land and ethnically cleansed their people. But eventually Egypt offered a Peace Treaty to Israel, which Israel rejected and the Egyptians and the Arab states decided then to use force to recover their lands.

Israel almost collapsed, the United States and Europe came to their support by providing weapons and in reaction the Arab states imposed an oil embargo on the United States and Europe, and brought their economies to their knees. Whereupon, the then U.S Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger threatened them and said: This will never happen again, and if you do, we will prevent it. And it was not just a threat. The United States government then at that time, planned, prepared and conspired, to steal the oil of the Persian Gulf. They did not have the military capability to do this at that time, to carry out the Kissinger threat, which was also then repeated by the Ford administration, and the Carter administration under Harold Brown and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

So they put into planning an interventionary force, designed expressly for the purpose of stealing Arab oil fields, and that was called the Rapid Deployment Force. And it took ten years of training, planning, positioning, and supply to build that interventionary force of that capability and eventually it was called the U.S. Central Command. The purpose of the U.S. Central Command is to steal and control and dominate the oil and gas resources of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. And that’s exactly what the U.S. Central Command proceeded to do in the Bush Sr. war against Iraq, their first military expedition.

And as we know, that war exterminated probably two hundred thousand Iraqis. Half of them innocent civilians. Simply wiped out in a bombing campaign and a military expedition of unprecedented dimensions. But remember, it took fifteen years for the Pentagon and three different administrations both Republicans and Democrats to get the capability to do this. And then, when that genocide or conflict was over, what happened? The United States carved Iraq up into three pieces with their air force, the so-called no-fly zones, a zone for the Kurds in the North, a zone for the Shi’ah in the South, and the Sunni in the middle. Why? To destroy Iraq as an effectively viable state.

In his book, Clash of Civilizations, Huntington from Harvard who advised the Pentagon and advised the State Department pointed out that the only Arab state with the capability to lead the Arab world and challenge the United States and Israel was Iraq. And so Iraq had to be destroyed, to maintain the domination of the United States and its proxy, Israel. And remember after 1973, whatever it was before then, Israel is nothing more than a catspaw of the United States. They do what America tells them to do! Otherwise Israel is nothing more than a failed state.

In addition then, to destroying Iraq as a state, carving it up into three pieces, was the decision to debilitate and destroy the Iraqi people. And so they continued the genocidal economic sanctions on the people of Iraq, that my colleagues, Denis Halliday, Hans Von Sponeck, so courageously resisted and finally resigned from the United Nations as a matter of principle, calling them by what they really were: genocide. The United States and Britain maliciously and criminally imposed genocidal sanctions on the people of Iraq, that killed approximately 1.5 million Iraqis, all of whom were innocent civilians.

And when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the five hundred thousand dead children, she said that she thought the price was worth it. Now, I could have taken that statement to the International Court of Justice, and filed it against the United States as evidence of genocidal intent against the people of Iraq in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention. And indeed I offered to do so to the then President of Iraq, but for whatever reasons he decided not to take these claims to the International Court of Justice.

And now, as you see, he is on trial in a total kangaroo court proceeding in Baghdad that is completely controlled and dominated by the United States government. So, 1.5 million Iraqis died as the result of these genocidal sanctions. And then came September 11. And we know for a fact that the Bush Jr. administration knew that a major terrorist attack was going to be launched on the United States. And they let it happen anyway deliberately and on purpose. Why? They wanted a pretext for war. And not just one war but for a long war which they are talking about today.

Indeed, from my research the war plans drawn up by the Pentagon for the war against Afghanistan were formulated as early as 1997.Enormous military forces fielded by that same U.S. Central Command, were already in and around and surrounding the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean before September 11. This war had been long-planned against Afghanistan. And armed, equipped, supplied, trained and war-gamed and ready to go. They just needed the pretext and that was September 11. Why? The United States wanted access to the oil and natural gas of Central Asia.

That had been a Pentagon objective since at least before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. And the 9/11 attack gave them the pretext to make this major grab for the oil and gas of Central Asia. And they are there today with their bases, with their troops, in the surrounding countries in Central Asia. And of course in the process, obliterated, we don’t even have an estimate of the Muslims in Afghanistan who were killed in the air bombardment, twenty, twenty five thousand, maybe more, and tens of thousands of others starved to death and still suffering today.

But that, as we know from all the records was only the first step in the process. They wanted to finish the job in Iraq. And so immediately after September 11, Bush ordered Rumsfeld to update and operationalize the plans for attacking and invading Iraq. It had nothing at all to do with weapons of mass destruction. We in the peace movement in America had been saying that all along. The United Nations had determined there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These were lies designed to scaremonger the American people and Congress into supporting an illegal war of aggression, a Nuremberg crime against peace, against Iraq. And they told whatever lies and broke what international laws they had to break in order to attack Iraq.

And today the estimate, again we don’t know. Perhaps two hundred thousand people in Iraq had been killed outright by the United States, Britain, their allies, in Iraq. And again, most of them civilians. Clearly if you add up what United States government has done to Iraq from August of 1990, when it imposed the genocidal economic embargo until today. The United States and Britain have inflicted outright genocide on the Muslim and Christian people of Iraq and they are predominately Muslim as we know.

Now comes the third step in the Pentagon’s pre-existing plan, to control and dominate the oil and gas resources of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. It sounds a bit like the plan that Hitler and the Nazis had in the 1930s. Does it not? First go into Austria, then go into Czechoslovakia, then go into Poland. So first Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Iran. Iran is going to be the next victim of these outright criminals unless you and I can stop them.

Right now there are three aircraft carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf. And whenever they had put three aircraft carrier task forces over there, it’s always to prepare for an attack. And according to Seymour Hersch, the award winning journalist, it will probably be an aerial bombardment, along the lines of what they did to Yugoslavia in 1999. As you remember there, seventy eight days of aerial bombardment by the United States and NATO with no authorization from the Security Council. Clearly illegal. Killing again, we don’t know the exact number outright, four to five thousand innocent civilians. And targeting civilian infrastructure, all up and down, from which the people still suffer today. The use of depleted uranium ammunitions, with consequent outbreaks of cancer are documented today.

So this is what, is being planned right now as we speak; an attack upon Iran. Using jet fighter aircraft, fighter bombers, on these three aircraft carrier task forces, using cruise missiles on submarines. Of course Israel will be involved and have a role to play, doing exactly what the Americans tell them to do. In addition, it appears that if they attack Iran, they will also attack Syria. Yesterday, if you heard President Bush’s press conference in Vienna, he threatened Syria, right? There’s no other word for it. He threatened Syria.

These Neo-Conservatives want to take out Syria as a favour to Israel. Remember, many of these Neo-Conservatives are affiliated personally and professionally with the Likhud Party in Israel and Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, the man who exterminated twenty thousand Arabs in Lebanon, most of them, not all of them were Muslims. And in addition, slaughtered two thousand completely innocent Palestinian women, children and old men at Sabra and Shatila. Ariel Sharon, the man who went to Haram Al-Sharif, the third holiest site in Islam, where Muhammad, (Peace Be Upon Him) ascended into heaven, and desecrated the Haram on September 28th, 2000, and deliberately provoked the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and has inflicted death and destruction on the Palestinian people since then. Close to thirty seven hundred Palestinians since then alone have been killed….most of them shot down like dogs in the street, and what has the Muslim world done about this?

My Palestinian friends tell me that they are worried that the government of Malaysia might recognize Israel and establish diplomatic relations with Israel. I certainly hope this is not true. We must treat the criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the same way the world treated the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa.

If the United States attacks Iran, they will probably attack Syria with the Israeli air force and they will attack Lebanon to take out the Islamic resistance movement in southern Lebanon – Hezbollah that defended the legitimate rights of Lebanon and the Lebanese people and expelled the invading longstanding occupying Israeli army that had the full support of the United States government for over twenty years.

So they could attack Iran, Syria, Southern Lebanon and inflict yet another round of ethnic cleansing on the suffering Palestinian people. Remember Sharon and Likhud believe that Jordan is Palestine. And they want to drive as many Palestinians as possible out of their homes and into Jordan.

So if the United States as reported by Hersh and other reliable sources, goes ahead and attacks Iran, we could see warfare erupt all the way from Egypt to the border with India. This whole area convulsed in warfare. And who will be the primary victims of this war? Muslims. The United States could not care less about Muslim life. Look at the demonisation and victimisation of Muslims that we have seen inflicted by the United States and its surrogate, Israel. Look at Guantanamo, where six hundred Muslim men have been treated like dogs in a kennel. Pretty much the way the Nazis treated the Jews. Look at Abu Ghraib and the sadism and sexual exploitation and perversion of Muslims by their American captors. And the same thing has been done in Baghram in Afghanistan. And when Professor Sharif Bassiouni, the U.N. special rapporteur filed the Report with the Security Council against U.S. practices in Afghanistan, the Americans had Kofi Annan fire him. Just as they had Kofi Annan fire Mary Robinson, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, when she protested what was going on down in Guantanamo.

The United States could not care less about Muslim life. And the same is true for the genocidal apartheid regime in Israel. They would be happy to use nuclear weapons against Iran. They would be happy to break the taboo of Hiroshima and Nagasaki against Muslims in Iran. It would create no problem at all for them. Indeed, I went to school with these Neo-Conservatives at the University of Chicago. Wolfowitz was there, ChalabiKhalilzadShulsky, all the rest of them. I went through the exact same programme. Their mentor, Professor Leo Strauss. And who was his teacher in Germany and his sponsor? Professor Carl Schmitt who went on to become the most notorious Nazi law Professor of his day, justifying every atrocity that the Nazis inflicted on everyone. We must understand that these Neo-Conservatives are in fact Neo-Nazis. They have espoused the Nazi doctrine of Schmitt and Strauss and Machiavelli and Nietzsche, the “superman.” They are the supermen, and the Muslims are the scum of the earth.

Now, I do not believe the United States will initially start bombing Iran with nuclear weapons. But if things get out of control they are fully prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons. And here in our materials, you have the Pentagon’s Joint Publication 3-12, which you can get on the internet…. just do a Google search and read it. And you will see there dated March 15, 2005; nuclear, tactical nuclear weapons have been fully integrated into United States conventional forces.

So if Iran were to defend itself, human wave attacks, whatever, they will be happy to use nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Remember, these Neo-Nazis, Neo-Cons want to break the taboo of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They want to use tactical nuclear weapons, to be able to say to the rest of the world, you do what we tell you to do or else look what we did to the Iranians!

It’s a very serious situation. And this could even get further out of control. Remember that before Bush invaded Iraq, President Putin of Russia said that if he invades Iraq he could set off World War Three. Well, I interpreted that as an implicit threat. Even the famous American news broadcaster Walter Cronkite said that if Bush invaded Iraq he could set off World War Three. Two weeks ago we had the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; China, Russia and Iran. So again, if Bush were to attack Iran, he very well could set off a Third World War, a nuclear war. And that is where you come in:

“This is what I can do. These are my talents. These are my professional qualifications. These are my skills. This is my cheque book. Let me help. Let me prevent, let me help prevent a nuclear war, a possible final, cataclysmic Third World War.”

Thank you, shukran.

ARAB STRATEGY FORUM: Political Systems in the Arab World in 2020:

Moving Towards Reform and Development

 

by Professor Francis A. Boyle

IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE COMPASSIONATE, THE MERCIFUL

Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The demand by the Bush Jr. administration and its Zionist neo-conservative operatives for democratization in the Arab world is a joke and a fraud that is designed to pressure, undermine, and destabilize Arab governments and states at the behest of the genocidal Israeli apartheid regime, and to pursue America’s continuing campaign for outright military control and domination of the Gulf oil and gas resources that the United States government launched in direct reaction to the Arab oil embargo of the West in 1973. For over the past three decades American foreign policy toward the entire Middle East has been determined by oil and Israel, in that order.

The United States government will seek direct military control and domination of the hydrocarbon resources of the Arab and Muslim world until there is no oil and gas left for them to steal, using Israel as its regional “policeman” towards that end. Oil and Israel were behind both the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. wars against Iraq. And now Bush Jr. is threatening to attack Syria, Lebanon, and Iran in conjunction with the genocidal apartheid regime in Israel. As the oil and gas in the Arab and Muslim world proceed to run out, the United States and Israel will become even more predatory, aggressive, destructive, and genocidal toward Arab and Muslim states and peoples.

The Bush Jr. administration and its Zionist neo-conservative operatives could not care less about democracy in the Arab world. In fact, Bush Jr. and his Neo-Cons are all trying very hard to build a Police State in the United States of America that we lawyers are vigorously opposing. What the Bush Jr. administration and its Zionist neo-conservative operatives really want in the Arab world are quisling dictators who will do their dirty work for them and the genocidal Israeli apartheid regime against the wishes and prayers of the Arab people for democracy, human rights, the rule of law, constitutionalism, as well as for the liberation of Palestine and Al Quds.

Those will be the predominant facts and trends that the Arab world will have to confront between now and 2020. It was not my assignment here today to advise Arab states and the Arab people how to counteract this anti-Arab and anti-Muslim agenda by the United States and Israel. But certainly the sacred Koran and the divinely inspired teachings of the Prophet Mohammed – May Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him! – shall guide you and protect you during this most difficult period in the history of the Arab Nation, the Arab People, Arab States, and Islam.

Shukhran.

Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010).

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Sabra and Shatila: The Secret Papers

14309080123 4b8ec98b30 m 165ef

Sabra and Shatila, September, 1982, stands as one of the worst single atrocities in modern history. Up to 3500 Palestinians were massacred when Israel’s Falangist proxies surged through the two Beirut camps in September, 1982. Israel sought to dump the blame on to the Falangists. “Goyim kill goyim and they come to blame the Jews,” Israel’s Prime Minister, Menahim Begin, complained. In fact, Israel commanded and controlled the entire operation. The punishment meted out by the Kahan commission of inquiry was derisory. Ariel Sharon, the Israeli ‘defence minister’ was demoted but remained in government, after Begin refused to sack him. Despite his own complicity, Begin was not punished and neither were any of the politicians who had agreed that the camps had to be ‘cleaned out.’ World opinion was outraged, but not even this fearful event was sufficient for Israel to be held to account. Unrestrained, Israel remained free to kill at will.

The secret annex to the Kahan commission has recently made its way into the mainstream. (See Rashid Khalidi, ‘The Sabra and Shatila Massacres: New Evidence,’ Palestine Square, Institute of Palestine Studies, September 25, 2018).   The basic facts are well established, so the interest lies in what these documents tell us about the interplay between the Israelis and the Falangists, and why, ultimately, Sabra and Shatila had to be invaded.

Even before 1948 Israel was setting out to turn Lebanon into a satellite state by playing on the fears of the country’s Maronite Christian community.   In 1958 Lebanon endured its second civil war (second to the Druze-Maronite conflict of 1860).   This war was part of a regional drama involving anti-Nasserism, anti-communism, the overthrow of the monarchy in Iraq and a planned coup attempt in Jordan. No event in Lebanon is ever simply internal, but while the collective ‘west’ and Israel had a big stake in what happened in 1958, the war developed largely as cause and effect between internal factions. By the time the US intervened, sending the Sixth Fleet and landing marines on Beirut’s beaches, these factions had for the moment resolved their differences.

In 1968, against a background of Palestinian resistance from southern Lebanon, Israel destroyed 13 commercial aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Beirut international airport. Lebanon was being warned to control the Palestinians, or else. Of course, given its highly factionalized nature, Lebanon could not control the Palestinians.

In April, 1973, the Israelis infiltrated West Beirut from the sea and killed four leading Palestinian political and cultural (Kamal Nasser, a poet) figures and by 1975 the country was right on the edge. A drive-by shooting at a Maronite church in East Beirut on April 13 pushed it off. The dead included members of the Kata’ib, the Lebanese Falange, a party founded on the Spanish model in the 1930s. Falangist gunmen struck back, shooting up a bus full of Palestinians and the war was on.

As Israel was already involved with the Falangists, as it wanted chaos in Lebanon ending in the defeat of the Palestinians and the destruction of their institutions, the church shooting was very likely a deliberate Israeli provocation. The secret annex to the Kahan commission reveals that by 1975 Israel was holding secret meetings with Falangist leaders, aimed at political and military coordination, towards which end Israel gave the Falangists $118.5 million in military aid (the figure given in the Kahan annex, the true figure possibly being much higher) and trained hundreds of Falangist fighters, in preparation for the war which Israel wanted the Falangists to launch.

Israel maintained its relationship with the Falangists through the civil war. By 1982 there was an “alliance in principle,” as described by papers in the Kahan annex. Trained in Israel up to Israeli military standards, however this is understood, Israel was confident that the Falangist tough Bashir Gemayel, the dominant figure in the Christian umbrella group, the Lebanese Forces (LF), had evolved “from the emotional leader of a gang, full of hatred, into a relatively prudent and cautious political leader.” No doubt this was how Bashir presented himself at meetings with the Israelis, but his actions in the past, and in the future, indicate that he was merely concealing the brutality that still lay within.

In January, 1976, the LF attacked the slum Karantina port district of Beirut, killing or massacring at least 1000 Palestinian fighters and civilians. In June, the Falangists, along with other LF factions, including the Lebanese Tigers of the Chamoun family and the Guardians of the Cedars, besieged the Tal al Za’atar Palestinian camp. Their military equipment included US tanks and armored cars. The camp held out for 35 days before being overrun. Up to 3000 Palestinian civilians were slaughtered.

The Kahan papers include an interesting exchange between Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres, Minister of Defence in 1976, who asked Sharon whether an IDF officer had warned him against sending the Falangists into Sabra and Shatila. Sharon responded that “you” (the Rabin government of 1976 of which Peres was part) had established the relationship with the Falangists and maintained it even after the massacre at Tal al Zaatar:

“You [Peres] spoke of the moral image of the government. After Tal al Zaatar, Mr Peres, you have no monopoly on morality. We did not accuse you, you have accused us. The same moral principle which was raised by the Tal al Za’atar incident [sic.] still exists. The Phalangists murdered in Shatila and the Phalangists murdered in Tal Za’atar. The link is a moral one: should we get involved with the Phalangists or not? You supported them and continued to do so after Tal Za’atar. Mr Rabin and Mr Peres, there were no IDF officers in Shatila, the same way they were absent from Tal Za’atar.” What is left unsaid is that Israel had a ‘liaison office’ at Tal al Za’ater even if IDF officers were not inside the camp.

‘High stature’

The refrain constantly repeated by Israeli intelligence and military personnel in 1982 was that no-one expected the Falangists to behave so badly. They were people of high calibre, people of quality, “men of much higher personal stature than is common among Arabs,” according to the statements made to the Kahan commission.

“I interrogated the Lebanese commanders [all Lebanese ‘commanders’ operated under direct Israeli command],” said Sharon. “I asked them, why have you done it? They looked into my eyes, as I am looking at you and their eyes did not twitch. They said ‘we did not do this, it was not us.’ I am not talking about bums, we are talking about people who are engineers and lawyers, the entire young elite, an intelligentsia, and they are looking into my eyes and saying ‘we did not do it.’

In fact, not just during the long civil war but throughout its invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Israel had abundant evidence of the Falangist capacity for brutality, not just in the massacre of Muslims caught at checkpoints or the Druze in the mountains but in the statements of Falangist leaders. On September 12, two days before he was assassinated, Bashir Gemayel told Sharon that conditions “should be created” which would result in the Palestinians leaving Lebanon.

At the same meeting it transpired that the Israelis had evidence that “as a consequence of Elie Hobeika’s activities” 1200 people had “disappeared.” Hobeika, a senior and extremely brutal Falangist figure, implicated in the CIA attempt in 1985 to assassinate the Shia spiritual leader, Shaikh Muhammad Hussain Fadlallah, was assassinated in 2002 shortly after he announced he was ready to give evidence in a Belgian court about Sharon’s role in the Sabra-Shatila massacres. His car was blown up, his head landing on the balcony of a nearby apartment.

On July 8 Bashir spoke of wanting to bulldoze the Palestinian camps in southern Lebanon. At a later meeting, asked by Sharon “What would you do about the refugee camps?,” he replied “We are planning a real zoo.”

An IDF colonel gave evidence to the Kahan commission that it was “possible to surmise from contacts with Phalange leaders” what their intentions were. If Sabra would become a zoo, Shatila’s destiny was to be a parking lot.

The IDF colonel spoke of massacres of Druze villagers by Elie Hobeika and his men. A document dated June 23 refers to “some 500 people” detained by Christians in Beirut being “terminated.” Nahum Admoni, the Mossad head, who said he knew Bashir well, having met frequently with him in 1974/5, said that “When he talked in terms of demographic change it was always in terms of killing and elimination. This was his instinctive style.” The “demographic change” refers to Bashir’s concern at the size of Lebanon’s Shia population, and its high natural birth date compared to the Christians. To resolve this problem, Bashar said, “several Deir Yassins will be necessary.”

While referring to Bashir’s brutal talk, Admoni said that “at the same time he was a political human being and as such he had an extremely cautious thinking process and thus he avoided taking part in various warlike activities.” The evidence does not bear out the last part of this statement, as Bashar had a long record even before 1982 of engaging in extremely brutal “warlike activities.”

The violence during the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon ran from the Falangists at one end of the spectrum to the extreme violence of Ariel Sharon, including massacres of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, at the other end. The two extremes met in the middle at Sabra and Shatila and the outcome was predictably catastrophic.

‘Totally subservient’

What must be reaffirmed is that the “cleaning” or “combing” out of Sabra and Shatila was planned, coordinated and commanded by the Israeli military. It was not a Falangist operation with Israel playing some loose supervisory role. It was an Israel operation, involving the intelligence agencies and approved by the Israeli government. The Falangists were trained and armed by Israel and the LF commanders were “totally subservient” to the commander of the Israeli force sent to the camps, the 96th division. The Falangists were told when to enter the camps and when to leave. The Israelis lit up the camps at night with flares so the Falangists could see what they were doing (or who they were killing) and they stood ready to provide medical assistance to wounded men and intervene if they got into trouble.

Any notion that Menahim Begin, the Prime Minister, had no idea what was going on until a later stage has to be discarded. As Sharon remarked at a Cabinet meeting on August 12, “to say that I speak with the PM five times a day would be an understatement.”

Israel had agreed in negotiations with the Americans not to enter West Beirut. The assassination of Bashir Gemayel on September 14 precipitated the invasion of West Beirut the following day, the seizure of key positions and the encirclement of Sabra and Shatila according to a well-prepared plan. The Falangists entered the camps in the early evening of September 16, on Israeli orders, and did not withdraw until September 18, again on Israeli orders.

There were no “terrorists” in the camps, let alone the 2500 Sharon claimed had been left behind after the PLO withdrawal from Beirut in August. There were only civilians and there was no armed resistance from them. The Falangists did their work silently, mostly with knives so that the next victim would not be aware of the fate of the one before him (or her – many of the dead were women and children and even the camp animals were butchered) until it was too late.

The Falangist liaison office was established in the headquarters of the 96th Israeli division, where eavesdropping yielded unspecified “important evidence,” according to the Kahan commission annex. Professional electronic tapping of the Falangist communications network inside the camps was maintained in addition to “improvised” tapping of the conversations inside the HQ of the 96th division. According to the Kahan commission’s annex, the Falangist liaison officer reported “abnormal occurrences” in the camps to several officers only a few hours after the Falangists entered them.

Clearly, statements by intelligence and military personnel that they did not know what was going, or that they did not know until it was too late cannot be taken at face value. There was no gunfire from the camps and no resistance as would have been expected from armed “terrorists.” In this deathly silence, with no bursts of gunfire, and not the slightest sign or sound of armed combat, did the Israelis really think the Falangists were only killing armed men? Furthermore, Sharon had made it clear that he wanted to break up all the Palestinian camps and disperse their inhabitants. A cruel and brutal figure, he was perfectly capable of doing it. What could be better calculated to drive Palestinian civilians everywhere into panicked flight than an even more monstrous Deir Yassin? There may be a lot more evidence about this, textual and graphic, that has not made its way even into the secret annex.

Sharon freely insulted and demeaned the two chief US representatives in Beirut, Ambassador Morris Draper, whom he accused of impudence in demanding that Israel withdraw from West Beirut, and President Reagan’s special envoy, Philip Habib. “Did I make myself clear?,” “Don’t complain all the time” and “I’m sick of this” are samples of his aggression when in their company but as he said of the Americans on another occasion, “I hate them.”

Ghost towns

This remorseless liar claimed that there were no civilians in the camps. “I want you to know that Burj al Barajneh and its vicinity and the area of Shatila and similar places are ghost towns” he insisted, according to the Kahan annex. In August, as the aerial and land bombardment of Beirut approached its peak, he told the Cabinet that “we are not striking at the area where the Sunni Lebanese population resides.” On August 18 he lied again: “Today there is no-one living in the refugee camps. Only terrorists remain in the refugee camps. That is where their positions remain, in the refugee camps. That is where their positions, bunkers and HQs were located, and all the civilians had fled.” In fact, the camps were packed with civilians who had nowhere else to go, while in West Beirut, thousands of Sunni Muslims, Christians, and anyone who was living there, were being killed in air strikes.

At the same time Sharon had the extraordinary gall to present himself as some kind of saviour of the civilian population.   After entering West Beirut he remarked that “in reality we are not looking for anybody’s praise but if praise is due, then it’s ours as we saved Beirut from total anarchy. On September 21, a few days after the Sabra and Shatila massacres, he told the Cabinet that “We prevented a bloodbath.” In fact, the invasion had been a bloodbath from the beginning. By the end of the year about 19,000 people had been killed, almost all of them Palestinian or Lebanese civilians.

Two issues take up numerous pages in the Kahan report annex. One is the speed with which the Israeli army moved into West Beirut after the assassination of Bashir Gemayel. The reason was that the assassination “threatened to bring down the entire political structure and undermine the military plan years in preparation over long months.” Having promised full support, Bashar had ultimately refused to send the Falangists into West Beirut and with this commanding figure dead, the Israelis feared that their invasion was going to fail at the critical moment. With no-one to stop them, Sharon’s imaginary “terrorists” would be free to rebuild their infrastructure.

‘Supreme value’

The other issue is why Israel did not send its own troops into the camps. As expressed in the Kahan papers, “the expected nature of the fighting in the camps did not arouse much enthusiasm for the deployment of the IDF.” There would be difficult fighting “which could result in a lot of bloodshed in a densely populated area, where terrorists who have to be located are disguised as civilians in a hostile environment.” Such an action would involve a large number of casualties and the IDF had no wish to involve itself “in such an unpleasant but necessary military move.”

The deployment of the Falangists instead caused “great relief” to the military: the “supreme value” governing the decision was the desire not to cause IDF casualties. So, Israel’s proxies were sent in to do the dirty work instead.

After being elected president, as he was in a dodgy way in August, Bashir Gemayel had shown he realised he would have to act as one, which meant putting the Lebanese consensus before the alliance with Israel. He would have to work with the Sunnis and Shia and repair the fractured relations with other Maronite factions. He would have to take the interests of Arab states into account.   He could not simultaneously be Lebanon’s president and Israel’s president.   As a senior Falangist figure, Antun Fattal, remarked to Morris Draper on December 13, 1982: “Our economy is dependent on the Arab world and we cannot sacrifice it because of a peace treaty [as demanded by Israel].”

On December 14, Bashar’s successor, and milder brother, Amin, asked Israel to stop all contact with Lebanon, saying that he intended to announce at the UN that Lebanon was occupied by Israel. Like Bashir, he knew he had to respect the Lebanese consensus. By the end of 1982 what Israel had comprehensively demonstrated was that it simply did not understand Lebanon. All it had was brute force. The invasion certainly succeeded in changing the geo-political strategic situation, but not to Israel’s advantage. Yes, the PLO went, but only for Hizbullah to take its place. By 2000 Hizbullah had driven Israel out of the occupied south, in 2006 it frustrated Israel again and by 2018 it had missiles that will cause unprecedented damage if Israel goes to war again. The country Israel regarded as the weakest link in the Arab chain had turned out to be one of the toughest.

By Jeremy Salt
Source

صبرا و شاتيلا: إبادة مُعلنة

1

هكذا خطّط بشير الجميّل مع إسرائيل لإبادة شعب فلسطين1

حقائق جديدة حول جريمة مدبرة

وليد شرارة

    • كان الهدف المعلن للاجتياح الصهيوني للبنان عام 1982، بحسب التصريحات والبيانات الصادرة عن حكومة بيغن-شارون آنذاك، هو «تدمير البنى التحتية لمنظمة التحرير الفلسطينية»، أي جميع منظمات المقاومة الفلسطينية والمؤسسات السياسية والاجتماعية والإعلامية والثقافية المرتبطة بالمنظمة. لكن مجريات الاجتياح، التي تخللتها عمليات استهداف واسعة النطاق للمخيمات الفلسطينية عبر القصف التدميري وارتكاب المجازر، التي وصلت إلى ذروتها مع مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا، كشفت أن الغاية الفعلية لهذا الأخير تتجاوز القضاء على منظمة التحرير إلى القضاء على وجود الشعب الفلسطيني في لبنان. المشروع الصهيوني الذي قام على التطهير العرقي في فلسطين حاول تكرار جريمته في لبنان. لكن إرادة الصمود الأسطورية لدى الفلسطينيين في لبنان، الذين تعرضوا لعمليات قتل وتنكيل وحصار طوال عقد ثمانينات القرن الماضي وليس خلال الاجتياح وحده، منعته من بلوغ غايته. اليوم، بعد مرور أكثر من سبعين عاماً على النكبة في فلسطين، وستة وثلاثين عاماً على مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا، قرّر الكيان الصهيوني، عبر تصويت الكنيست على قانون القومية اليهودية، الإعلان رسمياً عن طبيعته الاستيطانية الإحلالية. بحسب هذا القانون، «إسرائيل» هي الوطن التاريخي «للشعب اليهودي» حصراً، حيث يمارس «حقه في تقرير المصير». وكما في جميع حالات الاستعمار الاستيطاني الإحلالي التي سبقت، كالولايات المتحدة وأستراليا ونيوزلندا، لا مكان للسكان الأصليين إلا في المقابر الجماعية أو معازل القتل البطيء. وقد اعتقد الصهاينة بعد النكبة أنهم نجحوا في التخلص من الفلسطينيين، كما أكد أحد قادتهم، أبا إيبان، عندما جزم أن «الكبار سيموتون والصغار سينسون». كذّب الفلسطينيون أبا إيبان وانطلقت من مخيمات البؤس والتشرد والبطولة والفداء ، خارج فلسطين، الثورة الفلسطينية المعاصرة. ومع مضي أكثر من عقد ونصف على انطلاقتها وتمركز قواتها في لبنان، قرّر الصهاينة تكرار محاولة الإجهاز عليها واستكمال ما بدأوه عام 1948.

اجتياح بحجم نكبة

المقاومة الفلسطينية وحلفاؤها أدركوا بوضوح أهداف الاجتياح، وكذلك أعداء هذه المقاومة، من ميليشيات اليمين الفاشي اللبناني، التي كان وصول مرشحها إلى السلطة أحد هذه الأهداف. وتكفلت التطورات الميدانية والسياسية خلال الاجتياح وبعده بتبيانها لمن كان متعامياً عنها وأولها إلحاق نكبة جديدة بالشعب الفلسطيني واقتلاعه من الجزء الأكبر من لبنان. هذا ما يفسر التدمير المتعمد والمنهجي، الكامل أو شبه الكامل، لمعظم المخيمات الواقعة ضمن نطاق الاجتياح كالرشيدية والبرج الشمالي وعين الحلوة وهو ما يفسر طبعاً مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا. لم يرحل الفلسطينيون. بقوا بين أنقاض منازلهم وأعادوا إعمارها تدريجاً على رغم تعرضهم للقتل والخطف والاعتقال والتنكيل في المخيمات الواقعة تحت الاحتلال في الجنوب آنذاك وثبتوا في أزقة صبرا وشاتيلا التي تحولت ليومين متتاليين إلى مسلخ بشري مكتظ بجثث أهلهم وأحبتهم. من أراد المزيد من الإطلاع على وقائع تلك المرحلة وعلى تجربة الفلسطينيين المريرة في لبنان في ثمانينات القرن الماضي، من منظور المعنيين أي الفلسطينيين، عليه مراجعة الكتاب الهام لروز ماري صايغ «أعداء كثر» (Too Many enemies) الصادر بالإنكليزية والذي لم يترجم للعربية لأسباب «غير مفهومة».

حَرص الطرف الإسرائيلي، بعد مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا والاستنكار العالمي الذي سببته، على الترويج لسردية لخصها مناحم بيغن بقوله أمام الكنيست: «غوييم (أغراب من غير اليهود) قتلوا غوييم، لكن العالم يتهم اليهود». لم تكن إسرائيل تتوقع، بحسب السردية المذكورة، أن يقدم حلفاؤها في القوات اللبنانية، وقوات سعد حداد التي جيء بها من الجنوب، على ارتكاب مجزرة ضد المدنيين. وزير دفاعها آنذاك آرييل شارون اعترف بأنه من أعطى الأمر لهذه القوى الرديفة بدخول المخيمات «لتطهيرها من الإرهابيين» لكنه نفى علمه بنيتها ارتكاب مجازر، وعزا سلوكها إلى رغبتها بالانتقام لاغتيال زعيمها بشير الجميل. بعض قادة القوات اللبنانية برّروا أيضاً ما جرى على أنه رد فعل من عناصرها بدافع الانتقام من عملية الاغتيال. أحد قادتها، فؤاد مالك، وفي مقابلة مع إذاعة كورتوازي (Radio Courtoisie) اليمينية المتطرفة الفرنسية في الثمانينات، زعم بأن ما جرى في صبرا وشاتيلا معركة وليس مجزرة وبأنه شارك شخصياً فيها!

لم تصمد هذه السرديات والمزاعم أمام الشهادات والوثائق والتحقيقات التي تثبّت بشكل حاسم أن المجزرة اندرجت ضمن سياق مخطط مشترك بين إسرائيل والقوات اللبنانية لاقتلاع الوجود الفلسطيني من لبنان. آخر الوثائق الشديدة الأهمية هي تلك التي كشف عنها الباحث الأميركي سيت أنزيسكا في مقال في مجلة نيويورك رفيو أوف بوكس، خصصه لنشر بعض الصفحات المختارة من كتابه المرجعي «تغييب فلسطين، التاريخ السياسي من كامب ديفيد إلى أوسلو»، الصادر أخيراً عن دار نشر جامعة برنستون في الولايات المتحدة. يبرز الكتاب حقيقة تواطؤ جميع الإدارات الأميركية المتعاقبة، من إدارتي فورد ونيكسون، إلى إدارة ترامب، مع السياسة الإسرائيلية التي عملت بجميع السبل لمنع الفلسطينيين من حقهم بتقرير المصير وإقامة دولة مستقلّة على أي جزء من أرض فلسطين التاريخية وكيفية توظيف هذه السياسة لما سمي بعملية السلام منذ اتفاقية كامب ديفيد لإخراج أطراف عربية وازنة كمصر من الصراع مع إسرائيل وعزل الفلسطينيين تمهيداً للإجهاز على حركتهم الوطنية وإتمام عملية الاقتلاع والضم والاستيطان. ويفرد الكتاب حيزاً هاماً للاجتياح الإسرائيلي عام 1982، ومجازر صبرا وشاتيلا، باعتباره محطة مفصلية في مسار الإبادة السياسية و«تغييب فلسطين». خلال عمله على إعداد الكتاب، حصل أنزيسكا من وليم كوانت، عضو مجلس الأمن القومي الأسبق في عهد الرئيس الأميركي جيمي كارتر والخبير البارز في شؤون الشرق الأوسط الناقد للسياستين الأميركية والإسرائيلية، على الملحقات السرية لتقرير لجنة كاهان، اللجنة الإسرائيلية المكلفة بالتحقيق في مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا. تنقسم هذه الوثائق إلى محاضر اجتماعات بين القيادات العسكرية والأمنية الإسرائيلية وقيادتي القوات اللبنانية وحزب الكتائب وإلى محاضر جلسات استماع أمام الكنيست لمسؤولين إسرائيليين ومحاضر مقابلات بينهم وبين لجنة كاهان. اختارت «الأخبار» أن تنشر أبرز محاضر الاجتماعات بين القيادات الإسرائيلية واللبنانية التي تفصح عن تفاهم كامل على غايات الاجتياح وفي مقدمها الخلاص من «الديموغرافيا» الفلسطينية في لبنان. وقد شارك قائد القوات اللبنانية بشير الجميل في أغلب هذه الاجتماعات المصيرية. يتضح في أكثر من محضر أن الطرف الإسرائيلي، للحفاظ على صورته وسمعته أمام العالم، لزّم أمر المخيمات للميليشيات الفاشية اللبنانية المتحمسة لذلك. هذه الأخيرة، على غرار غيرها من فرق الموت الفاشية عبر العالم، تخصصت خلال الحرب الأهلية بعمليات «التطهير الاجتماعي» لأحزمة الفقر عبر القتل الجماعي والتشريد كما فعلت في النبعة والكرنتينا ومخيمي تل الزعتر وجسر الباشا. كانت الطرف الأمثل لإنجاز المهمة.

مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا ليست كغيرها من مجازر الحرب الأهلية اللبنانية. لم يكن رد فعل على مجزرة أخرى أو عملاً انتقامياً تلا معركة كما حصل خلال الحرب. هي أتت تنفيذاً لقرار إسرائيلي مشترك مع رديف رُفع إلى مرتبة الحليف لاعتبارات سياسية، كحلقة في مخطط واسع هدف إلى إعادة صياغة التوازنات السياسية والديموغرافية في لبنان وفي المنطقة. ومن يشك في صحة هذه الخلاصات عليه بمراجعة محاضر الاجتماعات بين الشركاء في الجريمة المتعمدة التي تبدأ «الأخبار» بنشرها اليوم.

شارون: ماذا ستفعلون بشأن مخيمات اللاجئين؟ بشير: نخطّط لحديقة حيوان حقيقية

شارون: ماذا ستفعلون بشأن مخيمات اللاجئين؟ بشير: نخطّط لحديقة حيوان حقيقية

عنوان الوثيقة:

محضر الاجتماع بين بشير الجميّل وكمحي وتامير، مكتوب بخطّ اليد

1 – كان بشير راضياً بعدما تلقّى المعدات التي أرسلناها إليه.
2 – كان مهتماً بمعرفة مصير الفلسطينيين في لبنان بعد إجلاء منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، أو ما يسمّيه «المشكلة الديموغرافية». قلنا له إنّ مشكلة السكان المدنيّين هي مشكلتكم (هم الذين دعوهم إلى الدخول، لذلك فإنّ التخلص منهم من مسؤوليتهم).
بالمقارنة، إنّ مشكلة منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية مشكلة مركّبة: إما أن ينسحبوا وفق الاتفاق السياسي، أو أن يُخرَجوا بالقوّة.
طرح بشير النقاش المعهود، وقال إن الوقت ينفد، كذلك فإنّه بات يشكّل عائقاً أمامنا، وإن شيئاً لن يتحقّق جرّاء العملية السياسية. وقال إنه إذا جرى غزو المخيمات أو عزلها، فإنّ المدينة ستسقط كثمرةٍ ناضجة، لأنّ الأحياء السنيّة ستستسلم، كذلك فإن المسيحيين سيزيدون الضغوط.
(ملاحظة مكتوبة بخط اليد من دون عنوان بتاريخ 10 تموز/ يوليو 1982: بشير الجميّل يقترح إضافة قوّة سعودية إلى القوات الدولية المقرَّر أن تدخل بيروت).

***

21 آب/ أغسطس 1982 (قبل يومين من انتخاب بشير الجميل رئيساً للجمهورية)

عنوان الوثيقة: محضر اجتماع بين وزير الدفاع (أرييل شارون) وبيار وبشير الجميّل في مكتب بشير

المشاركون: رجال بشير، ممثلون عن الموساد، أوري دان، الميجور شامير وزير الدفاع: لقد وضعنا الخلفية، نحن هنا في بيروت بحسب اتفاقنا في كانون الثاني/ يناير هذا العام. كيف تتحضّرون لحكومة قوية ومستقرّة؟

بيار: إن الله أرسلكم إلينا. خلال السنوات السبع أو الثماني الماضية، خذَلَنا الجميع. الأميركيون والأوروبيون كانوا يخافون حرق أيديهم هنا. كان ضرورياً أن تفعلوا ما فعلتم. لقد أتيتم وأنقذتمونا. خلال العامين الماضيين، انتظرنا بيأس. من دون مساعدتكم، لكنّا اختفينا.
أشعر بأنكم لستم راضين عن موقفنا. ربما توقعتم تعبيراً أكبر عن الفرح وحماسة أكبر لدى وصولكم. على الرغم من أننا لم نعبّر عن ذلك ظاهرياً، أريدك أن تعرف أن قلوبنا تطير من الفرح. حتى لو أنّكم تعملون وفقاً لما تقتضيه مصلحتكم، فإنّكم قدّمتم لنا خدمة. كما نتفهّمكم، يجب أن تتفهمونا، من أجل مصلحتنا ومصلحتكم. لبنان هو الجسر الأفضل لدخولكم إلى العالم العربي. هذا في مصلحتكم أيضاً. من المستحيل أن نحيا، حاملين السلاح إلى الأبد. يجب أن تبقى إسرائيل إلى الأبد، ويجب إيجاد حلّ للوجود السلميّ. أنتم جُدد في هذه المنطقة. صراعنا من أجل الاستقلال عمره 400 عام. أعتقد أننا نجحنا في ذلك. لذلك – أتمنّى أن تتفهّم – سعادتنا كبيرة، حتى لو لم نستطع إظهار ذلك بشكل واضح. نحن نفهم الوضع بشكل أفضل في العالم العربي، لذا نعتقد أن التعبير الواضح عن فرحنا سيكون مؤذياً. (يهمس بشير في أذنه حينها)، لقد عدتم بعد مئات السنين. نحن بقينا هنا، لكنّنا نتصارع مع المشاكل ذاتها تقريباً. يمكننا النجاة والبقاء هنا بفضل وجودكم في المنطقة.

بشير الجميّل يقترح إضافة قوّة سعودية إلى القوات الدولية المقرَّر أن تدخل بيروت

أودّ أن أشكركم مجدداً وأؤكّد اعترافنا بكل شيء فعلتموه من أجلنا. من دونكم، كان لبنان سيتفكّك. نحن أصدقاؤكم الحقيقيون، ومصالحنا متشابهة. إذا كان لديكم أيّ ملاحظات بشأن سلوكنا، فمن المهم أن تبلغونا بها، خصوصاً أن صداقتكم ضرورية بالنسبة إلينا.

وزير الدفاع: شكراً لقدومك. كفتىً، أذكرك بصراعك من أجل لبنان حرّ. كان يجب أن آتي لأراك، وأنا ممتنّ لحضورك هنا.

بيار: لقد زرت إسرائيل مرّات عدّة. تأثّرت كثيراً. خلال إحدى زياراتي، زرت مدرسة أثارت إعجابي جداً. كانوا يعلّمون الأولاد هناك عن جمال الحياة.

وزير الدفاع: إن الامتحان الأكبر يكمن في كيفية خلق القوة وكيفية نقلها. عددنا 18 مليوناً، ستة ملايين أبيدوا. وبعد 40 عاماً، بتنا أقرب إلى 15 مليوناً. لقد تعلّمنا كيف نستخدم القوة التي لدينا، ولكننا لسنا نحن بعد. استخدام القوة هو ما أوّد أن أناقشه معك. أودّ أن أشير إلى الظروف الخاصة التي في متناولنا. نفهم مشاكلكم، وسنتوصّل إلى تفاهم أفضل. لديّ مشاعر صداقة دافئة تجاهكم، وأؤمن بإقامة العلاقات بين لبنان الحرّ وإسرائيل.

مع ذلك، عليكم أن تفهوا أنه من أجل أن نواصل مساعدتنا لكم، نحتاج إلى تعاونكم – هذا بحاجة إلى إصرار. المناورات والألعاب لم تؤدّ إلى أي مكان. كان هناك فرص عديدة. قبل شهرين، كان هناك فرصة أمامكم لتحرير عاصمتكم. ذلك لم يحصل. كان أسهل بالنسبة إلينا. لم يحصل ذلك، لكننا فهمنا لماذا. برأيي، كان موقفكم أفضل لو أنكم قد تصرّفتم.

بيار: اسمح لي أن أقاطعك. ماذا كنّا سنفعل؟ كان ذلك سيكون مزعجاً أكثر منه مفيداً. لست عسكرياً، لكنّي أعتقد أن موقفنا خدم الهدف المشترك بنحو أفضل مما لو كنّا تورّطنا.

وزير الدفاع: عليك أن تفهم أنّ إسرائيل دولة ديموقراطيّة. هناك أشخاص يعملون هنا منذ 60 يوماً، ووضعهم الاقتصادي مدمّر.

الضغوط في إسرائيل تتراكم. مضمون الضغوط يأتي على النحو الآتي: «لقد حقّقنا ما حققنا، لنعود إلى بلادنا. الجنود هنا مدنيون. لقد تركوا عائلاتهم وأعمالهم. هذا سبّب ضغطاً على الرأي العام الإسرائيلي. خلال أيام سنتعرّض لضغوط دولية على شكل «أنتم أردتم إخراج الإرهابيين من بيروت. ها قد خرجوا. أخلوا المباني الآن». لن يكون لدينا ردّ على ذلك. علينا أن نجيب لماذا نحتفظ بقطاع في جنوب لبنان مساحته بين 40 – 50 كلم. هذا حزام أمان. مع ذلك، لن يكون لدينا إجابة ترضي الرأي العام المحلّي والدولي. ولكن، قد يساعدنا تعهّد لا لبس فيه بأن (اللبنانيين) سيوقّعون اتفاق سلام مع إسرائيل. خلافاً لذلك، لن يكون لدينا حجّة. ما لم يجرِ التصريح بأوضح العبارات بأنه سيُوقَّع اتفاق سلام من قبل إسرائيل، فلن نتمكّن من البقاء في منطقة بيروت. في سيناء، انتظرنا السلام لسنوات، ولكن بقاءنا هنا من دون أن تُعلن القيادة المُحرِّرة أن اتفاق سلام سيُوقّع مع إسرائيل، سيشكّل لنا وضعاً صعباً.

لقد سألتم سابقاً عن مصير مخيّمات الفلسطينيين بعد انسحاب الإرهابيين. إذا لم تنتظموا من أجل دخول هذا المكان، فستواجهون المشكلة ذاتها. من غير المعقول أن تعودوا إلينا وتقولوا لنا إننا ارتكبنا خطأً، يجب أن ندخل إلى المخيمات ونتولّى أمرهم. حال الانتهاء من إجلاء الإرهابيين، لن نتمكّن من فعل شيء، وسيكون من الخطأ أن تطلبوا منّا ذلك. عليكم أن تتصرّفوا.
حتى نتمكّن من الصمود أمام الضغوط العلنيّة في إسرائيل، عليكم أن تعلنوا على الفور إبرام معاهدة سلام مع إسرائيل، وحتى تتخلّصوا من الإرهابيين، عليكم تطهير المخيمات. بحيث يكون من الممكن إقامة علاقات موثوقة تقوم على الاحترام المُتبادل. بعد أن نتكبّد 2500 ضحيّة، عليكم أن تفعلوا شيئاً، اقرعوا الأجراس! صرّحوا عن الالتزامات. (……) ربما قلت أشياء صعبة، ولكنّها تخرج من قلبي، بين الأصدقاء. هذا ما أشعر به وما أؤمن به. قلت هذه الأشياء مع علمي بالموقفين الداخلي في إسرائيل، والدولي.

بيار: أنا أفهم خطابك تماماً، وأشكرك على هذه الكلمات. نحن على علم بردود الفعل داخل إسرائيل. من المهمّ أن يفهم شعب إسرائيل أننا نقف إلى جانبه. سجّلنا موقفكم. أودّ أن تفهموا موقفنا السياسي والدبلوماسي. نحن في خضمّ عمليّة سياسية وانتخابات رئاسيّة، ونؤمن بأن كل شيء سيتغيّر. بشير هو المرشّح. في حال انتخاب بشير، سيُعلَنُ عصرٌ جديد في المنطقة. على العرب أن يفهموا أننا نريد أن نكون لبنانيين. سياستنا ستتغيّر برمّتها. نحن لبنانيون أولاً، وعرب ثانياً. عندما تنبثق جمهورية جديدة، كل شيء سيتغيّر، كل شيء سيكون ممكناً. حين ندخل المرحلة الجديدة، نريد التوصّل إلى اتفاق شامل معكم. نحن في خضمّ الحملة الانتخابية. من المهم جداً المحافظة على الهدوء. مصالحنا متطابقة.

وزير الدفاع: شكراً لك على خطابك. أنا أفهمك. من المهم جداً أن تقدّروا المشاكل المحليّة والدولية التي نواجهها.

بيار: عليكم أن تفهموا موقفنا أيضاً. مصالحنا متطابقة. أطلب مجدداً إن كان لديكم ملاحظات، من المهم بالنسبة إلينا أن نسمعها بصراحة تامة.

بيار يغادر الاجتماع، ويتبع ذلك حوار مع بشير.

بيار الجميّل لشارون: لبنان هو الجسر الأفضل لدخولكم إلى العالم العربي

وزير الدفاع: ماذا عن الأميركيين؟

بشير: هناك تفهّم كامل الآن، لقد رتَّبت لنا ذلك منذ نحو عام.

وزير الدفاع: والسعوديون؟ هل هم منخرطون؟

بشير: كلا، لقد استخدموا نفوذهم في ما يتعلّق بالمسلمين في بيروت. الأميركيون يستغلّون ذلك أكثر. الأميركيون يفعلون ذلك. حبيب أخبر صائب سلام، في أكثر من مناسبة، أنه يلعب بالنار.
السوريون منعوا دخول أعضاء في البرلمان. لذا، كانت هناك خشية من ألّا يكتمل النصاب. أردت طرح هذه المسألة عليك، وسؤالك عمّا ينبغي فعله في حال حصول ذلك؟ هل أطلب من سركيس الاستقالة؟ ماذا عن المدنيين الذين يخضعون للنفوذ السوري؟ كيف ستتواصل العملية السياسية؟ لكن علينا أن نناقش ذلك بعد يوم الاثنين.

وزير الدفاع: ماذا ستفعلون بشأن مخيمات اللاجئين؟

بشير: نخطّط لحديقة حيوان حقيقية.

وزير الدفاع: هل تعتزمون الدخول إلى بيروت الغربية؟

بشير: هناك مشكلة بشأن «المرابطون». لقد عرضوا للتوّ بيع 40 ألف بندقية كلاشنيكوف. تخيّل ما نجده في المدينة. وبخصوص الزيارة لإسرائيل، إذا فشلنا، يجب أن نناقش ذلك. ربما هذا ليس وقتاً مناسباً. ليس هناك أمر طارئ على جدول الأعمال. إذا جرى انتخابي يوم الاثنين، فسندير شؤون الدولة.

ناحيك: نطلب منكم مجدداً ألّا تفعلوا شيئاً من شأنه أن يعقّد إجلاء (الإرهابيين). جدولكم الزمني يسمح لكم بتأجيل الأنشطة إلى ما بعد إجلائهم.

وزير الدفاع: لا تتّخذ أي إجراء من دون التنسيق معنا.

بشير: أعدك بذلك.

In Memory of Philip Roth

May 26, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: I wrote the following  book review a decade ago. 10 years later, Israel and its subservient English Speaking Empire are still mounting pressure on Iran,  the Middle East is bleeding and peace looks like a remote fantasy. Pre TSD is the medium in which we operate and a prospect of a better future seems like a delusional dream. A decade ago I concluded this review wiring that “the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity.” Sadly, nothing really changed.

6_13_025.jpg

The Plot Against America – a book report and a reality check

by Gilad Atzmon

…Roth is no doubt an astonishing writer but somehow he has always failed to convince me. I always had the feeling that Roth is just too aware of his enormous talent; something that made him slightly technical and pretentious at times. Being a prolific writer, Roth can be slightly impersonal to my taste and yet, in his latest book he is free from that. No literary imposed tactics or strategies can be traced. In his latest book, Roth is overwhelmingly personal. Astonishingly enough, the fictional reality he conveys is so convincing that I found myself totally captivated from beginning to end. So enthralled was I, that I even managed to forget how depressing the world is out there. I avoided the anti-Iranian media blitz. I switched it off for three days and let the international community attack the Iranian president in a single Judeified voice.

‘The Plot Against America’ is a fictional tale that unwinds like a historical document enriched with personal detail. Its theme is: what would have happened if ace pilot Charles Lindbergh, the man who made the first solo transatlantic flight in 1927, the man who later called Hitler ‘a great man’, and was decorated by the Führer for his services to the Reich, had run for the American presidency against Roosevelt in 1940 and managed to win? Lindbergh’s message to the American nation is a classic Republican isolationist one. ‘No more war! Never again will young Americans die on foreign soil’. The year is obviously 1940 and Lindbergh is referring to Europe and the Pacific rather than Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran. In Roth’s book, instead of Roosevelt being elected for an unprecedented third term, Lindbergh wins in a landslide victory. He then signs non-aggression treaties with Germany and Japan. Soon enough the charismatic Lindbergh is cheered by American society as a whole. Every American loves him except of course the Jews who are far from being happy with a ‘peace loving’ president who happens to make business with the enemies of the Jewish people. But in fact this isn’t entirely true, a single prominent liberal Rabbi named Bengelsdorf positions himself right behind the new president.

The narrator is Philip Roth himself, a seven-year-old Jewish Ghetto boy from Newark, New Jersey. He tells a story of a Jewish family encountering a major disastrous political shift. Young Phil is telling the story of father Herman, mother Bess and brother Sandy. It is a story of collective fear, a story of a Jewish family’s reaction to the rise of anti-Semitism. However, throughout the book it is very hard to determine whether anti-Semitism constitutes a real objective threat or rather something the Jews bring on themselves. This very confusion is in my opinion the greatest literary asset of the book.

Roth is sketching a very deep and complex narrative in which each family member responds differently to the ‘devastating’ historical circumstances. Once again, Roth managed to convey an interesting image of the difficult amalgam of the Jewish identity both psychologically and sociologically. Like most American Jews, Herman the father is overtly pessimistic from the very beginning. He wouldn’t give Lindbergh even a single day of mercy. However, he is a proud patriotic American. He demands his civil rights. Were he in our midst, he would criticise the emerging catastrophic reality applying to the American liberal ideology. The mother Bess is far more practical, she tries to maintain the family’s sanity, behaving as if life must go on. More than anything else, she must calm down her righteous husband. Phil’s brother Sandy is a gifted painter and assumes a very interesting role. In the summer he disappears for an “apprenticeship” with a tobacco farmer in Kentucky. In a way he makes it into the heart of America. Later he is joining a new assimilation scheme by encouraging Jewish city boys to follow his example. This program is put together by Rabbi Bengelsdorf, the devoted supporter of Lindbergh. Sandy is doing very well, eventually he is invited to a reception at the White House. This is obviously far more than Herman can take. For Herman, the democratically elected American president is nothing but an enemy of the Jews and he refuses to give his son permission to go to Washington. The tension between family members threatens the stability of the family itself, which is on the brink of falling apart. However, all that time,  America has been kept out of the war. American boys aren’t dying in a far away country. American people are very happy but somehow the Jewish Americans aren’t.

All the way through the book father Herman is portrayed as a paranoid Ghetto Jew. He is totally single minded in interpreting reality, he is overly tragic. But he isn’t alone in his obsession. Alongside his Newark Jewish Ghetto neighbours he draws a lot of support from the famous Jewish journalist and broadcaster Walter Winchell who is spreading his anti-Lindbergh poison to the nation. It doesn’t take long before Winchell is stripped of his positions as a journalist, first in the printed press and later in his prime time radio slot. But Winchell won’t surrender; once he loses his job, he decides to run for the presidency. Winchell, the Jew, decides to reshape the American future. In other words, he is determined to take America into war in Europe. Within a short time into his campaign, Winchell is assassinated. Again, the reader may wonder whether the assassination is an anti-Semitic act or rather a punishment Winchell and the Jews insist upon bringing on themselves.

All the way through most of the book I couldn’t make up my mind whether the plot against America is a Jewish or rather a Nazi one. Clearly most of America into war that may serve their cause or if it was Hitler who employs an agent in the very centre of the American administration as the mastermind behind the plot. When time is ripe, young Phil provides us with a shadow of an answer.

Towards the very end of the book Lindbergh disappears with his private fighter plane without leaving a trace. Mysteriously, the wreckage of his plane has never been found. No forensic evidence can suggest what happened to him. Foreign governments volunteer their versions: the Brits blame the Nazis for kidnapping the president, the Nazis suggest that it was ‘Roosevelt and his Jews’ who abducted the American hero. These suggestions are all highly charged, unfounded gossip that are there to serve an international political cause. However, Roth deliberately decides to leave us with a very personal account. We hear Rabbi Bengelsdorf’s account told by his wife Evelyn who happens to be Philip’s aunt. Brilliantly, Roth’s historical narrative takes the shape of modern ‘Jewish history’. History is then reduced to a mere personal account in the shape of gossip devoid of any factual or forensic reference.

Following Rabbi Bengelsdorf’s account, we are entitled to assume that Lindbergh was indeed a Nazi agent. Anyhow, this is the time to remind us that Roth’s President Lindbergh is a fictional character. In fact Lindbergh, the real man, was an American hero, a man who ended the Second World War as a P38 combat pilot at the age of 42. ‘The Plot Against America’ is a fictional tale, Lindbergh wasn’t a traitor, he was an American patriot who happened, like many others, to have admired Hitler for a while. Lindbergh was an American nationalist who loved his people and truly believed that his country should stay out of the ‘Jewish War’. Roth’s Lindbergh is indeed imaginary, but the Jewish collective paranoia isn’t. It is very real. Moreover, the Jewish intent upon shaping American reality is more than real.  Most importantly, while the Nazi plot to run America is totally fictional, the Jewish Plot to run America is now more vivid than ever. Nowadays, when the American army is acting as an Israeli mission force in the Middle East, when Syria and Iran are just about to be flattened by Anglo-American might, it is rather clear what the real meaning of the ‘Plot Against America’ may be.

I read Philip Roth’s book while the entire international community was standing shoulder to shoulder behind the war criminal Sharon. While in Roth’s book the Herman Roths and the Walter Wichells were expecting  America to sacrifice its best sons on the Jewish altar, we are now watching the entire world joining the Jewish war against Islam. It is rather depressing to see our Western politicians enthusiastically adopting the most corrupt version of Jewish morality: a totally blind worldview based on supremacist endorsement of the justice of the stronger. Clearly, there is no isolationist Lindbergh to save us all. Unfortunately, there is not even a single Rabbi Bengelsdorf to suggest an alternative friendly human Jewish morality.

By the time I put Roth’s book down, the storm around the Iranian president subsided somehow. The Jewish world and the Jewish state had another great victory to be cheerful about. The UN’s General Assembly has passed a resolution designating 27 January as the annual ‘Holocaust Memorial Day’ throughout the world.

Why the 27th of January? Because this is the day Auschwitz was liberated. The resolution also rejects any denial that the Holocaust was a historical event in which the mass murder of six million Jews and other victims by Nazi Germany during World War II took place. Seemingly, the UN has a new role, while for years it has been engaged in securing world peace, now it is mainly concerned with securing Jewish history.  No doubt, a very nice present for the Jewish state, a state that holds the highest record for failing to comply with UN resolutions.

By the time I put Roth’s book down I am more or less ready to learn my lesson. Once again I failed to acknowledge that suffering is an exclusive, internal Jewish affair. No one is allowed entry, neither the Palestinians of Gaza’s concentration camp, nor the massacred inhabitants of Fallujah and Tikrit. One million victims of Rwanda are obviously out, three million in Vietnam are out as well, so are the innocent civilians of Hamburg, Hiroshima, Dresden and Nagasaki and millions of others who were killed in the name of democracy. By the time Roth’s ‘Plot Against America’ finds its way onto my bookshelf, I agree with myself at least: A young Rabbi Begelsdorf is long overdue. If we are being Judeified, we may as well take the best of Judaism rather than its supremacist brutality, namely Zionism. By the time Roth’s tome is resting I realise as well that the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity

من المذبحة نبت مجد المقاومة

صابرين دياب

سبتمبر 18, 2017

هكذا دورات التاريخ، من حدث الموت يكون نبت الحياة، ربما تصحّ لنا قراءة مذبحة صبرا وشاتيلا بهذه الأداة التي ابتكرها الإنسان الفلسطيني لفهم الحياة وإنجاز الاستمرار وتخليد فلسطينيته بالعمل والإنتاج.

لكن القناع الآخر المختلف للبشرية، أيّ القتل، قد واكب الجوهر الحقيقي للبشرية – وجه الإنسان – وبينهما كان وسيبقى التناقض، ولعلّ الفاشية اللبنانية، الكتائب ولفيفها، والصهيونية والسلطة الأميركية، خاصة المحافظين الجدد، هم التعبير الحقيقي عن القناع، في مواجهة وجه التاريخ.

شعبنا الفلسطيني وأحرار لبنان ومختلف الأمم، التي تعرّضت للمذبحة الممتدّة على مرّ تاريخ البشرية، وكانت مذبحة صبرا وشاتيلا المذبحة الشاهد الأشدّ وحشية على امتداد المذبحة ضدّ فلسطين، من دير ياسين والدوايمة والطنطورة وكفر قاسم والحرم الإبراهيمي، إلى العديد العديد، وهي التأسيس للفوضى الخلاقة في ثوب القاعدة وداعش والوهابية بالطبع، حيث فتح الوحش الغربي فكّيْه لتبيّن أنيابه الداعشية وتنغرس في بدن الأمة.

في صبرا وشاتيلا وقف الطفل الفلسطيني الأعزل والمرأة والشيخ، بين فيض دموع ترحيل الفدائيين، غيلة وغدراً ومساومة، وبين سكين شارون وعملائه، الممتدّة بطول المكان من البنتاغون وحتى الكنيست!

ورُوي للأجيال اللاحقة عن كثير من الكذب، حول التعاطف والعواطف! لم يبكِ على الفلسطيني أحد! الا أهلُه في الدم والإنسانية الصافية، فأيّ مشهد عجيب هذا؟ قبل المذبحة ويوم المذبحة وحتى اللحظة، مطلوب رأسك أيها الفلسطيني، لأنّ المطلوب أرضك! حتى اليوم بل اليوم، وهذا الأهمّ، يرتجف الصهيوني أمام هول المقاومة، فيأتيه الوهابي راكعاً طائعاً متطوّعاً، ليغدر بالقديس الذي نبت على أرض المذبحة!

غادرت المقاومة، وحبلت الأرض بالمقاومة، وجاء الجديد أعلى وأشدّ عزيمة من القديم، ولم يتغيّر شيء، لا يزال جعجع يبكي شارون، ويستورد أدواته للقتل، وقد اندمج كلاهما في شخص واحد، وحين لا تقوى يده النجسة على فعل القتل المباشر، يلجأ للغدر!

وفي النهاية، إنه لبنان الذي يضمّ بين جنباته أشدّ التناقضات تناحرية وحِدَّةً: سيد المقاومة وأداة المذبحة جعجع وأضرابه! لبنان أصغر بقعة جغرافية تتكثف فيها أشدّ التناقضات تناحراً، بقعة تتعايش فيها نقائض لا يُحيط بفهمها أعتى الفلاسفة، وجه وجوهر التاريخ الحياة مقاومة، وقناع التاريخ…

الفاشي لا يتعايش، بل يركع للقوة والحذر والوعي، يطعن في الإعلام المريض لأنه لا يقوى، وحين يقوى سيقتل، وبين كونه لا يقوى وحتى يقوى يلدغ، ولا بدّ أن يغدُر.

المجد لدماء صبرا وشاتيلا…

المجد للدم الفلسطيني الذي لن تشربه الأرض!

كاتبة وناشطة فلسطينية

Related

Ave Maria

The music is by Franz Schubert, sung by Dolores O’Riordan, while the images are from the film The Passion of the Christ.

Ave Maria, gratia plena,
Maria, gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Ave Ave Dominus
Dominus tecum,
Benedicta tu in mulieribus,
et benedictus
et benedictus fructus ventris
ventris tui, Iesus.
Ave Maria.
Ave Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Ave Ave God
Your God
Be blessed among the women
And blessed
And blessed be the product of your womb
Your womb, Jesus.
Ave Maria.

The Passion of the Christ came out in 2004 and was immediately labeled as “anti-Semitic” by its detractors. Though it never won an Academy Award, it holds the all time box office record for an R-rated film, having grossed $370,782,930 in the US and a whopping $611,899,420 worldwide. To the surprise of many, it became a major hit among audiences in the Arab world:

Mel Gibson’s controversial movie “The Passion of the Christ,” is breaking box office records across the Middle East. With the approach of Easter, Arab Christians identify primarily with the religious message. But it’s the film’s popularity among Muslims – even though it flouts Islamic taboos – that’s turning it into a phenomenon.

Islam forbids the depiction of a prophet, and Koranic verses deny the crucifixion ever occurred. For those reasons, the film is banned in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain. It’s also banned in Israel – but for other reasons.

“Banned in Israel–but for other reasons.” The above is from an article about The Passion that was published in the Christian Science Monitor on April 9, 2004. You’ll notice that the countries which banned the film–Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain–are today all allied with each other in the support of terrorists in Syria…where the film was not banned.

But to get back to the Christian Science Monitor piece. The article includes a quote from an Israeli Jew, who damns the film as anti-Semitic “both in intent and effect.”

“I have no doubt that the film is anti-Semitic both in intent and effect, but I’m very wary of some Jewish organizations’ reactions to it,” said Yossi Klein Halevi, who is identified as being affiliated with the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

“It needs to be more nuanced,” Halevi complained. “When an evangelical in Colorado Springs sees it, he doesn’t see anti-Semitism. But when Yasser Arafat sees it and calls it an important historic event, he’s responding to that anti-Semitism. And the fact that it’s becoming a major hit in the Arab world, that has consequences… ‘The Passion’ is where Mel Gibson and Yasser Arafat meet, and it isn’t bound by a love of Jesus.”

As alluded to in Halevi’s quote, The Passion was commented upon by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who is said to have attended a screening of the film along with Christian leaders. After the screening, an aide to Arafat remarked, “The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.”

Here again, the passage of history is deeply significant. In October of 2004, Arafat came down with a severe illness, and on November 11 he died at a hospital in Paris. There was suspicion the death was not due to natural causes, but it wasn’t until 2013 that a team of Swiss scientists released the results of a months-long investigation showing Arafat most likely had died of polonium poisoning. Many today speculate that Israel was behind the assassination.

Ariel Sharon, who himself came to a bad end, was the leader of Israel at the time Arafat was poisoned. The former Israeli prime minister suffered from obesity and weighed 254 pounds, and on January 4, 2006, he was overcome by a hemorrhagic stroke. The last eight years of his life were spent in a coma.

“The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.” When we recall what the people of Gaza in particularly have endured over the years, the analogy has validity. While I am not comparing Yasser Arafat to Jesus, the latter’s words from the Gospel of John, chapter 15, are worth recalling:

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.  You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

Jesus was sent by God to teach humanity how to live in peace. He was born among the Jews not because Jews are “chosen” by God, but because Jews especially were in need of hearing this message. Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish messiah, but because he preached a message of peace rather than war and conquest, the Jews rejected him. Here are the words of Mary in the first chapter of Luke–a passage that is often referred to as the “song of Mary.”

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.

Ave Maria, gratia. And if you think about it, you’ll notice another deeply significant sequence of events. Mary’s words that God “helped his servant Israel,” is of course an allusion to the Old Testament narrative. But then came the birth of Jesus; his rejection and the calls for his crucifixion in 30 A.D.; followed by a stupendously stunning Jewish downfall just 40 years later–in 70 A.D.–when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. One wonders if a somewhat similar type downfall may await the modern Jewish state.

My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. Here is another rendition of Ave Maria sung by Dolores O’Riordan, this time accompanied by Luciano Pavarotti:

Ave Maria, gratia. Gratia.

%d bloggers like this: