Crucifying Corbyn: Former Chief Rabbi Joins in The anti-Semitism smear-mongering gets more bizarre each day

Source

(Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks speaks at TED2017. Image credit: Bret Hartman/ TED Conference/ Flickr)
By Stuart Littlewood | American Herald Tribune | August 30, 2018

The nasty slur campaign against Jeremy Corbyn has just plumbed new depths with a hark-back to 1968 and the “Rivers of Blood” speech by Enoch Powell. It seems to have been prompted by a remark Corbyn made in 2013 that British Zionists had two problems: “One is they don’t want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony.”

In anti-Semitism terms that’s a flogging offence, even when it might be true. The former Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, immediately took umbrage saying that Corbyn’s criticism of British Zionists was the most offensive statement made by a senior politician since Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech. Sacks told the New Statesman : “It was divisive, hateful and, like Powell’s speech, it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.”

He said Corbyn had implied “Jews are not fully British” and that he was “using the language of classic pre-war European anti-Semitism”, adding that Corbyn was an anti-Semite who “defiles our politics and demeans the country we love”. He had “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate who want to kill Jews and remove Israel from the map”.

Sacks’ words could equally be taken to mean those who align themselves with Israeli hate and the wish to kill Palestinians and wipe Palestine from the map – which they have already done quite literally. And if Corbyn defiles our politics so does the Israel lobby. But the irony must have escaped him.

Just how righteous is the moralising Lord Sacks? In a House of Lords debate in 2014 on the Middle East in general and the question of formal recognition of Palestine by the UK in particular, the former Chief Rabbi got up and made a speech that was more like a pro-Israel rant. After a long winded spiel about the history of Israel and Jerusalem – from the Jewish angle of course – he went on to demonise Hamas and Hezbollah in the manner recommended by Israel’s ‘hasbara’ handbook and all the more absurd when Israel’s hands are so unclean. Everyone knows that Hamas has agreed to a long-term truce with Israel provided it ends the illegal occupation, gets back behind its 1967 borders and accepts the refugees’ right of return – all as per UN resolutions and subject to a Palestinian referendum. And Hezbollah, as Sacks knows perfectly well, was formed to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon after the 1982 war.

Israel, said Sacks, is the place where his people were born almost 4,000 years ago. As an ardent promoter of the Jewish religion, the Jewish state and the idea that God gave Jews exclusive title to Jerusalem, he seemed oblivious to the irony of his speech especially where he said: “When ancient theologies are used for modern political ends, they speak a very dangerous language indeed. So, for example, Hamas and Hezbollah, both self-defined as religious movements, refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the state of Israel within any boundaries whatever and seek only its complete destruction.”

Where does he get his information? Israel won’t define its boundaries, leaving them fluid for endless expansion, and does a first-class job of de-legitimising itself by its defiance of international law and utter contempt for norms of human decency and obligations under UN Charter and other agreements.

Zionists distort the scriptures to claim Jerusalem is theirs by Divine right, it was already 2000 years old and an established, fortified city when King David captured it. The Jews lost Jerusalem to the Babylonians, recaptured it, then lost it again to the Roman Empire in 63BC. When they rebelled Hadrian threw them out in 135. Until the present illegal occupation the Jews had only controlled Jerusalem for some 500 years, small beer compared to the 1,277 years it was subsequently ruled by Muslims and the 2000 years, or thereabouts, it originally belonged to the Canaanites.

Jerusalem was also a Christian city. The 4th century saw the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Persians came and went. Then, after the Islamic conquest in 690, two major shrines were constructed over the ruins of the earlier temples — the Dome of the Rock from which Muhammed is said to have ascended to Heaven, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Crusaders re-took Jerusalem in 1099 and The Temple Mount became the headquarters of the Knights Templar. In 1187 Saladin ended the Crusader Kingdom and restored the city to Islam while allowing Jews and Christians to remain if they wished.

As the saying goes, “None has claim. All have claim!”

Nowhere in his speech did Lord Sacks address the main question of British recognition of Palestinian statehood. Nowhere did he recommend the jackboot of oppression be immediately lifted and the Palestinians granted their human rights and their freedom. That would surely have been the Christian position and, I imagine [?], the true Jewish one.

It is what the Rabbi failed to say on this important occasion that makes me wonder whether he’s an instrument of God or just another preacher of Israeli ‘hasbara’. I read somewhere that Lord Sacks is of Polish/Lithuanian extraction. Most Palestinians can demonstrate ancestral ties to the ancient Holy Land. Can he?

“Jeremy Corbyn moved the rock and the antisemites crawled out”

Corbyn is also in trouble over a remark he made in 2010 at a meeting of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign suggesting that MPs who took part in a parliamentary debate on the Middle East had their comments prepared for them by the Israeli ambassador. I’d say that was fair comment although the scriptwriters were more likely to have been Mark Regev’s propaganda team in Tel Aviv. Regev, a propaganda expert from the dark side, is now Israel’s ambassador in London. Oh, the irony (again).

And a few days ago we heard that Jews are preparing to quit Britain because they fear Jeremy Corbyn taking power, according to the former chairman of the Conservative Party Lord Feldman. So says The Times.

Feldman wrote an open letter to Mr. Corbyn telling him that Jewish people were making contingency plans to emigrate because Labour had become a hotbed of anti-Jewish feeling. “Many Jewish people in the United Kingdom are seriously contemplating their future here in the event of you becoming prime minister. Quietly, discreetly and extremely reluctantly, they are making contingency plans.”

One of these is Mark Lewis, a prominent solicitor and a former director of lawfare firm UK Lawyers for Israel, who is emigrating to Israel with his partner, Mandy Blumenthal. It is believed she is the National Director of Likud-Herut UK, an affiliate of the Zionist Federation and whose website is full of preposterous ideas such as: “We believe that terms like ‘illegal occupation’ should never go unchallenged….” and “Such criticism as we may have [of Israel] should never be expressed publicly….”

Lewis, who describes himself as an ‘unapologetic Zionist’, said: “Jeremy Corbyn moved the rock and the antisemites crawled out from underneath.” And he told the Evening Standard: “I don’t feel welcome in this country anymore.” So he’s off to that hotbed of racism and apartheid, Israel.

Being unwelcome is not a happy feeling. I know this from my trips to Israel, what with their rudeness, threatening behavior, intrusive searches, hostile questioning and unforgivably vile treatment of our Palestinian friends. It’s not as if we want to be in Israel – we are forced to divert there on account of Israel’s illegal military occupation. And when we eventually reach Palestine we have to put up with the presence of arrogant Israeli gunslingers strutting the streets, setting up hundreds of roadblocks, using obstructive tactics with brutish behavior, creating endless queues and interfering with Palestinian life at every level.

And if we try traveling to Palestine direct, like the humanitarian aid boats Al-Awda, and Freedom last month, we get violently and unlawfully assaulted on the high seas, beaten up, thrown in a stinking Israeli jail and have our belongings and money stolen by the Israeli military desperate to maintain their illegal blockade of Gaza.

So, if Messrs Feldman, Lewis and Blumenthal feel more comfortable with those criminals they’d better join them.

In answer to the babble put out by Zio-propagandists, church leaders in the Holy Land issued their 2006 Jerusalem Declaration saying:

“We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

“We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine… We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation.”

This still stands. And as the Declaration also points out, “discriminative actions [by the Occupation] are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region”.

That comes from genuine churchmen working in the front line against armed Zio-thugs whose vicious day-to-day persecution of the Christian and Muslim communities in the Holy Land makes a nonsense of accusations of anti-semitism in the UK.

I think we can deduce from all this that Zionism is a menace. Nothing has changed for the better; it has got steadily worse.

‘We want our Jerusalem back, and our state’

In 2010 Fr Manuel Musallam, a gritty Catholic priest with long experience of Israel’s cruel and illegal occupation, told members of the Irish Government: “Christianity in the region has been destroyed not by Muslims but by Israel. Israel destroyed the church of Palestine and the church of Jerusalem beginning in 1948. It, not Muslims, has sent Christians in the region into a diaspora…  We have spoken to Israel for more than 18 years and the result has been zero. We have signed agreements here and there at various times and then when there is a change in the Government of Israel we have to start again from the beginning. We ask for our life and to be given back our Jerusalem, to be given our state and for enough water to drink…  I have not seen Jerusalem since 1990.”

Archbishop Theodosius Hanna (Greek Orthodox Church) told them: “Palestine is the place from where Christianity comes…. Everything that has happened to the Palestinians between 1948 and today has happened to all Palestinians, including Christian Palestinians.

“What we are after is freedom and dignity just as freedom and dignity have been bestowed on so many nations in the world. We want that too. When we speak about peace, we also speak about justice because it is impossible to have peace without justice. Peace is part of justice. Unfortunately, in the Holy Land there is no such thing as justice.”

Corbyn should remind his tormentors of all this and take no lectures from those who support Zionism and adore the racist state it spawned.

It is Jeremy Corbyn’s misfortune to be surrounded by witless blabbermouths whose unbridled remarks are a gift to israel (apartheid state) lobby propagandists.

Israel wreaks terror on another harmless mercy ship

Al-Awda, Norwegian flagged mercy boat hijacked by Israel on the high seas en route to Gaza.

How ironic. It is Jeremy Corbyn’s misfortune to be surrounded by witless blabbermouths whose unbridled remarks are a gift to Israel lobby propagandists.

And while mainstream media in the UK were, as usual, whipping up an anti-Semitism ruckus orchestrated against the Labour Party leader, Israel was busy committing yet another outrage on the high seas against a humanitarian aid vessel peacefully carrying urgently-needed medical supplies for the desperate citizens of blockaded Gaza.

SOSjustfuture4Palestine issued a statement saying: “The Israeli Occupation Forces violently attacked our Norwegian flagged boat Al Awda (‘The Return’) as she was in international waters…. Armed, masked soldiers boarded Al Awda without permission. They assaulted several unarmed participants by hitting them and using tasers.”

Reuters (Oslo) reported that the Norwegian Foreign Affairs Ministry demanded the Israeli authorities clarify the circumstances around the seizure of the vessel and the legal basis for the intervention. Israel’s Foreign Ministry declined to comment.

Head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Zaher Birawi, has said he’s holding Israel fully responsible for the safety of the activists, and stressed that Israel will be prosecuted for the “crime of kidnapping” the Freedom Flotilla ship and its activists, who did not impose a threat to Israel’s security.

British media and Government are playing deaf, blind and dumb to the enormity of the situation despite the fact that aboard the Al Awda were unarmed activists from 16 nations, including 69 year-old British surgeon Dr Swee Ang who has helped medical teams in Gaza on many occasions. And it’s the duty of governments to protect their citizens wherever they may be, especially when they are attacked in international waters.

Early reports said there was blood on the decks and Dr Swee was hit and tasered by Israel’s military thugs. She is now back in the UK after 2 days in Girvon prison but many others are still locked up. Dr Swee has just sent this message: “I was deported from Israeli prison this morning and arrived back at London.

“The Israeli Army have stolen my two mobile phones, my camera and most of my clothes and belongings so it is not possible to communicate by phone until I get a new one. But email is still working and I have just arrived home. I have made an audio of the events of 29 July onwards and how our unarmed boat with US$ 15,000 of gauze, wound dressings and antibiotics was abducted from International Waters while on our way to Gaza and taken by force to Ashdod in Israel by the Israeli Army where all 22 participants were subjected to multiple strip searches and then put in Givon prison. There are still participants in prison as I send this to you.”

Meanwhile the British Government doesn’t seem in the least bothered by Israel’s breach of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Of course, both Israel and the UK have ‘form’ and we’ve been here many times before. Nine years ago (July 2009) I found myself writing this:

Britain’s foreign secretary David Miliband – or rather, someone on his behalf – has written to me about the government’s response to Israel’s hijacking of the mercy ship Spirit of Humanity on the high seas and the outrageous treatment of six peace-loving British citizens (including the skipper), en route to Gaza not Israel, who had their gear stolen or damaged and were thrown into Israeli jails. The letter contains the usual meaningless expressions like ‘deplore’ and ‘press’ and ‘raise the issue’, which are the familiar hallmark of Foreign Office mentality.

  • Miliband’s spokesman says: “The Israeli Navy took control of the Spirit of Humanity on 30 June, diverting it to Ashdod port in Israel. All those on board, including six British nationals, were handed over to Israeli immigration officials. British consular officials had good access to the British detainees and established that they were treated well. The Israeli authorities deported the detainees on 6 July.”

Treated well? That’s not what the peaceful seafarers say. They were assaulted, put in fear of their lives and deprived of their liberty for fully a week – a long time in a stinking Israeli jail.

  • Miliband’s spokesman: “The Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons on 30 June that it was ‘vital that all states respect international law, including the law of the sea. It is also important to say that we deplore the interference by the Israeli navy in the activities of Gazan fishermen.”

Such fine words. Where is the action to back them up?

  • Miliband’s spokesman: “When the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, on 1 July he raised the issue with him and asked for clarification about whether or not the Spirit of Humanity had been intercepted in international waters. We will continue to press the Israeli authorities for clarification.”

It’s well over a week and Lieberman hasn’t clarified anything. Was the Israeli ambassador in London summoned and given a dressing down? Has London demanded compensation for the Britishers’ losses and damage? Has the boat and its cargo been returned? Have arrangements been made for the aid to be delivered? Our Zionist-leaning government apparently takes pleasure in Britain’s repeated humiliation. Not long ago the British consul-general in Tel Aviv (a woman) was strip-searched by Israeli security perverts.

  • Miliband’s spokesman: “We regularly remind the Israeli government of its obligations under international law on a variety of issues, including with respect to humanitarian access to Gaza as well as Israel’s control of Gazan waters and the effect this has on Gaza’s fishing industry.”

Ever get the feeling they’ve switched off their collective hearing aid? What is the point of obligations if they never have to be met?

  • Miliband’s spokesman: “As I said on the phone, our Travel Advice makes clear that we advise against all travel to Gaza, including its offshore waters; that it is reckless to travel to Gaza at this time…. The UK has been unequivocal in its calls for Israel to lessen restrictions at the Gaza crossings, allowing the legitimate flow of humanitarian aid, trade and reconstruction goods and the movement of people. This is essential not only for the people of Gaza, but also for the wider stability of the region.”

“Unequivocal”? “Essential”? More splendid but empty words. The needs of the crushed and devastated and half-starved people of Gaza have been urgent for 3 years, ever since Britain ganged up with the Zionist axis to bring Gaza to its knees.

  • Miliband’s spokesman: “Recent events in Gaza are a tragic reminder of the importance of progress on the peace process.”

No kidding……. They are also a tragic reminder of the West’s perverse failure in its duty to enforce compliance with international law, human rights and UN resolutions.

  • Miliband’s spokesman: “The UK, with the support of our international allies, will continue to pursue vigorously a comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution, involving a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state.”

But never vigorously enough. The world is still waiting….

That was 9 years ago. Why does London perpetuate the blockade of Gaza by colluding in Israel’s unlawful conduct? Where are the consequences and penalties for breaching international law and all codes of human decency?

Part of the problem is the Interim Agreement signed in 1995 that allowed the Israelis to weave a tangled web of security zoning in Gaza’s coastal waters leaving Israel in charge and dictating what happens off-shore and who comes and goes. It’s the sort of agreement no Palestinian would have signed unless under extreme duress.

Being ‘interim’ these restrictions were not expected to last beyond 1999. But they were still in force in 2009 and they are still in force in 2018. Why?

Gaza blockade illegal, illegal, illegal

“Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law… the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.” That was the conclusion of the UN’s Palmer inquiry under its then Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

It is completely at odds with what other experts have said. The UN itself had already accepted that Israel’s blockade is illegal. One of its own fact-finding missions declared that it constituted collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus was illegal and contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The action by Israel’s military in intercepting the aid ship Mavi Marmara on the high seas in 2010, an assault in which 10 crew and activists were killed, was “clearly unlawful” and couldn’t be justified even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations [the right of self-defence]. “No case can be made for the legality of the interception and the Mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal”.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights also concluded that the Israeli blockade is illegal. “Due both to the legal nature of Israel’s relationship to Gaza – that of occupier – and the impact of the blockade on the civilian population, amounting to ‘collective punishment’, the blockade cannot be reconciled with the principles of international law, including international humanitarian law… The flotilla did not seek to travel to Israel, let alone ‘attack’ Israel… Israel could have diplomatically engaged Turkey, arranged for a third party to verify there were no weapons onboard and then peacefully guided the vessel to Gaza.”

Craig Murray also knows a thing or two about such matters, having headed the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was responsible for giving political and legal clearance to Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to enforce the UN authorised blockade against Iraqi weapons shipments. He commented: “Right of free passage is guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas… Israel has declared a blockade on Gaza and justified previous fatal attacks on neutral civilian vessels on the High Seas in terms of enforcing that embargo, under the legal cover given by the San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.”

But, he explains, San Remo only applies to blockade in times of armed conflict. “Israel is not currently engaged in an armed conflict… San Remo does not confer any right to impose a permanent blockade outwith times of armed conflict, and in fact specifically excludes as illegal a general blockade on an entire population.”

Furthermore, Security Council resolution 1860 (2009) emphasizes “the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings” and calls for “the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”. Israel has imposed a land blockade for decades and still has a hand in keeping Gaza’s land crossing with Egypt closed. The 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access between the Palestinian Authority and Israel is also ignored. So the only sensible channel for “unimpeded provision and distribution” is by sea.

The Palmer inquiry was about as warped as it could get. The Terms of Reference said it was “required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States…. The information for the Panel’s work came primarily through its interactions with the Points of Contact designated by Israel and Turkey.”

The 4-man panel included a representative each from the governments of Turkey and Israel, and was headed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer (Chair) and Alvaro Uribe, 58th president of Colombia. Palmer was the 33rd prime minister of New Zealand if that’s any consolation. Note the absence of anyone to represent the views of the party targeted by the blockade. Ban Ki-Moon didn’t think it necessary to invite someone from (horror of horrors) the government of Gaza.

Consequently the inquiry’s findings included this gem:

“It would be illegal if its imposition [i.e. the blockade] was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives… The earliest maritime interception operations to prevent weapons smuggling to Gaza predated the 2007 take-over of Hamas in Gaza. The actual naval blockade was imposed more than one year after that event. These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas.”

Palmer’s report oozes bias and makes sickening reading. For example it refers to “the takeover of Gaza” by Hamas when Hamas, as everyone else knows, was democratically elected in 2006. And Israeli gunboats were already shelling Gaza and shooting up Gazan fishing boats when I was there in 2007.

Then this warning from Palmer…

“Once a blockade has been lawfully established, it needs to be understood that the blockading power can attack any vessel breaching the blockade if after prior warning the vessel intentionally and clearly refuses to stop or intentionally and clearly resists visit, search or capture. There is no right within those rules to breach a lawful blockade as a right of protest. Breaching a blockade is therefore a serious step involving the risk of death or injury.

“Given that risk, it is in the interests of the international community to actively discourage attempts to breach a lawfully imposed blockade.”

So a green light to the rogue state to violently assault any humanitarian vessel approaching Gaza’s waters. What does this whitewash mean for the Palestinians’ bid for statehood? Must the newly fledged state begin its young life with a land and sea blockade in place because Palmer and Uribe say it’s all legal and above-board and Israel’s security comes first? Let us not forget that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are under blockade too.

As for Israel’s constant claim that the primary purpose of the blockade is security, a Wikileaks cable from 2008 reads: “As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to [U.S. embassy economic officers] on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge.” Israel wanted it “functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis”.

And according to documents released under a Freedom of Information petition by Gisha, an Israeli law centre, Israel operated “a policy of deliberate reduction” of basic goods in the Gaza Strip. Gisha’s director accused Israel of “paralyzing normal life in Gaza”. The documents confirmed that the siege was not for security reasons but aimed at keeping Gazans at near-starvation level. Since around half the population are growing children this act of collective punishment has meant that hundreds of thousands are undernourished.

And the civilised world stands idly by.

Stuart Littlewood

Zionist Inquisition in full cry, Their quarry: anti-racist Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

Zionist Inquisition in full cry

Their quarry: anti-racist Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn; their weapons: anti-semitism smears; their purpose: to oust Corbyn and replace him with a compliant pro-Israel stooge

By Stuart Littlewood | Dissident Voice | July 30, 2018

The row over anti-Semitism has erupted yet again in the UK Labour Party, as predicted a few months ago by Miko Peled, the Israeli general’s son, who warned that:

… they are going to pull all the stops, they are going to smear, they are going to try anything they can to stop Corbyn…. the reason anti-Semitism is used is because they [the Israelis] have no argument….

So Israel’s pimps at Westminster, never happy unless they’re telling everyone what to think and say, are frantically insisting that the Labour Party adopts the discredited International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism in its unedited entirety and incorporates it into the party’s code of conduct.  Many party members believe they have blown up the matter out of all proportion simply to settle their long-standing score – as Peled says – with the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a genuine anti-racist, champion of Palestinian rights and critic of Israel.

This is what the IHRA definiition says:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

It includes these eleven “contemporary examples of anti-semitism”:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Jewish community leaders are furious that Labour’s ruling body, the National Executive Committee, disagrees with 4 of these examples and refuses to include them in the party’s new code of conduct. The NEC, of course, is mindful that the code must be enforceable across half-a-million members with differing opinions, many of whom are tired of the constant whining. An emergency motion orchestrated by the Jewish lobby, forcing the NEC to take on board the whole IHRA package with all its examples and humiliating Corbyn in the process, was supposed to be considered yesterday but is now postponed till September.

The NEC explains its omissions by saying accusations of dual nationality are wrong rather than anti-semitic. It strikes out altogether the idea that calling the state of Israel “a racist endeavour” is anti-semitic, no doubt for the simple reason that it is racist. Israelis have for decades practised apartheid, casting their non-Jew population as second-class citizens, and now it’s enshrined in their new nationality laws, in black and white.  What’s more, Israel’s illegal occupation has denied Palestinians their right to self-determination for the last 70 years. The NEC also chooses not to forbid the use of symbols and images associated with classic anti-semitism and comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis unless there’s evidence of anti-semitic intent.

Sounds reasonable, you might think. But 68 rabbis have accused the Labour leadership of acting “in the most insulting and arrogant way” by leaving out or modifying those controversial bits. In a letter to The Guardian they say it’s not the Labour Party’s place to re-write it.

The arrogance is theirs, I think. Here’s why. The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee recommended adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism subject to the inclusion of two caveats:

(1) It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

(2) It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

The Government agreed but dropped the caveats saying they weren’t necessary. Subsequently the IHRA definition has run into big trouble, being condemned by leading law experts as “too vague to be useful” and because conduct contrary to the IHRA definition is not necessarily illegal. They warn that public bodies are under no obligation to adopt or use it and, if they do, they must interpret it in a way that’s consistent with their statutory obligations and with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is deeply flawed

Crucially, freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population” – unless they encourage violence, hatred or intolerance. Calling Israel an apartheid state or advocating BDS against Israel cannot properly be characterized as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, any public authority seeking to apply the IHRA definition to prohibit or punish such activities “would be acting unlawfully”.

The right of free expression, as Labour’s Zio- Inquisitors ought to know, is now part of UK domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act. Furthermore the 1986 Education Act established an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions. Then there’s Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which bestows on everyone “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. As always, such rights are subject to limitations required by law and respect for the rights of others.

So the IHRA definition is a minefield. It’s not something a sane organisation would incorporate into its Code of Conduct – certainly not as it stands. It contravenes human rights and freedom of expression. But when did the Israel lobby ever care about other people’s rights?

The whole fuss borders on the farcical when you ask what anti-Semitism means. Who are the Semites anyway? Everyone avoids this question like the plague. Why? It’s embarrassing. DNA research shows that most of those living today who claim to be Jews are not descended from the ancient Israelites at all and the Palestinians have more Israelite blood. So they are the real Semites. Research by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, published by the Oxford University Press in 2012 on behalf of the Society of Molecular Biology and Evolution, found that the Khazarian Hypothesis is scientifically correct, meaning that most Jews are Khazars. The Khazarians converted to Talmudic Judaism in the 8th Century and were never in ancient Israel.

Probably no more than 2% of Jews in Israel are actually Israelites. So even if you believe the propaganda myth that God gave the land to the Israelites, He certainly didn’t give it to Netanyahu, Lieberman and the other East European thugs who rule the apartheid state.

As former Israeli Director of Military Intelligence, Yehoshafat Harkabi wrote: “It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”

Well, that tragic irony has come to pass. As has been suggested before, so-called anti-Semitism is a matter best resolved by the Jewish ‘family’ itself. There’s no reason to bother Corbyn or the Labour Party with it

israel Will Stop at Nothing to Prevent Jeremy Corbyn from Becoming UK’s Next Prime Minister #enoughisenough

BY Stuart Littlewood

The need to slap israel with tough, sustained sanctions #BDS

Quit lying to us about Israeli-Palestinian “peace process”

US-UK-Israel conspiracy against Palestine

Face the truth: Israel won’t willingly return the lands and resources it has stolen unless slapped with tough, sustained sanctions. Civil society in the US and UK must end the conspiracy among their warped government “élites” that makes a mockery of international law.

By Stuart Littlewood

It goes something like this:

Listen up, you wretched Palestinians. There’s no way you’re getting your lands back, or a state of your own, because that would make our Zionist buddies feel upset and insecure. And you know how their security matters above everyone else’s. Besides, God told them they could grab your land and kick you out even if they don’t really have any ancestral connection to it. So, you rabble don’t belong here. And you might as well know that we support them 100 per cent in their efforts to make life so f*cking unbearable that you all piss off somewhere else – and we don’t care where – just as long as our beloved friends get their hands on your farms and homes and resources. Naturally, we’ve suspended your human rights, and international law simply isn’t available to you.

You don’t like being shafted? Tough. Learn to accept it. Bow down to those who are favoured by God, as we have done. (Signed: US and UK, adoring sponsors of God’s Rogue Regime.)

That, essentially, has been the West’s attitude for the last 50 years. And, if we don’t change it, that’s how it will for another 50, by which time Israel will rule the Middle East and possibly beyond.

Life for the Palestinians hasn’t improved. It has only got worse under the tyranny of Israel’s military occupation. And throughout that time the performance of their representatives to the outside world, the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation), has been chronic, verging on useless. Thanks in part to the Palestinian leadership’s diplomatic ineptitude and quisling tendencies Israel has been able to expand its frontiers and flourish far more than it had any right to.

By 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu felt untouchable enough to say that if he was returned to power, a Palestinian state would not be established because handing back territory would threaten Israel’s security.

And in August 2017 he announced that Israel would keep the West Bank permanently and there would be no more uprooting of settlements: “We are here to stay forever… This is the inheritance of our ancestors. This is our land.”

Netanyahu’s ancestors, by the way, are from – where? And the rest of the thugs in his administration – where do their roots lie? Few if any can show ancestral links to the Biblical lands they claim are theirs. The true inheritors, of course, are the Palestinian peoples who have been there since the days when Jerusalem was a Canaanite city.

Netanyahu’s position echoes his Likud Party’s stance back in 1999 and 2009, so Western politicians should be well acquainted with it. To remind them, David Morrison has produced a neat analysis of Israel’s unchanging position:

  • “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River.”
  • “The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan River will be the permanent eastern border of the state of Israel.”
  • “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the state of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
  • “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realisation of Zionist values [written before Israel removed its troops]. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defence of the vital interests of the state of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

Likud’s message still stands. Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister and second only in ranking to Netanyahu, told Israeli diplomats in 2015 that “we need to return to the basic truth of our rights to this country…. This land is ours. All of it is ours. We did not come here to apologise for that.” She rattled on about God having promised the land of Israel to the Jews and how she was going to get the international community to “recognise Israel’s right to build homes for Jews in their homeland, everywhere”.

Zionist leaders before Netanyahu broadcast their fraudulent claims to the land and bragged about their plan to seize it. Their evil intent has been well advertised. Even if Netanyahu wanted a two-state solution he would be opposed by his own party and the five others making up his ruling coalition, virtually all of which stand against Palestinians having a state of their own.

Israel’s bad behaviour richly rewarded

As David Morrison and others have repeatedly pointed out, the UN Security Council has never applied sanctions against Israel to force a reversal of its illegal land grab. Instead of punishing the regime for its 50 years of terror, the US, UK and EU have showered it with privileges.

Since 1967, the US has handed Israel well over $100 billion in mostly military aid and provided political and diplomatic cover by vetoing resolutions critical of it in the UN Security Council. Obama before he left office guaranteed Israel a further $38 billion in military aid over the next ten years.

Hard-pressed American taxpayers still don’t seem to have grasped this misappropriation of their funds or they’d surely be angry enough to stop it.

The EU for its part allowed Israel to sign up to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership in 1995 and gave it privileged access to EU markets under the EU-Israel Association Agreement of 2000, even though it breached the basic terms of membership from the start and continues to do so. So, there are no painful consequences for Israel’s bad behaviour, just rich rewards.

Maintaining the illusion of a peace process

The peace process is, of course, a sham. Anyone who believes in it is hallucinating. But to perpetuate the cruel illusion Netanyahu offers an occasional glimmer of hope for a “negotiated” settlement provided there are no awkward preconditions. In any event he will ensure the talks go nowhere, just as he has done many times before, aided and abetted by discredited “peace broker” America and always blaming the Palestinians. It is patently obvious that Israel and the US (and indeed the UK) conspire to keep the idea of a peace process alive in order to provide a smoke-screen while Israel continues its expansionist policy and establishes more “facts on the ground” designed to make its occupation irreversible.

The former UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, said two years ago: “The United Nations is committed to working to create the conditions for the parties to return to meaningful negotiations. That is the one and only path to a just and lasting solution – an end to the occupation that began in 1967…”

First, “meaningful negotiations” simply aren’t going to happen; and if they do they’ll lead nowhere as before. Besides, negotiations between a strong party backed by mighty powers and a weak demoralised party are unlikely to produce a “just” solution. Second, it is not “the only path”. There’s law and sanctions. And the law has already spoken. All that’s needed is the integrity and guts to enforce it. Nothing will change until the UN – or a significant section of the international community – rises to the moral challenge and enforces international law and the many resolutions relating to Israel’s crimes, and slaps Israel with severe sanctions until it complies. As long as it does nothing the UN is seen to be in on the conspiracy too.

The British government knows the facts. So what on earth was Ambassador Peter Wilson, UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, thinking when he recently addressed the Security Council briefing on the Middle East peace process?

Support for a two-state solution is the only way to ensure a just and lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict… The United Kingdom’s longstanding position on the Middle East peace process remains clear and unchanged: we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state; based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.

Theresa May has all her ministers and MPs mouthing and writing the same tosh, as did her predecessors. It isn’t difficult given that 80 per cent of them are reported to be signed-up Friends of Israel. We watched their grovelling worship of the rogue regime – and of the arch-criminal Netanyahu – at the Balfour centenary celebrations in London. Wilson added:

The leadership and engagement that President Trump and his administration have demonstrated in reinvigorating the Middle East peace process must have our support. We call on the region, Israelis, and Palestinians to seize the opportunity that this presents and turn 2017 not just into another anniversary of occupation, but a new anniversary of peace.

Well, we’ve seen Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop leadership at work, gifting Jerusalem to Israel, and what that did for peace.

The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), an organisation not given to exaggeration, reacted by reminding everybody that acquiring or annexing territory is prohibited under international law, and the US is disregarding the international community’s long-standing position of not recognising Israel’s unlawful annexation of East Jerusalem. Recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is tantamount to condoning annexation and the occupation. Furthermore, Israel, as the occupying power, is prohibited from forcibly transferring Palestinians out of their homes in Jerusalem. Israel disregards this with its programme of evictions, home demolitions and residency revocations. It said:

The US administration’s declaration risks condoning these practices and other violations of international law in the occupied Palestinian territory that NRC witnesses daily… The international community should insist on respect for international law and the enforcement of existing UN resolutions, while governments should use their influence to hold those responsible for violations to account.

Unfortunately, respect for international law, enforcing UN resolutions and applying sanctions are not part of the US-UK tool kit unless directed against Iran and Israel’s other enemies.

So, as David Morrison warns, it looks as if “today’s Palestinian children will still be living under occupation when they are grandparents”.

And we as a nation will never be able to hold our heads up on account of the humiliation we heaped on them.

Balfour Mentality Has No Place in Civilized Society

Source

 
By Stuart Littlewood | American Herald Tribune | November 14, 2017

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was hatched by Zionist schemers and foisted upon a gullible and desperate British government in time of war. Those dark forces then worked hard to ensure that the first part of the pledge (and much more) was implemented while the second part, which promised to safeguard the rights and interests of the existing non-Jewish population of Palestine, was permanently suppressed.

This betrayal has shamed and angered right-thinking British people for decades. The Government could apologise and make amends but lacks the moral fibre. In the meantime, the spectacle of sick-minded elements of the British Establishment celebrating 100 years of Balfour is beyond all bounds of decency. It was met with such strong counter-demonstrations that supporters of Israeli apartheid will hopefully feel more isolated from now on. They are relatively few, corralled in their Westminster bubble. We are many, and growing.

But we still have an ignorant, biased mainstream media to contend with. During his visit to join the jollifications Israeli prime minister Netanyahu was given a platform on the BBC’s flagship Andrew Marr Show where he spouted his propaganda lies without serious challenge from the usually forensic Marr. A pity George Galloway wasn’t on hand for the occasion.

The Daily Mail meanwhile accused Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn of snubbing an invitation to the gala dinner with Netanyahu to honour Balfour and the birth of Israel and slammed him for speaking at a MEND (stands for Muslim Engagement Development) event instead. MEND in turn was accused of being a hard-line Islamist organisation masquerading as civil libertarians, and extremist with it.

Former Communities Secretary Sir Eric Pickles called Corbyn’s snub “a slap in the face of Israel, and of all British Jewish citizens of the United Kingdom”. He said: “To not make a dinner is perhaps excusable but to attend a meeting of extremists who are vowed to destroy Israel is contemptible.

The unswerving devotion by Tory grandees like Pickles to the real extremists, chief among them Her Majesty’s Government’s guest of honour Netanyahu, is nauseating. This hard-line nutter, with his repulsive gang, continues to expropriate Palestinian land and property and ethnically cleanse Palestinian citizens from their homeland at gunpoint and with armoured bulldozers. And Pickles calls Corbyn contemptible?

Jennifer Gerber, of Labour Friends of Israel, declared that it was “utterly unacceptable” for the Labour leader to attend an event organised by a group that has repeatedly peddled myths about the Israel lobby. So uncomfortable truths are relegated to myth? In any case what are agents of a foreign military power doing in the Labour Party and using it to influence the work of the British parliament? It’s high time all party leaders shut down the pro-Israel meddlers in their ranks, just as they’d crush interference on behalf of any other rogue state.

Personally I don’t believe Israel has a friend in the whole world apart from those it has bought and the sad folk who have allowed themselves to be perverted by Christian-Zionist pastors and the Scofield bible.

Then Emily Thornberry, Labour’s shadow Foreign Secretary, was criticised for “disgraceful” Balfour comments and accused of having “reflected Corbyn’s view that the Labour party has no place as a mediator in the Israel-Palestine conflict”. Professor Colin Shindler, a Senior Research Fellow in Israel Studies and an advisory board member of the Israel Institute, said: “Corbyn over the last thirty years has never been a mediator between Israel and Palestine but a propagandist for one side and one side only. This goes against all the talk about peace and reconciliation – it doesn’t make any sense at all.”

I wonder, has Shindler tried saying the same to the Conservative Party, with 80 percent if its MPs signed up to Friends of Israel?

Thornberry argued that the Balfour Declaration should not have been celebrated “because I think it was a turning point in the history of that area, and I think probably the most important way of marking it is to recognise Palestine”. This will strike most people as a perfectly reasonable position given that successive British governments over the last 40 years have fielded prime ministers and foreign secretaries who were eager stooges for Israel, happy to turn a blind eye to its crimes and only too pleased to help thwart attempts to win justice for those it has cruelly oppressed in the Holy Land.

The latest fiasco is the crazy adventures of Conservative glamour-girl Priti Patel, the International Development Secretary who had 14 meetings with Israeli politicians (including prime minister Netanyahu and his security minister) during a family holiday in Israel without telling the Foreign Office, her civil servants or her boss Theresa May, and without government officials present. This was not only a two-finger salute to the ministerial code of conduct but a gross breach of security.

She’s accused of freelancing in foreign policy and is said to have tried persuading colleagues to send British taxpayers’ money as aid for an Israeli forces project in the Golan Heights. Like we don’t need the money here, with 300,000 homeless and sleeping rough….  Furthermore, she actually visited the Golan. Everyone and his dog knows — except Patel, apparently — that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory stolen in 1967 by the Israelis who have illegally occupied it ever since. Touring it with the thieving occupation army was a monumental diplomatic blunder.

Patel’s meetings are said to have been arranged by Lord Polak. This individual was an official of the Board of Deputies of British Jews in the 1980s, joined the Conservative Friends of Israel in 1989, and served as its director for 26 years until appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) for political service and made a life peer. It’s hard to see what political service Polak performed for anyone except the Israeli regime.

The Patel-Polak shambles is a disturbing echo of the Fox-Werrity affair back in 2011. The then shadow Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox had been quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying: “In the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression — Israel’s enemies are our enemies.” The Jewish Chronicle hailed him as “a champion of Israel within the government”. Fox has continually rattled the sabre against Iran which, of course, is no enemy of Britain but regarded by Israel as an obstacle to its craving for supremacy in the region. So it was well advertised where Fox was coming from. No surprise, then, when he became the centre of an unsavoury scandal involving him, his ‘close friend’ Adam Werrity, the UK’s ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould (who had previously served at senior level in the embassy in Iran) and Israeli intelligence figures allegedly involved in plotting sanctions against Iran. The Foreign Office and civil servants knew little or nothing about these meetings.

Fox jumped before he was pushed, so did Patel. Pimping for Israel is never seriously punished in the corridors of British power and Fox was speedily rehabilitated in the bosom of the Conservative Party and is now Secretary of State for International Trade. We can expect to see Patel back on board quite soon.

She is replaced by Penny Mordaunt, also a good looking woman but with a much more impressive CV — and she’s a Royal Navy reservist.

Another pimp for Israel, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, was giving evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee the other day. He said of Hamas: “If they want to enter the democratic process, then it’s very clear what they have to do. They have to renounce terror, they have to recognise the State of Israel, and they’ve got to stop spewing out anti-Semitic propaganda.” I wonder, has he tried saying the same to Netanyahu about the Israelis’ behaviour towards the Palestinians?

In the debate on the Balfour Declaration earlier Johnson said of Israel: “It is a pluralist society, a society that protects the rights of those who live within it. It is a democracy. It is, in my view, a country to be saluted and celebrated.” Completely taken in.

A few months ago Theresa May, if you remember, attacked the successful BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, warning that her government would “have no truck with those who subscribe to it”. 200 legal scholars and practising lawyers from all over Europe promptly pointed out that BDS is lawful freedom of expression and outlawing it undermines a basic human right protected by international convention. But May is so infatuated with Israel that she never misses a chance to tell everyone how she adores the Zionist entity. It’s time civil society made it clear that we’ll have no truck with her or any other supporter of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. In other words, the Balfour mind-set has no place in our society.

This may be a good time to remember George Washington’s wise words: “The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave… a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.”

 

Balfour 100: Celebrating 100 Years of Injustice and Oppression

Source

By Stuart Littlewood | American Herald Tribune | October 18, 2017

On 7 November, in London’s famous Royal Albert Hall, there’s to be “a unique event drawing Christians and Jews together in celebration of the centenary of the Balfour Declaration and all that it led to.”

Christians will be reaching out to support the Jewish community and the state of Israel, or so the organisers claim.

Our vision to stage such a big event at the Royal Albert Hall is ambitious and we recognise our reliance on God to enable every aspect of it.The evening’s programme will follow the history of God’s work through the Balfour Declaration that culminated in the independence of the modern state of Israel. We will use dance, film, song and drama sketches to illustrate how God used both Christians and Jews to fulfil the prophesied return of the Jewish people from exile to their ancient biblical homeland Israel,” says the blurb.

And it adds: “Christian leaders will read statements that will reflect Christians’ desire to…

  • Reconnect with the spiritual heritage of godly men who espoused the restoration of Israel to her Land;

  • Remember the Balfour Declaration and the Jewish-Christian partnerships that made it a reality;

  • Recognise the failure of Britain to fulfil the intent of the Balfour Declaration through the mandate for Palestine;
  • Rededicate ourselves as Christians to support Israel and the Jewish community.”

And the Royal Albert Hall, we are reminded, is where Lord Balfour celebrated with the Jewish community the granting to Britain of the Mandate for Palestine.

The rest of us of course remember Arthur Balfour as the Tory twit whose lamebrain ‘Declaration’ made it possible for Zionists who have no ancestral links to the Holy Land to dispossess, lock up and abuse Palestinians who do.

It was God’s work, we’re told. So that’s alright then And while we recover our composure we may well ask what kind of warped Christians dreamed up this Albert Hall caper, how the Balfour Declaration and its sickening legacy could possible have been “God’s work”, and how many “godly men” were among the perpetrators.

Then let’s cut to another declaration — The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism, a joint statement by the heads of Palestinian Christian churches, which

  • rejects Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message;
  • rejects the alliance of Christian Zionist leaders with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States; and
  • rejects the teachings of Christian Zionism that advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war.

Thankfully, a sermon recently delivered in Westminster Abbey by Michael Doe, Preacher of Gray’s Inn, added some important context missing from the Royal Albert Hall‘s promo patter: “The Balfour Declaration made way for the creation of Israel. It also said that nothing should be done ‘which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. We British who made the Declaration have an unfinished responsibility to ensure its implementation.

To be precise Balfour’s pledge said it being clearly understood” that nothing should be done to prejudice the rights of non-Jews. What’s not to understand? But that bit was conveniently forgotten within 30 years and is shrugged off today.

Who is behind this cringe-making celebration? Balfour 100. Who is behind Balfour 100? It’s hard to know. The Jewish Leadership Council’s website says that the Balfour 100 steering committee is comprised of 23 British-Jewish communal and Israel advocacy organisations but doesn’t name them. Among those, however, will be a number of fake Christians who are happy to stooge for the Zionists’ vile ambitions.

These pseuds have apparently ignored the cry for help issued only months ago by the National Coalition of Christian Organizations in Palestine to the World Council of Churches and the entire ecumenical movement. It was signed by over 30 organisations in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza and can be read in full here.

They say: “We are still suffering from 100 years of injustice and oppression that were inflicted on the Palestinian people beginning with the unlawful Balfour declaration…. A hundred years later and there is still no justice! Discrimination and inequality, military occupation and systematic oppression are the rule…. Despite all the promises, endless summits, UN resolutions, religious and lay leader’s callings – Palestinians are still yearning for their freedom and independence, and seeking justice and equality.”

The churches’ message ends with these ominous words: “Things are beyond urgent. We are on the verge of a catastrophic collapse…. This could be our last chance to achieve a just peace. As a Palestinian Christian community, this could be our last opportunity to save the Christian presence in this land.”

The Royal Albert Hall was built by Queen Victoria to commemorate her beloved husband and consort Prince Albert. I’ll wager the idea of the flag of a rogue foreign military power fluttering from this fine building, or displayed inside, would have both of them spinning in their marbled vault at Frogmore.

And if Theresa May accompanies her guest Bibi Netanyahu to the Albert Hall shindig she’ll hand him and his cruel regime a huge propaganda victory.

“Official” UK anti-Semitism definition gets two-finger salute from legal experts

April 03, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Stuart Littlewood

The enemies of free speech were having a whale of a time – until this week. Britain’s political parties, further education establishments and BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) groups had been bludgeoned into silence on Israel’s crimes by a bogus definition of anti-Semitism formally adopted and deployed by government, police and assorted pro-Israel pimps, stooges and creeps.

Their bully-boy tactics have now been upset by Free Speech on IsraelIndependent Jewish VoicesJews for Justice for Palestinians and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who asked top legal experts for an opinion on this sinister farce.

Wilfully flawed definition

The root cause was been an exceptionally silly, non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as follows:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee accepted the IHRA definition subject to the inclusion of two caveats:

  • It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.
  • It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.

The Select Committee recommended this amended definition be “formally adopted by the UK government, law-enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as anti-Semitic”. The government agreed but dropped the caveats, saying they weren’t necessary.

Definition “too vague to be useful”

Eminent human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC has sharply criticised the definition.

Firstly, it wasn’t a legally binding definition so didn’t have the force of a statutory one. And it couldn’t be considered a legal definition of anti-Semitism as it lacked clarity. Therefore, any conduct contrary to the IHRA definition couldn’t necessarily be ruled illegal.

Secondly, the language was far too vague to be useful as a tool, and it was “most unsatisfactory for the government to adopt a definition which lacks clarity and comprehensiveness”. In Tomlinson’s view, the government’s decision to adopt the IHRA definition was simply a freestanding statement of policy – a mere suggestion as to a definition of anti-Semitism that public bodies might wish to use. No public body was under an obligation to adopt or use it, or, given the unsatisfactory nature of the definition, should be criticised for refusing.

He warned that if a public authority did decide to adopt the definition then it must interpret it in a way that’s consistent with its statutory obligations. In particular, public authorities cannot behave in a manner inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population”. Unless, of course, they amount to a call for violence or a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance.

A further obligation put on public authorities is “to create a favourable environment for participation in public debates for all concerned, allowing them to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if these opinions and ideas are contrary to those defended by the official authorities or by a large part of public opinion, or even if those opinions and ideas are irritating or offensive to the public”.

So, in Tomlinson’s opinion the IHRA Definition does not mean that calling Israel an apartheid state that practises settler colonialism, or advocating boycott, divestment or sanctions (BDS) against Israel, can properly be characterised as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, a public authority seeking to apply the IHRA definition to prohibit or punish such activities “would be acting unlawfully”.

Government’s “naive stance”

Retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Stephen Sedley also weighed in with advice, criticising the IHRA working definition for lack of legal force. “At the same time, it is not neutral: it may well influence policy both domestically and internationally.”

He added that the right of free expression, now part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, “places both negative and positive obligations on the state which may be put at risk if the IHRA definition is unthinkingly followed”. Moreover, the 1986 Education Act established an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions “which cannot be cut back by governmental policies”.

According to Sedley, the IHRA definition is open to manipulation. In his view, “what is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of government from a stance which it has naively adopted in disregard of the sane advice given to it by the Home Affairs Select Committee”.

Many objections to this “official” anti-Semitism definition, and the way it is used, are underpinned by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says:

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
  • The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Also, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bestows on everyone “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. All such rights, of course, are subject to the usual limitations required by law and respect for the rights of others.

Attempt to bury UN report on Israeli apartheid

Perhaps university vice-chancellors and party leaders will now find the backbone to resist the bluster and intimidation of the pro-Israel lobby, especially after the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) produced a report (on 15 March) establishing what most of us have known for donkey’s years: that Israel is a thoroughly nasty apartheid regime.

The report was authored by Richard Falk, Professor of International Law and Practice Emeritus at Princeton University and a former UN human rights rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, and Virginia Tilley, Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University. It established on the “basis of scholarly inquiry and overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid”. Such was the fuss kicked up that it has been withdrawn from UN websites.

But don’t worry, you can read it in full here. If short of time skip to the Conclusions (page 52), which include:

The authors urge the United Nations to implement this finding by fulfilling its international responsibilities in relation to international law and the rights of the Palestinian people as a matter of urgency, for two reasons.

First, the situation addressed in the report is ongoing… In the case of Israel-Palestine, any delay compounds the crime by prolonging the subjugation of Palestinians to the active practice of apartheid by Israel. Prompt action is accordingly imperative to avert further human suffering and end a crime against humanity that is being committed now.

Secondly, the extreme gravity of the charge requires prompt action. Since the 1970s, when the international campaign to oppose apartheid in southern Africa gathered momentum, apartheid has been considered in the annals of the United Nations and world public opinion to be second only to genocide in the hierarchy of criminality.

This report accordingly recommends that the international community acts immediately, without waiting for a more formal pronouncement regarding the culpability of the state of Israel, its government and its officials for the commission of the crime of apartheid…

The authors of this report conclude that the weight of the evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt the contention that Israel is guilty of imposing an apartheid regime on the Palestinian people. The prohibition of apartheid is considered “jus cogens” in international customary law. States have a separate and collective duty (a) not to recognise an apartheid regime as lawful; (b) not to aid or assist a state in maintaining an apartheid regime; and (c) to cooperate with the United Nations and other states in bringing apartheid regimes to an end [my emphasis]. A state that fails to fulfil those duties could itself be held legally responsible for engaging in wrongful acts involving complicity with maintaining an apartheid regime.

Another excellent piece of work by Richard Falk, for which he’ll get no thanks. As many of you know, he is himself Jewish.

Balfour, the creation of israel. Probably the most shameful part of British history and there’s been many

Despicable Balfour: A story of betrayal

 

Balfour, Britain and Israel

By Stuart Littlewood

The 2 November marks the centenary of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which began the still-ongoing colonisation of Palestine and sowed the seeds of an endless nightmare for the Palestinian people, both those who were forced to flee at gunpoint and those who have managed to remain in the shredded remains of their homeland under Israel’s brutal military occupation. 

A movement called the Balfour Declaration Centenary Campaign is urging action and wants an apology.

We call on the international community and all peace and justice loving people to join the campaign to call on the government and parliament of the United Kingdom to:

1. Reject the Balfour Declaration, including its role as an instrument of displacement and dispossession of the Palestinian people;

2. Issue an official apology to the Arab Palestinian people for their role in issuing the Balfour Declaration and making possible the displacement and dispossession of the Palestinian people;

3. Acknowledge their historic, legal and moral responsibility for damages sustained as a result of the implementation of the Balfour Declaration

4. Institute reparations to the Palestinian people in accordance with the provisions and principles of international law, justice and equity, which guarantee the right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the right of self-determination.

A century of ethnic cleansing and denial of Palestinian rights

In his excellent book, Blood Brothers, David Hazard charts the life of Father Elias Chacour, a remarkable Christian Palestinian who grew up on the shores of Galilee and saw his beautiful world shattered by the Israeli occupation. Like countless others, he was made a refugee in his own country.

Mr Hazard describes an encounter he had with a young Palestinian, one of millions who suffer daily persecution, harassment and humiliation at the hands of Israeli soldiers and settlers.

A seventeen-year-old girl trembling with grief and rage told me how she witnessed her teenage cousin being shot through the head by Israeli soldiers. They had been walking to school together and the soldiers were taunting him. In response he had picked up a rock. She accused me and all Americans of knowing about these daily abuses against Palestinians but not caring. I tried to tell her that most Americans do not know about these tragedies, and that we would never support those who perpetrate them. But her belief that the average American is savvy about international politics was as strong as it was naive. “Of course Americans know we’re suffering over here,” she retorted.“You’re the most powerful nation on earth. And everyone has a television. I know you know.”

Americans aren’t alone in ignorance of their complicity. British people too seem largely unaware of how tragedy was allowed to overtake the Palestinians, and how this once-peaceful province of the Ottoman Empire, renowned for its antiquities and culture, became a land scarred by conflict, where everyday the humiliation of illegal occupation stokes the fires of hatred. You cannot get in or out, or move around, without running the gauntlet of Israeli customs, baggage searches, roadblocks and checkpoints under the sneer of contemptuous, sun-glassed troops. Even in the remote countryside you’ll run into one of six or seven hundred armed checkpoints. And that’s what visitors have to put up with. Imagine what it’s like for residents.

The so-called “Israel Defence Forces” is largely made up of conscripts – men and women – teenagers drafted in and trained to use lethal force. They have a reputation for being trigger-happy. Of course, they don’t all wish to play the thug or necessarily agree with their orders.

The truth about Palestine doesn’t sit well with Britain’s now crumbling reputation for fair play. Its name has been airbrushed from maps and purged, like a dirty word, from the diplomatic lexicon. Even today the subject is only haphazardly taught in our schools. For older generations like mine it was never on the curriculum. To understand why, one must at least dip a toe into the complicated history of the last 100 years. To help readers over this hurdle, I offer this “potted” version. At least it will explain why, 10 years ago, I went to see Palestine for myself.

For centuries long our land enslaved
by Turkish kings with sharpened blade.
We prayed to end the Sultan’s curse,
the British came and spoke a verse.

“It’s World War One, if you agree
to fight with us we’ll set you free.”

The war we fought at Britain’s side,
our blood was shed for Arab pride.

At war’s end Turks were smitten,
our only gain, the lies of Britain.

Stephen Ostrander’s simple verse manages to cut through a mountain of rhetoric to the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There was a Jewish state in the Holy Land some 3,000 years ago, but the Canaanites and Philistines were there first. The Jews, one of several invading groups, left and returned several times, and were expelled by the Roman occupation in 70AD and again in 135AD. Since the 7th century Palestine has been mainly Arab. During World War I the country was ‘liberated’ from Turkish Ottoman rule after the allied powers, in correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and Sharif Hussein ibn Ali of Mecca in 1915, promised independence to Arab leaders in return for their help in defeating Germany’s ally.

At the same time, however, a new Jewish political movement called Zionism was finding favour among the ruling élite in London, and the British government was persuaded by the Zionists’ chief spokesman, Chaim Weizman, to surrender Palestine for their new Jewish homeland. Hardly a thought, it seems, was given to the earlier pledge to the Arabs, who had occupied and owned the land for 1,500 years – longer, say some scholars, than the Jews ever did.

The Zionists, fuelled by the notion that an ancient Biblical prophecy gave them the title deeds, aimed to push the Arabs out by inserting millions of Eastern European Jews. They had already set up farm communities and founded a new city, Tel Aviv, but by 1914 Jews numbered only 85,000 to the Arabs’ 615,000. The infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917 – actually a letter from the British foreign secretary, Lord Balfour, to the most senior Jew in England, Lord Rothschild – pledged assistance for the Zionist cause with apparent disregard for the consequences to the native majority. Calling itself a “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations”, it said:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing and non-Jewish communities…

Balfour, a Zionist convert, later wrote:

In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now occupy that land.

There was opposition. Lord Sydenham warned:

The harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country may never be remedied. What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.

The American King-Crane Commission of1919 thought it a gross violation of principle:

No British officers consulted by the commissioners believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by force of arms. That, of itself, is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist programme.

There were other reasons why the British were courting disaster. A secret deal, called the Sykes-Picot Agreement, had been concluded in 1916 between France and Britain, in consultation with Russia, to re-draw the map of the Middle Eastern territories won from Turkey. Britain was to take Jordan, Iraq and Haifa. The area now referred to as Palestine was declared an international zone. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration and the promises made earlier in the McMahon-Hussein letters all cut across each other. It seems to have been a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right was doing in the confusion of war.

Some distinguished Jews opposed a “national home” in Palestine

After the Russian Revolution of 1917 Lenin released a copy of the confidential Sykes-Picot Agreement into the public domain, sowing distrust among the Arabs. Thus, the unfolding story had all the makings of a major tragedy. Subsequent crimes – on both sides – flow from this triple-cross. The Zionist organisation asked permission to submit its proposal for Palestine to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, hitching a ride on the British request to be granted a mandate over Palestine in order to implement the Balfour Declaration. The Zionist case included the statement that

the land itself needs redemption. Much of it is left desolate. Its present condition is a standing reproach. Two things are necessary for that redemption – a stable and enlightened government, and an addition to the present population which shall be energetic, intelligent, devoted to the country, and backed by the large financial resources that are indispensable for development. Such a population the Jews alone can supply.

Prominent US Jews opposed to this move handed President Woodrow Wilson a counter-statement objecting to the Zionists’ plan, and asked him to present it to the peace conference. It said the scheme to reorganise the Jews as a national unit with territorial sovereignty in Palestine

not only misrepresents the trend of the history of the Jews, who ceased to be a nation 2,000 years ago, but involves the limitation and possible annulment of the larger claims of Jews for full citizenship and human rights in all lands in which those rights are not yet secure. For the very reason that the new era upon which the world is entering aims to establish government everywhere on principles of true democracy, we reject the Zionistic project of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

Foreseeing the future with uncanny accuracy, it went on to say:

We rejoice in the avowed proposal of the Peace Congress to put into practical application the fundamental principles of democracy. That principle, which asserts equal rights for all citizens of a state, irrespective of creed or ethnic descent, should be applied in such a manner as to exclude segregation of any kind, be it nationalistic or other. Such segregation must inevitably create differences among the sections of the population of a country. Any such plan of segregation is necessarily reactionary in its tendency, undemocratic in spirit and totally contrary to the practices of free government, especially as these are exemplified by our own country.

The counter-statement quoted Sir George Adam Smith, a noted biblical scholar and the acknowledged expert on the region, who had said:

It is not true that Palestine is the national home of the Jewish people and of no other people… It is not correct to call its non-Jewish inhabitants “Arabs”, or to say that they have left no image of their spirit and made no history except in the great Mosque… Nor can we evade the fact that Christian communities have been [there] as long as ever the Jews were… These are legitimate questions stirred up by the claims of Zionism, but the Zionists have not yet fully faced them.

America, England, France, Italy, Switzerland and all the most advanced nations of the world, it said, are composed of representatives of many races and religions. “Their glory lies in the freedom of conscience and worship, in the liberty of thought and custom which binds the followers of many faiths and varied civilisations in the common bonds of political union… A Jewish state involves fundamental limitations as to race and religion, else the term “Jewish” means nothing. To unite church and state, in any form, as under the old Jewish hierarchy, would be a leap backward of two thousand years…

We ask that Palestine be constituted as a free and independent state, to be governed under a democratic form of government recognising no distinctions of creed or race or ethnic descent, and with adequate power to protect the country against oppression of any kind. We do not wish to see Palestine, either now or at any time in the future, organised as a Jewish state.

But Wilson apparently failed to put the document before the Conference.

In 1922 the League of Nations placed Palestine under British mandate, which incorporated the principles of the Balfour Declaration. Jewish immigration would be facilitated “under suitable conditions” and a nationality law would allow Jews taking up permanent residence to acquire Palestinian citizenship (in sharp contrast to the Jews-only law now operated by a dominant Israel). But the high commissioner was soon recommending a halt to Jewish immigration for fear that it would create a class of landless Arabs. That same year the British government, aware of Arab concerns that the Balfour Declaration was being interpreted in an “exaggerated” way by Zionists and their sympathisers, issued a White Paper to clarify the position.

“The terms of the Declaration referred to,” it said,

do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish national home, but that such a home should be founded “in Palestine”. In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development…

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organisation may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.

“It is necessary,” said the White Paper with masterly ambiguity,

that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment.

However, the White Paper flatly denied that a promise had been made to the Arabs ahead of the Balfour Declaration.

It is not the case, as has been represented by the Arab Delegation, that during the war His Majesty’s Government gave an undertaking that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine. This representation mainly rests upon a letter dated the 24th October 1915 from Sir Henry McMahon, then His Majesty’s High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz. That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sharif of Mecca to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir Henry McMahon’s pledge.

Nevertheless, it is the intention of His Majesty’s government to foster the establishment of a full measure of self-government in Palestine. But they are of the opinion that, in the special circumstances of that country, this should be accomplished by gradual stages…

From then on, the situation would go from bad to worse.

In 1937 the Peel Commission declared that British promises to Arabs and Zionists were irreconcilable and unworkable. Too late, Britain dropped its commitment to the Zionists and began talking about a Palestinian state with a guaranteed Arab majority and protection for minorities.

The Zionists reacted furiously. Their underground military wing, the Haganah, and other armed groups, unleashed a reign of terror in the run-up to World War II. They continued their attacks on the British after the war and tried to bring in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees.

In 1946 they blew up the south wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the British mandatory government, killing 91. This terrorist act was ordered by David Ben-Gurion in retaliation for the arrest of Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang members suspected of attacks on the British. He then thought better of it and cancelled the operation but Menachem Begin, who led the Irgun, went ahead. Both Ben-Gurion and Begin, who had a big price on his head as a wanted terrorist, became Israeli prime ministers.

Throughout this period the United States was reluctant to allow Jews fleeing Europe to enter the empty spaces of North America, preferring to play the Zionist game and see them funnelled into Palestine. In 1945 the new US president, Harry Truman, offered Arabs this excuse: “I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands of those who are anxious for the success of Zionism; I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”

However, Truman was frequently exasperated by the Zionist lobby and on one occasion had a delegation thrown out of the White House for their table-thumping antics. He wrote:

I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on top they are just as intolerant and cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath.

American author Gore Vidal provided an intriguing insight.

Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. “That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.” As neither Jack nor I was an anti-Semite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics.

By now this monster Britain had breathed life into, was running out of control. The Arabs, tricked and dispossessed, were outraged. The collision has been fatally damaging to the West’s relationship with Islam ever since. As the violence escalated, Gandhi was moved to comment:

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English. They [the Jews] have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism.

With the mandate about to expire in 1948 an exhausted Britain handed over the problem to the United Nations and prepared to quit the Holy Land, leaving a powder-keg with the fuse fizzing. The newly-formed UN thought it would save the situation by partitioning Palestine into Arab and Jewish states and making Jerusalem an international city. But this gave the Jews 55 per cent of Palestine when they accounted for only 30 per cent of the population. The Arab League and the Palestinians of course rejected it.

Map 1: 1947 UN Partition of Palestine

Map of 1947 UN Partition Plan

Under the UN Partition Plan the Jews received 55 per cent of the country (including both Tel Aviv/Jaffa and Haifa port cities, the Sea of Galilee and the resource-rich Negev) although they accounted for only a third of the population (548,000 out of 1,750,000) and owned only 6 per cent of the land. The Jewish community accepted the Partition Plan; the Palestinians (except those in the Communist Party) and the Arab countries rejected it.

The UN partition of Palestine never did stand close scrutiny. At that time, as some commentators have pointed out, UN members did not include African states, and most Arab and Asian states were still under colonialist regimes. The UN was pretty much a white colonialist club. The Palestinians themselves had no representation and they weren’t even consulted.

The first vote failed to reach the required two-thirds majority: 25 for partition, 13 against and 19 abstentions. To ensure success in the second vote, a good deal of arm-twisting was applied to the smaller countries, but again it fell short. At the third attempt France was persuaded to come “on board” after the US threatened to withdraw desperately needed post-World War II aid, and on 29 November the UN voted to partition Palestine into three parts: a Jewish state on 14,000 sq km with some 558,000 Jews and 405,000 Palestinian Arabs; and an Arab state on 11,500 sq km with about 804,000 Palestinian Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Jerusalem, including major religious sites, would be a corpus separatum, internationally administered.

Map 2: Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories

Map of 1949 Israeli-Arab armistice line

By the end of the 1948 war Israel controlled 78 per cent  of the country, including half the territory that had been allocated by the UN to the Palestinians. Around 750,000 Palestinians living in what became Israel were made refugees: only 100,000 remained in their homes. More than 418 villages (two-thirds of the villages of Palestine) were systematically destroyed by Israel after their residents had left or been driven out. The Arab areas were now reduced to 22 per cent  of the country, the West Bank was taken by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt. The 1949 Armistice Line (the “Green Line”) remains the de facto boundary of the state of Israel until today. Since 1988, when the Palestinians recognised Israel within that boundary, it has been the basis of the two-state option.

This ludicrous carve-up was quickly followed by shameful incidents at Deir Yassin, Lod and Ramle. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and lands and to this day are denied the right to return. They received no compensation, and after their expulsion Jewish militia obliterated hundreds of Arab villages and towns. No sooner had Britain packed its bags than Israel declared statehood on 14 May 1948 and immediately set about expanding control across all of Palestine.

The following day, 15 May, is remembered by Palestinians as the Day of Al-Nakba (the Catastrophe), which saw the start of a military terror campaign that forced three-quarters of a million Palestinians from their homeland to make room for the new Jewish state. Some 34 massacres were allegedly committed in pursuit of Israel’s territorial ambitions.

An event permanently etched on the Palestinian memory is the massacre at Deir Yassin by Zionist terror groups, the Irgun and the Stern Gang. On an April morning in 1948 130 of their commandos carried out a dawn raid on this small Arab town with a population of 750, to the west of Jerusalem. The attack was initially beaten off, and only when a crack unit of the Haganah arrived with mortars were the Arab townsmen overwhelmed. The Irgun and the Stern Gang, smarting from the embarrassment of having to summon help, embarked on a “clean-up” operation in which they systematically murdered and executed at least 100 residents – mostly women, children and old people. The Irgun afterwards exaggerated the number, quoting 254, to frighten other Arab towns and villages. The Haganah played down their part in the raid and afterwards said the massacre “disgraced the cause of Jewish fighters and dishonoured Jewish arms and the Jewish flag”.

Deir Yassin signalled the ominous beginning of a deliberate programme by Israel to depopulate Arab towns and villages – and destroy churches and mosques – to make room for incoming holocaust survivors and other Jews. In any language it was an exercise in ethnic cleansing, the knock-on effects of which have created an estimated 4 million Palestinian refugees today.

By 1949 the Zionists had seized nearly 80 per cent of Palestine, provoking the resistance backlash they so bitterly complain about today. Many Jews condemn the Zionist policy and are ashamed of what has been done in their name.

UN Resolution 194 had called on Israel to let the Palestinians back onto their land. It has been re-passed many times, but Israel is still in breach. The Israelis also stand accused of violating Article 42 of the Geneva Convention by moving settlers into the Palestinian territories it occupies, and of riding roughshod over international law with their occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

But expulsion and transfer were always a key part of the Zionist plan. According to historian Benny Morris, no mainstream Zionist leader was able to conceive of future co-existence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, is reported to have said:

With compulsory transfer we have a vast area [for settlement]… I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.

He showed astonishing candour on another occasion when he remarked:

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. We have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it is true, but 2,000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti- Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country.

General Moshe Dayan, hero of the 1967 war, made it known to Palestinians in the territories that “you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes, may leave, and we shall see where this process will lead.” That appears to have been the general attitude ever since.

In 1967 Israel used a number of Arab threats designed to check Zionist ambitions, including a blockade of their Red Sea port, as a pretext to launch war. In a series of pre-emptive strikes against Egypt, Syria and Jordan, Israel succeeded in doubling the area of land under its control, seizing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights, violating both international law and the UN Charter, which says that a country cannot lawfully make territorial gains from war. It was reported that Israel demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes in the West Bank and detained some 300,000 Palestinians without trial.

The UN issued Security Council Resolution 242, stressing “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calling for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. It was largely ignored, thus guaranteeing further discord in the region.

Israel’s most notorious prime minister, Ariel Sharon, made a name for himself in 1953 when his secret death squad, Unit 101, dynamited homes and massacred 69 Palestinian civilians – half of them women and children – at Qibya in the West Bank. His troops later destroyed 2,000 homes in the Gaza Strip, uprooting 12,000 people and deporting hundreds of young Palestinians to Jordan and Lebanon.

Then in 1982 he masterminded Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, which resulted in a massive death toll of Palestinians and Lebanese, a large proportion being children. An Israeli tribunal found him indirectly responsible for the massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and removed him from office. But he didn’t stay in the background for long.

By the end of 1967 there were just three illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. By the end of 2005 the total was 177. “When we have settled the land,” the then chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces, Rafael Eitan, remarked in 1983, “all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle”.

By 2015 there were 196 illegal Israeli settlements in addition to  232 settler outposts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, according to the Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem, and upwards of 750,000 settlers residing there.

Apartheid and occupation: “in practice there is little difference”

So what sort of person was responsible for this misery and mayhem in the Holy Land – the “running sore” Lord Sydenham predicted? At Cambridge Arthur Balfour read moral sciences (no, seriously!). Much good it did the poor Palestinian Arabs he helped dispossess.

Described as born lazy, aloof and having an attitude problem, he was convinced of his personal superiority and wished to keep the vulgar world at arm’s length. Balfour famously remarked: “Nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all.”

He had been prime minister (1902-05) and was regarded as weak. At the time of the Declaration blunder he was foreign secretary. In the words of one commentator, Balfour’s career “stretches before our eyes in a flat and uneventful plain of successful but inglorious and ineffective self-seeking”. He was said to be a man who would make almost any sacrifice to remain in office. In this case, he sacrificed the Arab homeland. In 1922 the League of Nations put Palestine under British mandate, which incorporated the principles of the Balfour’s Declaration.

How have things turned out?

John Dugard, Professor of International Law and former Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, explained on Aljazeera the differences and similarities between apartheid South Africa and apartheid Israel.

Of course, the regimes of apartheid and occupation are different. Apartheid South Africa was a state that practised discrimination against its own people. It sought to fragment the country into white South Africa and black Bantustans. Its security laws were used to brutally suppress opposition to apartheid. Israel, on the other hand, is an occupying power that controls a foreign territory and its people under a regime recognised by international law [as] belligerent occupation.

However, in practice, there is little difference. Both regimes were/are characterised by discrimination, repression and territorial fragmentation (that is, land seizures).

Israel discriminates against Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in favour of half a million Israeli settlers. Its restrictions on freedom of movement, manifested in countless humiliating checkpoints, resemble the “pass laws” of apartheid. Its destruction of Palestinian homes resembles the destruction of homes belonging to blacks under apartheid’s Group Areas Act. The confiscation of Palestinian farms under the pretext of building a security wall brings back similar memories. And so on. Indeed, Israel has gone beyond apartheid South Africa in constructing separate (and unequal) roads for Palestinians and settlers.

Apartheid’s security police practised torture on a large scale. So do the Israeli security forces. There were many political prisoners on Robben Island but there are more Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails.

Apartheid South Africa seized the land of blacks for whites. Israel has seized the land of Palestinians for half a million settlers and for the purposes of constructing a security wall within Palestinian territory – both of which are contrary to international law.

Dugard suggested there is sufficient evidence for a legitimate enquiry into the question of whether Israel violates the prohibition of apartheid found in the 1973 Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute.

Sydenham’s “running sore” has been festering for a century, crippling the Middle East and turning the Holy Land into an abomination. Balfour and his fellow Zionist stooges in the corridors of British power clearly had no understanding of the true purpose and base methods of Zionism.

This is also true of present-day Christian-Zionists. Some Christian churches have rejected Zionist doctrine as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation. They deplore the cosy relationship between Christian Zionist leaders and the governments of Israel and the United States that impose their pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. And they condemn the teachings of Christian Zionism that support those policies as they encourage racial exclusivity and perpetual war.

In other words, no Christian with a functioning brain cell should touch Zionism with a bargepole. Yet the upper echelons of our government and many Western churches are riddled with Zionist sympathisers. Unless they are smoked out, a hundred years from now an outraged civil society will still be calling for government apologies for the actions of that lunatic Balfour and his successors.

‘Let them eat precaution ?’ A recipe for social darwinism, corporate malfeasance, global terrorism …

‘Let them eat precaution ?’ A recipe for social darwinism, corporate malfeasance, global terrorism …

July 25, 2016

by Paul Matthews, poet & writer

«1 Nobel peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors» – and a partridge in a pear tree …

Israel's true friend 2015The Right Honourable Theresa May learns her lines as “Israel’s true friend”…

Her Majesty’s Government has never been a fan of the Precautionary Principle. Ever since the 23 December 1913 Federal Reserve Act and the ensuing two world wars, the magnates of the central banking system have a long established tradition of investing the lifeblood of nations in their disastrous Ponzi schemes. This is more than apparent as we sleepwalk our way towards open conflict with Russia and China and as UK and Israeli Jews jubilate over the choice of their favourite as the next British Prime Minister : a former financial consultant who, on two occasions, following in Manuel Valls’ footsteps, has pledged her undying allegiance to Zionism.

The dismal spectacle of an obsequious, flowerpot hatted Theresa May revelling in Israel’s 67th Independence Day (יום העצמאות‎‎) celebration in the heart of London at Finchley Synagogue, in April 2015, is a sure sign that Whitehall and Westminster will be throwing caution to the wind and their combined weight behind ploys to wash away sins committed in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine etc. with more bloodletting as they devote their efforts to supporting NATO and the Jewish state’s daily ghoulish bloodfest in the Middle East.

Having read with interest the GMWatch reports on 107 Nobel laureates propagandising GM food, one could easily dwell on the moral turpitude of the snake oil salesmen and women who would have us leave our senses as they spin their treacherous web of deceit. But I will not waste too many words on the latest wheeze from the global PR Industry and the Monsanto-linked sponsorship of Golden Rice evangelists petitioning for the release to the environment of more hazardous recombinant DNA. One of them, pharmacologist and biochemist Alfred Goodman Gilman (1941-2015), would appear to have been on his deathbed when he put his signature to this underhand attack on our health, reason and dignity ! I also note that the only signatory who could be deemed an ‘authority on risk’ – namely Robert C. Merton – turns out to be co-director of American hedge fund management firm Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) which, following the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 1998 Russian financial crisis, lost all of its capital in less than four months ! We live in desperate times. I say this in the light of what we now know about horizontal gene transfer, dangerously compromised natural resources and what Edward Osborne Wilson, Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin write about the Holocene or Sixth Extinction.

It can be termed casuistry, deception, chicanery or dissembling. However shamelessly and deliberatelylying – to protect ‘special interest groups’ – is established practice among all who would ascend the greasy pole of our politically corrupt civilisation to the summit of what someone more knowledgeable than myself in such matters – namely sociology professor James Petras – calls the Zionist Power Configuration. As we know to our cost, we can never say with any confidence that the facts will speak for themselves, given the rate at which steps are taken to suppress them as the war mongers and gossip merchants in a big business friendly mass media work flat out to dumb down and conceal the truth. But why is the general public so easily spooked by appearances ?

Possibly people are mesmerised by the spectre of the Dr Strangeloves with their paws on the tiller of Western diplomacy. Nothing beguiles ordinary mortals more than the accoutrements of power and the paraphernalia of worldly success. Hence the bogus moral standing of the Nobel dynasty’s arms manufacturing concerns and the meretricious professorial stature of many prize winners, glaringly obvious once the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize was vouchsafed the war criminal Henry Kissinger ; a nauseous precedent hammered home by what Barack Hussein Obama and his presidency was to accomplish after he had been bequeathed the coveted trophy in 2009.

Then there’s the case of the 1986 Peace Nobelist, arch-zionist and horror storyteller Elie Wiesel whose recent death unearths again the whole sorry saga. Here’s an extract from a memorable article by Gilad Atzmon about

«the man who turned the Holocaust into a business career […] concerned only with the primacy of Jewish suffering and [who] has totally failed to transform the Holocaust into a universal message».

He continues :

«Wiesel is critical of Germany, German people and their culture. “We must not forget what civilized people once did. People raised on Kant, Fichte and Hegel. People who listened to Beethoven and read Schiller in the morning, and in the afternoon killed children and parents”. But what about those people who don’t read Kant, Fichte and Hegel, but instead read the Old Testament and Wiesel’s Shoa literature ? Do they not kill children and parents ? Do they not engage in mass killings of innocent civilians pouring white phosphorous on UNRA shelters ? Yes, they do – and for more than six decades, slightly longer than Wiesel’s Shoa …». November 04, 2012 / Gilad Atzmon http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/elie-wiesel-on-haaretz.html.

Wiesel is German for weasel. Out of respect for the nimble witted, slender-bodied quadruped, the comparison should stop there. As for the ‘expertise’ of the world’s most famous ‘Holocaust survivor’, he is the acclaimed author of an alleged “autobiographical eye-witness report” of events in Auschwitz and Buchenwald circa 1944-1945, in a lurid text which continues to be marketed and widely interpreted as the gospel truth regarding the Nazi concentration camps. It first came to light in 1956 when an 862-page manuscript in Yiddish was brought out in Argentina as the 245-page work Un di velt hot geshvign(Translation : And the world remained silent).

French Académicien, novelist and poet François Mauriac (1952 Nobel literature prize) was instrumental in getting Les Éditions de Minuit to publish in Paris their 178 page version as La Nuit in 1958 and in 1960Hill & Wang in New York put in print a 116-page translation as Night. It is appears in 30 languages and record sales of between six and ten million copies are chronicled. However eyebrows have been raised among thoughtful scholars as to the publisher and the author’s clearly elastic understanding of what notions like ‘autobiography’ and ‘veracity’ should or may signify, especially as unambiguous signs of ‘poetic licence’ in the work remain unacknowledged, primarily by the Romanian-born American Jewish professor and political activist, himself the writer of no less than 57 books, drafted mostly in French and English. As we shall soon see, for a number of observers, the epithet impostor would not be not too strong a term to characterise an internationally honoured dignitary who like, the Blairs and Clintons, was paid lavishly for his conferences and whose mortal remains are today pushing up daisies in Sharon Gardens cemetery, Valhalla, Westchester County, New York-cite_ref-43″> State.

Alongside Steven Spielberg, Elie Wiesel was one of the ten or so, mostly Jewish, celebrities and socialites, who lost millions to the Jewish American fraudster Bernie Madoff, speculating with their life savings or money from one or other of their ‘foundations’. Late in life the person whom POTUS Obama termed ‘the conscience of the world’ was tackled over glaring discrepancies in his narrative and accused of being overly economical with the truth. He kept his counsel – to the end – apparently in denial, believing he could take his secret to the grave. However alongside the tributes and obituaries in the minutes, days and weeks following his death at his home in Manhattan, the internet has been alive with questions and remarks casting doubts on the official storyline.

The above suspicion ‘Shoah filmmaker’, Claude Lanzmann – quoted a reliable eye witness, Nobel Laureate in Literature in 2002, Hungarian Jew Imre Kertész – who survived deportation to Auschwitz and Buchenwald – to infer that Elie Weisel could not have spent more than four days and four nights in Auschwitz, before moving to Buchenwald. More compelling testimony comes from another Hungarian Jew deported to both aforementioned concentration camps. Nikolaus (Miklós) Grüner writes in his personal account ‘Stolen Identity’ that the universally famous would-be deportee born in 1928 in Sighet – a town in the Carpathian mountains of northern Transylvania – was unfamiliar with Hungarian and that, for the purposes of his ‘autobiography’, he usurped the number A-7713.

Moreover according to the Auschwitz archives themselves the number A-7713 was in fact allocated to an older man on 24 May 1944. His name : Hungarian-born Jew, Lázár Wisel (né at Marmaroasieget, Hungary, 1916). With his older brother, Abraham, he was to take the young Nikolaus (Miklós) Grüner (né 4 or 6 April 1928 at Nyiregihaza, Hungary) – then aged fifteen – under his wing. The existence, dates and places of birth of all three internees are attested by documents stored at the Polish State Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau at Oświęcim.

Nikolaus (Miklós) Grüner had every reason to remember the number A-7713. In 1986, living in Australia, he was contacted by an employee of the Swedish magazine Sydsvenska Dagbladet in Malmö and invited to meet the latest nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize – someone named Elie Wiesel. He believed at the time that he was about to meet Lázár Wisel and rejoiced at the prospect of being reunited with his old friend. The encounter, as is customary for Nobels, took place at the grand Hôtel Savojen in Stockholm in December 1986. Miklos recalls :

«…I was very happy at the idea of meeting Lázár but when I confronted the so-called “Eli Wiesel”, I was stunned to see a man I did not recognize at all, who did not even speak Hungarian or Yiddish and instead he was speaking English in a strong French accent. Therefore our meeting was over in about ten minutes. As a goodbye gift, the man gave me his book entitled “Night” of which he claimed to be the author. I accepted the book I did not know at that time but told everyone there that this man was not the person he pretended to be !».

Elie Wiesel declined to show him the tattoo on his forearm. Yet Primo Levi writes, on page 27 of the US edition

of his indelible 1947 work, Se questo è un uomo ( ‘If this is a man’), that every prisoner had to have a tattoo :

«It seems that this is the real, true initiation : only by showing one’s number can one get bread and soup». Primo Levi If this is a man Abacus 2001

Available on Youtube in 2010, but no longer, video images of the bare armed Elie Wiesel filmed for a full-length documentary in 1996 in Romania appear to reveal no tattoo at all. So the question, never answered, remains : without a tattoo how did he survive in 1944-1945 ? It seems that the indefatigable public speaker once aired his ‘tattoo’ to an Israeli journalist, who subsequently met Nikolaus (Miklos) Grüner and who, when asked, replied that he had been unable to read the number and that he did not believe it really was a tattoo.

All of which is hotly contested by associates of Elie Wiesel, like Michaël de Saint-Cheron, who deem such testimony to amount to blasphemy, but offer no proof in support of their arguments. Instead one is regaled by displays of emotional blackmail or worse, as Italy joins the long list of NATO affiliated countries that punish ‘thought crime’ with prison sentences. Legitimate criticism of the homicidal Jewish state is thus muzzled by privately orchestrated smear campaigns, prohibitively costly SLAPP type legal actions, backstairs pressure to intimidate and stifle open public debate in favour of free speech and religious tolerance for every living soul and not just for that microscopically small minority opinion seeking to bring to heel every critic of Israel.

As the French epistemologist Lucien Cerise intimates in : Neuro-pirates – Réflexions sur l’ingénierie sociale (Kontre Kulture 2016 q.v.), evidence-based inquiry has moved on to the shifting sands of devotional faith and cultural dogma. It’s a question of who’s got the power and money to inflict the cognitive dissonance, captious reasoning, hairsplitting – the Hebrew term for which is pilpul (פלפול) from “pepper,” loosely meaning “sharp analysis” – ie what underpins the massive social-engineering daily assaulting our neuronal architecture.

It will not have escaped your attention that the gloves are off ever since Hillary Clinton declared the USA was losing the global information war in 2011. The academic climate today is replete with intellectual terrorism and diligently orchestrated psychological operations (psyops), as dissident Jews and non-Jews alike are plied with accusations of antisemitism and death threats. Having to sacrifice one’s means of livelihood, in defence of one’s views is another major risk. As evinced by the experience of Nikolaus (Miklós) Grüner himself and of Norman (Ich bin Der Stürmer ?) Finkelstein, the American Jewish political scientist, activist, professor and author whose primary fields of research are Israel’s occupation of Palestine and Holocaust politics, an interest motivated by filial intimacy with the deep moral convictions and the personal ordeals of his parents both of whom survived in the Warsaw Ghetto and periods in the Majdanek and Auschwitz concentration camps.

To get a measure of the man you can watch his contribution to Defamation (Hebrew: השמצה‎‎), a powerful 2009 documentary by award-winning Israeli cinéaste Yoav Shamir. The sequences were filmed in Chicago on the shores of Lake Michigan, before Norman Finkelstein was dislodged from his DePaul University tenure, following intense pressure from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and Alan Dershowitz.

A member of the ‘Herem Club‘, whose membership includes Uriel_da_Costa, Baruch_Spinoza, Paul Eisen, Jacob Cohen, Gilad Atzmon, he authored The Holocaust Industry : Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (2000). In this he argues that Elie Wiesel et al. have patented ‘victimhood’ as an exclusively Jewish phenomenon, capitalising on the memory of what European Jewry went through in WWII as an ‘ideological weapon’. He calls the Holocaust a ‘shakedown’ and a ‘straight-out extortion racket’ – that has milked Germany and more recently France for all they are worth – enabling Israel, ‘one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, [to] cast itself as a victim state’, thereby providing what is a suffocatingly self-righteous haven of National Zionism with ‘immunity to criticism’ … and a licence to kill.

Given the ‘nature of the beast’, the degree of ‘thought control’ and the vast corrupting power and influence of a tentacular Jewish lobby on US foreign and domestic policies – revealed by Norman Finkelstein himself and in a study by Professors John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt (q.v. infra), self censorship – induced by an albeit genuine fear of judicial retribution – preclude a robust appraisal of the problems raised by these issues.

I argue that we need to think seriously about what many citizens – for both the best and worst possible reasons – consider a distinctly taboo subject : namely the way Jewish tribalism or identity politics and today’s obsession with pedigree and DNA are closely associated and how much cultural bias – that manacles genuine research – for example in epigenetics or environmental factors – is fostered by the élitism and funding from a minority whose religious traditions predispose them to think excessively in terms of blood ties, heredity and genetics.

People identified as Jewish Americans make up less than 2 % of the population, yet represent up to 48 % of US billionaires. It will therefore come as a surprise to nobody – as Meersheimer and Walt point out – that :

«Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct US economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II […] Israel is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, an exemption that makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the United States opposes, like building settlements in the West …».Mearsheimer and Walt pages 30-31.

While Britain’s many Labour, Conservative and LibDem Friends of Israel aren’t Jewish, Stuart Littlewood draws an alarming picture of this over-representation by the organised Jewish community in British politics :

«The Jewish Chronicle has published a list of Jewish MPs in Britain’s parliament. It names 24 – Conservatives 12, Labour 10 and Liberal Democrats two. I thought it was more. But let us for the sake of argument accept the Jewish Chronicle’s figures. The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats. The conclusion is pretty obvious. With 24 seats, Jews are eight times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims…If Muslims, for instance, were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats. All hell would break loose …». 21st May 2010 / Stuart Littlewood http://www.redressonline.com/2010/05/jews-eight-times-over-represented-in-uk-parliament/.

Which brings us to the messianic supremacist agenda of GMOs and the Genetic Literacy Project of GLS team leader Jon Entine whose work in my view reflects an unhealthy interest in élitist, socially divisive, ‘high tech’ quick fixes, unsafe palliative solutions – synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, chemical and genetic engineering – sociocidal ventures comparable to the ethnic cleansing now balkanising the Holy Lands under the aegis of Bernard Lewis and his ‘clash of civilisations’. One recalls the bloodcurdling and vindictive purple prose of Deuteronomy and Joshua. I kid you not. Fanatical hatred of Gentiles in parts of the Hebrew Bible and some Talmudic Scriptures is well documented. The GLS philosophy is likewise transhumanist in its espousal of a misanthropic, quasi-religious creed, endorsing an eradicative use of ‘life sciences’ and a deadly capital intensive precision agriculture : both highly valued WMDs in the oligarchy’s divide and rule toolbox.

The photo taken in January 2015 on the premises of the British Board of Deputies – down the road from the Emirates Stadium and Holloway Prison – of an otherwise perfectly non-Jewish Right Honourable Madame Home Secretary proclaiming she is kosher sums up the pack of lies one is expected to swallow in a day’s perusal of the world news and current affairs. France is likewise held hostage by the pro-Israel Atlanticists.

Despite the UKUSA_Agreement‘s ECHELON /Five Eyes (FVEY) and the Frenchelon system, this banana republic’s intelligence services are unable to protect inhabitants and visitors from the carnage of Paris and Nice. Just as French farming is hijacked by the big business community, government and mass media outlets are the useful idiots of a PR machine abusing the population with torrents of disinformation, islamophobia and russophobia, the unquestioning allegiance to NATO in accordance with a praetorian Loi Fabius-Gayssot.

Enacted on 13 July 1990, when the nation was in holiday mode, this law makes it a criminal offence to query the existence, nature or size of the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were executed in a frenzy of ‘victor’s justice’ (Siegerjustiz) a form of lex talionis (Cf. International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46 art.9). What this signifies for serious students of history is that key aspects of WWII have been sealed in a judicial vault and the key thrown away.

East of Covent Garden, south of Clerkenwell, west of Whitechapel, north of the Thames, St Paul’s Cathedral no longer stands out on the summit of Ludgate Hill. The City of London’s once historic skyline features now a bewildering array of steel, glass and concrete. Gone are the traces of The Blitz and the massive Provisional IRA truck bombs of the 1990s. The hub of Britain’s international financial services industry accommodates a very small resident population of about 7,000 and a daily influx of over 300,000 commuters on weekdays.

Its pseudo medieval coat of arms evinces a puerile infatuation with The Crusades with sword, shield, crested helmet, a Cross of Saint George, silver dragons, underlined by a 17th century Latin motto Domine nos dirige (‘O Lord, guide us’). Despite the appeal to the deity, this onshore bailiwick’s core business activity resides in maintaining and developing a global network of tax havens that plunder vast amounts of public resources.

The City resembles no other statutory body except perhaps the dual legal entity of the Vatican and the Holy See. Derided as Britain’s ‘last rotten borough’, the falsely patriotic, deeply conservative, ‘local authority’, that runs the tiny municipal enclave peripheral to London’s metropolis, brooks no external oversight. The Post-Brexit talk is of the ‘Asian pivot’ as Mexican standoffs cascade from NATO’s witches brew of containment policies on the borders of Russia, in Sudan and the South China Sea and further moves are made in the geopolitical -firstHeading2″>sphere to uncouple the debt merchants and investment banks from the reality of ordinary people’s lives to forge a global 100% unaccountable offshore economy. Communities at the business end of the Square Mile’s unpleasantly sharp practices may indeed see their high brow tormentors as servants of the Antichrist. Maybe those seeking out the Synagogue of Satan twice voiced in the Book of the Apocalypse need look no further. Either way full spectrum dominance is required to protect this global empire from the infidels and unbelievers who challenge a world order of would be divine rights authorised to trade in murder and mayhem and govern by chaos. Ezra Pound was made a political prisoner for 13 years for daring to think and say such things. Writers, economists and historians like Carroll Quigley, Eustace Mullins, Antony C. Sutton and others who refuse to play the rôle of gatekeepers to the central banking system’s japes are likewise ostracised as extremists and conspiracy theorists.

City of London arton40282-d38e8——-

Notes

«War does not determine who is right – only who is left». Attributed to Bertrand Russell (1872-1970).

Un_Di_Velt_WieselUn di velt hot geshvign … (Cf. supra)

«To make the history of antisemitism complete, omitting none of the manifestations of this sentiment and following its divers phases and modifications, it is necessary to go into the history of Israel since its dispersion, or, more properly speaking, since the beginning of its expansion beyond the boundaries of Palestine. Wherever the Jews settled after ceasing to be a nation ready to defend its liberty and independence, one observes the development of antisemitism, or rather anti-Judaism; for antisemitism is an ill chosen word, which has its raison d’être only in our day, when it is sought to broaden this strife between the Jew and the Christians by supplying it with a philosophy and a metaphysical, rather than a material reason. If this hostility, this repugnance had been shown towards the Jews at one time or in one country only, it would be easy to account for the local causes of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred with all the nations amidst whom it ever settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belonged to divers races, as they dwelled far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge alike of any subject, it must needs be that the general causes of antisemitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it. This does not mean that justice was always on the side of Israel’s persecutors, or that they did not indulge in all the extremes born of hatred; it is merely asserted that the Jews were themselves, in part, at least, the cause of their own ills …». Antisemitism: Its History and Causes. Bernard Lazare Editions Léon Chailley, 1894. -Chapter One”>Chapter One: General Causes of Antisemitism https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lazare-bernard/1894/antisemitism/ch01.htm.

(Top of page 5 in this translated edition http://solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/anti-semitism-its-history-and-causes-bernard-lazare.pdf).

French Jewish literary critic, political journalist, polemicist, anarchist, who was among the first Dreyfusards, Bernard Lazare (1865-1903) wrote the most authorative account of the causes and history of antisemitism and for that reason is treated as a pariah by today’s Jewish community.

To avoid any possible misunderstanding here is the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary simple definition of Jew :

«Someone whose religion is Judaism, who is descended from Jewish people, or who participates in the culture surrounding Judaism».

The Merriam-Webster dictionary’s full definition of Jew qualifies this with a series of subsets :

«1a : a member of the tribe of Judah

b : israelite (person who was born in or who lived in the ancient kingdom of Israel : descendant of the Hebrew patriarch Jacob ;

specifically : a native or inhabitant of the ancient northern kingdom of Israel. As opposed to the kingdom of Judah).

  1. 2 : a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century B.C. to the first century A.D.
  2. 3: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
  3. 4: one whose religion is Judaism …». Source : Simple and Full Definitions of Jewhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jew.

NB The Jewish calendar is lunar and Judaism should not be conflated with Talmudism. Jewish identity is awarded to anybody who converts to Judaism or whose mother is Jewish and who, as such, participates in the secular or religious culture arising from Jewish history and Judaism. Matrilineal descent still is the rule within Orthodox Judaism, which believes that anyone with a Jewish mother is endowed with an irrevocable Jewish status. Note that ‘born-again Londoner’ Gilad Atzon has renounced both his Israeli citizenship and his Jewishness. He has also abandoned all hope of ever being reunited with his foreskin ! Wth the emergence of Jewish denominations, opinion within the wider Jewish community is divided over the question of matrilineal and patrilineal descent, with Reform Judaism in the USA officially adopting a bilineal policy since 1983.

*********

Les causes cachées de la guerre du Donbass (Ukraine) Allbright et Soros contre la Russie : 5 milliards de dollars investis depuis 1991. Emmanuel Leroy qui est le président de l’association humanitaire Urgence Enfants du Donbass,analyse ici les causes profondes de la guerre du Donbass et de la déstabilisation de l’Ukraine, prélude à la déstabilisation de la Russie, que l’oligarchie anglo-américaine prépare depuis des décennies, voire des siècles. 125 juillet 2016 http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Les-causes-cachees-de-la-guerre-du-Donbass-Ukraine-40442.html.

May vows to stop tax avoidance … while her husband profits from Amazon & Starbucks

13 July 2016 https://www.rt.com/uk/350901-theresa-may-husband-taxes/.

The Rt. Hon Theresa May Home Secretary – 22nd April 2015 – Yom Ha’atzmaut 5775, London.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75bfKQLUaUY&feature=youtu.be Filmed by Torah Digital Bnei Akiva UK

Theresa May Performs The Pre Traumatic Stress January 19, 2015 / Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/1/19/theresa-may-performs-the-pre-traumatic-stress

At Last, a Jewish Prime Minister July 11, 2016 / Gilad Atzmonhttp://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/7/11/at-last-a-jewish-prime-minister.

«רה”מ הבריטית הבאה: “תמיד אתמוך בישראל» http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4826908,00.html 11July 2016

Le serment d’allégeance de Theresa May à Israël Le futur Premier ministre britannique a appliqué la “méthode Valls” 11 juillet 2015

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Le-serment-d-allegeance-de-Theresa-May-a-Israel-40385.html.

Times of Israel May versus Leadsom : Who gets the community’s vote ? July 5, 2016http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vqqgujHVxT0J:jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/may-versus-leadsom-who-gets-the-communitys-vote/. Rebecca Pinnington.

Pro-GMO campaign exploits Nobel laureates to attack Greenpeace and fool the people Claire Robinson 30 June 2016

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17077-pro-gmo-campaign-exploits-nobel-laureates-to-attack-greenpeace-and-fool-the-people.

107 Nobel Laureate Attack on Greenpeace Traced Back to Biotech PR Operators by Jonathan Latham PhD July 1, 2016

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/107-nobel-laureate-attack-on-greenpeace-traced-back-to-biotech-pr-operators/.

Don’t Eat the Yellow Rice : The Danger of Deploying Vitamin A Golden Rice by Ted Greiner, PhD July 11, 2016

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/dont-eat-the-yellow-rice-the-danger-of-deploying-vitamin-a-golden-rice/.

Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, The Sixth Extinction : Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind, (Anchor, 1996). In The Future of Life (Vintage, 2002), Harvard biologist, Edward Osborne Wilson, who founded the discipline of sociobiology and first coined the term biodiversity, argues tha,t at the current rate of human interference in the biosphère, half the planet’s remaining species will be gone by mid-century.

*********

Lanzmann, Finkielkraut et Lévy réagissent à la mort du menteur Elie Wiesel L’escroc à la Shoah, pavé dans la marre du communautarisme juif

4 July 2016 https://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Lanzmann-Finkielkraut-et-Levy-reagissent-a-la-mort-du-menteur-Elie-Wiesel-40261.html.

Grüner Nikolaus ©2005-2006 Stolen Identity printed in Swedenhttp://www.nazigassings.com/PDFs/StolenIdentity2.pdf.

3 July 2016 -63943650956674880251″>Elie Wiesel est morthttp://robertfaurisson.blogspot.fr/2016/07/elie-wiesel-est-mort.html.

17 October 1986 -10108616216624575051″>A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wieselhttp://robertfaurisson.blogspot.fr/1986/10/a-prominent-false-witness-elie-wiesel.html.

17 octobre 1986 Un grand faux témoin : Elie Wiesel http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.fr/1986/03/un-grand-faux-temoin-elie-wiesel.html.

29 juin 1993 -68180305653085006371″>Un grand faux témoin : Élie Wiesel (Suite)http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.fr/1993/06/un-grand-faux-temoin-elie-wiesel-suite.html.

Blanrue : « Je n’ai jamais surpris Faurisson en flagrant délit de fraude ou de mensonge ! -yiv8608005257yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467895974766_54221″>Questions à Paul-Éric Blanrue, réalisateur du documentaire «-yiv8608005257yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467895974766_54231″>Un Homme» (Par Rachid Guedjal pour Algérienetwork)-yiv8608005257yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467895974766_55431″> octobre 2011 http://algerienetwork.com/entrevue/blanrue-je-nai-jamais-surpris-faurisson-en-flagrant-delit-de-fraude-ou-de-mensonge/. Blanrue poursuivi par la LICRA pour “contestation de crimes contre l’humanité” 2 mars 2012 http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Blanrue-poursuivi-par-la-LICRA-pour-contestation-de-crimes-contre-l-humanite-10693.html.

Paul Rassinier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rassinier.

Faussaires du sport Par E&R Midi-Pyrénées 29 décembre 2012

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Faussaires-du-sport-15629.html.

Chabanais – 1944: la part d’ombre des maquisards Par Jean-François BARRÉ 08 août 2014

http://www.charentelibre.fr/2014/08/04/1944-la-part-d-ombre-des-maquisards,1908180.php,

20 April 1987-41442593216257948251″> Pierre Vidal-Naquet juge Elie Wieselhttp://robertfaurisson.blogspot.fr/1987/04/pierre-vidal-naquet-juge-elie-wiesel.html.

Les fabuleuses aventures d’Elie Wiesel 3 juillet 2016 https://herveryssen.wordpress.com/2016/07/03/les-fabuleuses-aventures-delie-wiesel/.

-post-19581″> Elie Wiesel Knows Soviet “Liberators” Destroyed the Birkenau Crematoriums, Carolyn Yeager

May 10, 2012 http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/tag/un-di-velt-hot-geshvign/,

Quel procès pour ceux qui mettent Elie Wiesel en procès ? Michaël de Saint-Cheron 11 mars 2013

http://laregledujeu.org/2013/03/11/12685/quel-proces-pour-ceux-qui-mettent-elie-wiesel-en-proces/.

Elie Wiesel n’a pas le tatouage d’Auschwitz qu’il prétend avoir-yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467642178580_121691″> 24 décembre 2012, -yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467642178580_121701″> Auteur : -yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467642178580_121711″>-yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467642178580_121721″>Jean-yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467642178580_121731″>-yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467642178580_121741″> Robin 237 commentaires

-yiv0801716699yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467636753265_553221″>-yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467642178580_120741″>http://www.enquete-debat.fr/archives/elie-wiesel-na-pas-le-tatouage-dauschwitz-quil-pretend-avoir-94416.

2010 Elie Wiesel’s House of Lies Is Crashing – Truth no defence – Is Elie Wiesel “The Most Credible Living Witness
to Holocaust?” By Carlo Mattognohttp://www.adelaideinstitute.org/HomePage28April2009/wiesel_crashing_10.htm.

Octobre 30, 2012 Alain Soral clash Jean Robin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L6A6E-i0-E.

Novembre 8 2012 -eow-title”>sur la pensée “pilpoul” Jean Robin, journaliste écolohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ahhxMeXZs.

-eow-title1″> Septembre 14, 2013 Alain Soral interrogé par Jean Robin PART 1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoiu27r6dQU.

Septembre 14, 2013 Alain Soral interrogé par Jean Robin PART 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnwNA9lGSRA.

Elie Wiesel, escroc à la Shoah Un cas isolé ? 4 jillet 2016 http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Elie-Wiesel-escroc-a-la-Shoah-40254.html.

Palestine occupée : -yiv0574589189yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467749919029_3717″>-yiv0574589189yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467749919029_3713″>La zone grise : Israël et la Palestine sous le regard de Primo Levi et de Kafka 3 juin 2007

http://www.alterinfo.net/La-zone-grise-Israel-et-la-Palestine-sous-le-regard-de-Primo-Levi-et-de-Kafka_a9012.html.

Is it time to call Ken Waltzer a fraud ? By Carolyn Yeager copyright 2013 Carolyn Yeager Updated April 7th 2013

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/is-it-time-to-call-ken-waltzer-a-fraud/. Posted on June 11, 2013 Elie Wiesel Was Not in Buchenwald” Made Simple http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/elie-wiesel-was-not-in-buchenwald-made-simple/.

Une lettre inédite de Primo Levi sur la Shoah dévoilée Par Sandrine Szwarc Le 27/01/2015 Rubrique Monde juif http://www.actuj.com/2015-01/monde-juif/1386-une-lettre-inedite-de-primo-levi-sur-la-shoah-devoilee In Previously Unknown Letter, Primo Levi Explains the Holocaust to a Young Girl ‘Rather than accusing them of cruelty, I would accuse the Germans of these days of selfishness, of being indifferent and intentionally ignorant’. Anna Momigliano Jan 27, 2015http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/.premium-1.639195.

Newly Unearthed Version of Elie Wiesel’s Seminal Work Is a Scathing Indictment of God, Jewish World In Wiesel’s uncensored Hebrew ‘Night’ manuscript, unveiled here for the first time, the author expresses desire to take revenge on the Hungarians, lashes out at fellow Jews and describes sexual scenes from the train to Auschwitz. Ofer Aderet May 01, 2016 http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/.premium-1.717093?.

Haaretz Obituary for Elie Wiesel : Author and human rights activist made perpetuating the memory of the Shoah his life’s work By Ronen Shnidman Jul 02, 2016 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.575072

-eow-title2″> [Extrait] Alain Soral sur Elie Wiesel, escroc à la Shoah – Entretien de janvier 2013

ERTV Officiel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKjBTbuM_9k.

-eow-title3″> Nikolaus Grüner reveals his tattoo on American TV in 2008 !https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCF9NcJMWdg.

-eow-title4″> Elie Wiesel, the fake survivor of Auschwitz Nikolaus Miklos Gruner 9 March 2016https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HlCwoJMBDI.

-eow-title5″> Elie Wiesel & the Holocaust Fraud Carolyn Yeager Jan 12 2016https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTV0a_sJFbU.

Elie Wiesel, “conscience du monde” ? Spéculer avec l’argent d’une œuvre caritative, de la “grandeur d’âme” ? 6 juillet 2016

https://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Elie-Wiesel-conscience-du-monde-40290.html Elie Wiesel, plus que l’ombre d’un doute Elie Wiesel

était-il désintéressé ? Christophe Servan http://www.bvoltaire.fr/christopheservan/elie-wiesel-plus-que-lombre-dun-doute,269124.

Auschwitz Survivor Claims Elie Wiesel Was an Impostor

July 2, 2016 http://www.henrymakow.com/translated_from_the_hungarian.html.

Scoop : Elie Wiesel serait un imposteur sur son passé d’holocauste 1 décembre 2011

http://rvlations.forum-actif.info/t520-scoop-elie-wiesel-serait-un-imposteur-sur-son-passe-d-holocauste.

Elie Wiesel Levels Scorn at Madoff By Stephanie Strom February 26, 2009http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/business/27madoff.html?_r=0.

Elie Wiesel on Losing His Life Savings in Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme http://www.oprah.com/own-super-soul-sunday/elie-wiesel-on-losing-his-life-savings-to-bernie-madoff-video .

10 Celebrities who were Victims of Bernie Madoff’s $50B Ponzi Scheme Posted by Staff Reporter (media@realtytoday.com) on Sep 21, 2015 http://www.realtytoday.com/articles/36921/20150921/10-celebrities-who-were-victims-of-bernie-madoffs-50-b-ponzi-scheme.htm.

Grüner False Identity Lawsuit Against Elie Wiesel Set For January 24 in Budapest by Carolyn Yeager Myklos Grüner will finally get his day in court ! 18 November 2011http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/gruner-false-identity-charge-against-wiesel-set-for-january-24-in-budapest/.

Proof that the man in the famous Buchenwald photograph is NOT Elie Wiesel. Four men in bunk by Carolyn Yeager September 12, 2011 http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/EW_four-men-in-bunk.pdf. Gigantic Fraud Carried Out for Wiesel Nobel Prize

by Carolyn Yeager September 12, 2011 http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/gigantic-fraud-carried-out-for-wiesel-nobel-prize/.

Elie Wiesel has said under oath that he has one, and that it is number A7713.

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/the-evidence/the-tattoo/where-is-elies-tattoo/,

New (old) pictures come to light in wake of Elie Wiesel’s death by Carolyn Yeager 2016

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/new-old-pictures-come-to-light-in-wake-of-elie-wiesels-death/.

9 nov. 2015 – Show us a tattoo darn it ! Carolyn Yeager http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/show-us-a-tattoo-darn-it/.

Comment le protégé de Hitler a commencé à travailler pour le Mossad 21/06/2016 La revue “Sang-froid” raconte l’incroyable histoire d’Otto Skorzeny, ancien militaire SS devenu agent des services de renseignements israéliens… (Cf. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Skorzeny).

http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/comment-le-protege-de-hitler-a-commence-a-travailler-pour-le-mossad-21-06-2016-2048341_24.php.

********

«The Hebrew term pilpul (Hebrew: פלפול, from “pepper,” loosely meaning “sharp analysis”) refers to a method of studying the Talmud through intense textual analysis in attempts to either explain conceptual differences between various halakhic rulings or to reconcile any apparent contradictions presented from various readings of different texts.-cite_ref-11″>[1] Pilpul has entered English as a colloquialism used by some to indicate extreme disputation or casuistichairsplitting …». https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilpul.

Italie : le révisionnisme devient un délit Jusqu’à six ans de prison, au nom de la liberté d’opinion …

9 juillet 2016 http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Italie-le-revisionnisme-devient-un-delit-39817.html.

Neuro-pirates : réflexions sur l’ingénierie sociale (Lucien Cerise) in culture by ex-libris 14 avril 2016

http://www.medias-presse.info/neuro-pirates-reflexions-sur-lingenierie-sociale-lucien-cerise/52765,

http://www.kontrekulture.com/produit/neuro-pirates-reflexions-sur-l-ingenierie-sociale,

Compte-rendu de la conférence-débat de Lucien Cerise au Forum du FNJ Paris … Lucien Cerise, penseur de la dissidence, auteur de l’essai Gouverner par le chaos … Janvier 2014http://www.fnjeunesse.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Compte-rendu-Lucien-Cerise-3.pdf.

Argumenter contre le transhumanisme – Conférence de Lucien Cerise en Normandie 7 juillet 2016 vidéos en deux parties

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Argumenter-contre-le-transhumanisme-Conference-de-Lucien-Cerise-en-Normandie-40291.html.

Hillary Clinton declares international information war 2 March, 2011https://www.rt.com/news/information-war-media-us/.

Gilad Atzmon: The Herem Law in the context of Jewish Past and Present -yui_3_17_2_1_1468155356174_3551″>July 16, 2011-yui_3_17_2_1_1468155356174_3541″> / -yui_3_17_2_1_1468155356174_3531″>Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-the-herem-law-in-the-context-of-jewish-past-and.html,

Herem : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herem_(censure).

Judith Butler : «Malgré mon désaccord avec Israël, je ne peux renoncer à mon identité juive» Par Sylvain Bourmeau — 6 décembre 2013

http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2013/12/06/malgre-mon-desaccord-avec-israel-je-ne-peux-renoncer-a-mon-identite-juive_964713.

The Holocaust Industry https://wikispooks.com/w/images/4/48/The_Holocaust_Industry.pdf.

Norman Finkelstein http://normanfinkelstein.com/ /// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein.

Book Calling Holocaust a Shakedown Starts a German Storm Roger Cohen February 8, 2001

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/08/world/book-calling-holocaust-a-shakedown-starts-a-german-storm.html.

-eow-title6″> Norman Finkelstein in “Defamation” April 12, 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcWIaYJGlOQ.

Defamation (2009) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_(film).

Checkpoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkpoint_(2003_film).

Yoav Shamir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoav_Shamir.

19 January 2015 Norman Finkelstein: Charlie Hebdo is sadism, not satire World renowned political science professor says he has ‘no sympathy’ for staff at Charlie Hebdo By Mustafa Caglayanhttp://aa.com.tr/en/politics/norman-finkelstein-charlie-hebdo-is-sadism-not-satire/82824.

Pour le rôle de la SNCF dans la Shoah, Paris va verser 100 000 euros à chaque déporté américain -publisher”>Le Monde.fr avec AFP | 05.12.2014

http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2014/12/05/etats-unis-paris-va-indemniser-les-victimes-de-la-shoah-transportees-par-la-sncf_4535530_3222.html.

La SNCF versera 60 millions de dollars pour indemniser les victimes de la Shoahhttp://www.latribune.fr/actualites/economie/international/20141205trib0ff2f80c4/la-sncf-versera-60-millions-de-dollars-pour-indemniser-les-victimes-de-la-shoah.html.

Left Forum 2016 – A Dialogue on Israel and Palestine with Tariq Ali and Norman Finkelstein On Tuesday, May 24th, 2016

http://normanfinkelstein.com/2016/05/24/left-forum-2016-a-dialogue-on-israel-and-palestine-with-tariq-ali-and-norman-finkelstein/.

********

48 Percent Of U.S. Billionaires Are Jewish 29 July 2013 http://politicsinn.com/48-percent-of-u-s-billionaires-are-jewish/.

The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy (2000) John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walthttp://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/IsraelLobby.pdf.

-eow-title9″> What Does it Mean to be a Friend of Israel ? Anthony Lawson Published May 11, 2014https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhwW9JFEGkI.

Conservative Friends of Israel http://powerbase.info/index.php/Conservative_Friends_of_Israel.

Labour Friends of Israel http://powerbase.info/index.php/Labour_Friends_of_Israel.

LibDem Friends of Israel http://powerbase.info/index.php/Liberal_Democrat_Friends_of_Israel.

U.S. Policy in Syria : An Interview with VA Senator Richard Black Published on May 6, 2016 -eow-description1″>EIR’s Jeff Steinberg interviews Virginia State Senator Richard Black on his recent trip to Syria and Lebanon. The two discuss the resilience of the Syrian people, the impact of U.S. sanctions on Syria, and the overall U.S. and Western strategy of “regime change”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ivZKHE-STk.

Robert Fisk – Life after ISIS (2016) UCD – University College Dublin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ivZKHE-STk. May 6, 2016.

Collaboration : L’Autorité palestinienne arrête des militants du mouvement BDS

10 juin 2014 http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Collaboration-25939.html.

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham November 08, 2015 / Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/11/8/the-extraordinary-trial-of-arthur-topham.

The Expert Witness – Part 1 November 09, 2015 / Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/11/9/the-expert-witness-part-1.

Gilad Atzmon’s Index and topics November 10, 2015 / Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/11/9/gilad-atzmons-index-and-topics#_ftn1.

********

The Jewish Religion : Its Influence Today Formerly titled The Plot Against Christianity

Fourth edition 1983 revised with index http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/jriit.pdf.

From The Jewish Religion : Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

III. The Talmud and Bible Believers http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/chapt03.html#T163.

Babylonian Talmud : Tractate Gittin -57a1″>Folio 57a http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html.

Elizabeth Dilling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Dilling.

ERTV s’est entretenu avec Gilad Atzmon chez lui à Londres sur l’attitude des premiers sionistes vis-à-vis du Judaïsme et des Juifs (10 mars 2016) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C2belnQSEI&feature=youtu.be Gilad Atzmon : “Le sionisme fut d’abord conduit par un esprit athénien” (French subtitles) Dans la première partie de cet entretien réalisé pour ERTV par l’association «Les Amis d’Alain Soral à Londres», le jazzman britannique d’origine israélienne Gilad Atzmon revient sur la tentative des premiers sionistes de «réinventer le judaïsme». 12 juillet 2016

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Gilad-Atzmon-Le-sionisme-fut-d-abord-conduit-par-un-esprit-athenien-40398.html.

********

«Jon Entine is a corporate propagandist and pseudo-journalist who utilizes his media savvy to promote the opinions and positions of chemical corporations, by posing as an independent journalist. Entine has multiple, documented ties to biotech companies Monsanto and Syngenta, and plays a key propaganda role via another industry front group known as the American Council on Science and Health, a thinly-veiled corporate front group that Sourcewatch describes as holding “a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others». Source : http://www.truthwiki.org/jon_entine/ who sourced their info here :http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16722-jon-entine-the-chemical-industry-s-master-messenger who reproduced this : http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/.

 

Meet Jon Entine: Pro-Monsanto GMO activist and pro-Bill Gates activist Posted on July 14, 2013 by The Refusers

Meet Jon Entine: Pro-Monsanto GMO activist and pro-Bill Gates activist

The Making of an Agribusiness Apologist Tom Philpott-dateline1″> February 24, 2012

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine.

Jon Entine: The Chemical Industry’s Master Messenger February 16, 2016 by Gary Ruskin

http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/.

Genetic Literacy Project http://www.truthwiki.org/genetic-literacy-project/. A sample of Jon Entine’s anthropologically disruptive output :

Taboo : Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It, 2000,ISBN 1-58648-026-X

Let Them Eat Precaution : How Politics is Undermining the Genetic Revolution, 2006, ISBN 0-8447-4200-7

Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity and the DNA of the Chosen People, 2008, ISBN 0-446-58063-5

Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health, 2011, ISBN 978-0-578-07561-7

Crop Chemophobia: Will Precaution Kill the Green Revolution? 2011, ISBN 978-0-8447-4361-5

La stratégie du choc des civilisations (Youssef Hindi et Jean-Michel Vernochet) 14 juillet 2016

La stratégie du choc des civilisations (Youssef Hindi et Jean-Michel Vernochet)

choc-civilisations

********

Deconstructing Russophobia June 10, 2016 Caroline Brown https://off-guardian.org/2016/06/16/deconstructing-russophobia/

36 Comments, Also published here June 17, 2016 : http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/deconstructing-russophobia/ri15031.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990 Nafeez Ahmed Wednesday 8 April 2015

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394.

Bank for International Settlements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements.

Special Drawing Rights (Currency code XDR, also abbreviated SDR) are supplementary foreign exchange reserve assets defined and maintained by the IMF. From November 2015 onwards, the SDR/XDR basket has consisted of the following five currencies : US Dollar 41.73% ; Euro 30.93% ; Chinese Yuan 10.92% ; Japanese Yen 8.33% ; British Pound 8.09%.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights.

24 May 2016 City firms switching from Tories to UKIP says Nigel Farage Companies are sick of the ‘unending blizzard’ of regulation coming out of Brussels, says Nigel Faragehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10079115/City-firms-switching-from-Tories-to-UKIP-says-Nigel-Farage.html. 24 June 2016 Brexit : What the world’s papers sayhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36619254,

8 juillet 2016 Les USA arborent leurs forces en mer de Chine méridionale avec des bâtiments de guerre et des avions militaires

L’arbitrage sur la mer de Chine méridionale par Zheng Ruolin http://www.legrandsoir.info/l-arbitrage-sur-la-mer-de-chine-meridionale.html.

31 October 2011 George Monbiot The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest

Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval.

‘NOT for the immature ! Zionist Antichrist will rule the NWO’ Aug 1, 2011https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq0_n7ZBX_c. ‘Eustace Mullins was the most dangerous man in the world’ according to FBI director Hoover. He found out too much that people in power would prefer to remain hidden so they could continue their dirty work unhindered. Author of The Secrets of The Federal Reserve (1953) he speaks of Ezra Pound’s four protégés, three of them becoming Nobel Literature Prize winners : WB Yeats (1923), Ernest Hemingway (1954). TS Eliot (1948) James Joyce. Predictably, because of what he revealed about ‘centralised banking’, he is pigeonholed as an ‘American antisemitic writer and Holocaust denier’.

The Secrets of the Federal Reserve – the London Connection, First published as Mullins on the Federal Reserve (1952-1953)

Reprinted, 1983. http://arcticbeacon.com/books/Eustace_Mullins-SECRETS_of_the_Federal_Reserve_Bank.pdf (326 pages) .

Les Secrets de la Réserve Fédérale par Eustace Mullins Préface de Michel Drac Traduction : Jean-François Goulon
Editeur : le retour aux sourceshttp://questionscritiques.free.fr/edito/les_secrets_de_la_reserve_federale_291110.ht. (436 pages)

Eustace Mullins : The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History Revelation Books, Staunton, Virginia, 1987, 242 pages,

https://archive.org/stream/EustaceMullins-TheCurseOfCanaanADemonologyOfHistory1987#page/n5/mode/2up..

Anthony C Sutton : The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986) http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/index.html.

Anthony C Sutton : Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (in three volumes : 1968 , 1971, 1973).

-eow-title10″>Wall Street et l’ascension d’Hitler – Antony C. Sutton STFRhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S12LfqeT00w.

-eow-title11″> Antony Sutton: Wall Street & the rise of Hitler 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sCpsq55uic.

Antony Sutton: Wall Street & the rise of Hitler 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3MSX_YM1Gc.

Antony Sutton: Wall Street & the rise of Hitler 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYzXp2eUGz8.

Antony Sutton: Wall Street & the rise of Hitler 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZp6MkSFx0.

Antony Sutton: Wall Street & the rise of Hitler 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38burerNKB8.

AC Sutton The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, Common Sense, Union, New Jersey, 1954, 144 pages

http://usawealthpartners.com/Federal-reserve-conspiracy-by-antony-sutton.pdf (115 pages).

Carroll Quigley : The Anglo-American Establishment : From Rhodes to Cliveden (Books in Focus 1981)

http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf (354 pages).

Epilogue

«To come into the world is not a great deal for most of us. No questions asked and no entry permit to be agreed, but the actual ceremony that is waiting for one, can make one or do one in. But sometimes the delivery gets out of balance and then one can get the shortest straw and be sentenced to bear the Jewish faith. That is when the trouble starts. Unfortunately one can’t turn back, one can only proceed to bear the sentence that is one for all and all for one, which makes one to be a bloody Jew». The Papercut Silhouette of my Life Nikolaus Grüner A-11104 (Auschwitz) 120762 (Buchenwald) Stolen Identity ©2005-2006 Stockholm printed in Sweden http://www.nazigassings.com/PDFs/StolenIdentity2.pdf.*

To put things into perspective you really need to see how Jews at the legislative branch of the Israeli government are unable to control themselves when confronted by a feisty Palestinian Arab Israeli Knesset Member -firstHeading”>Haneen Zoabi (حنين زعبي) who was on board the MV Mavi Marmarain May 2010 where she says she witnessed two wounded passengers bleed to death after the Israelis refused to provide requested medical aid.

The One and Only Haneen Zoabi (May god bless her) -more-174881″>Israeli MPs try to assault Haneen Zoabi :

June 30th, 2016 ttp://normanfinkelstein.com/2016/06/30/the-one-and-only-haneen-zoabi-may-god-bless-her/.

Knesset Members Attack Haneen Zoabi After Gaza Flotilla Jun 7, 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsrHms0RhSc.

July 29th 2014 Hanin Zoabi suspended from Knesset for six months Balad MK who is under investigation for incitement is banned by ethics committee from participating in debateshttp://www.timesofisrael.com/hanin-zoabi-suspended-from-knesset-for-six-months/.

Nationalist MK Hotovely VS. Arab MK Zoabi Arutz Sheva TV Jun 28, 2011https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlzyp8jJMO8.

*Traduction : «Venir au monde n’est pas une affaire compliquée pour la plupart d’entre nous. Pas de questions posées et aucune autorisation d’entrée à convenir, mais la cérémonie réelle qui nous attend, peut nous faire ou defaire. Mais parfois, la livraison peut créer un déséquilibre, puis on peut obtenir la plus courte paille et être condamnés à supporter la foi juive. C’est alors que les ennuis commencent. Malheureusement, on ne peut pas revenir en arrière, on ne peut que procéder à supporter la peine qui est un pour tous et tous pour un, ce qui nous rend le statut d’un foutu Juif».

La silhouette de ma vie découpée dans du papier. Nikolaus ou Miklos Grüner A-11104 (Auschwitz) 120762 (Buchenwald) Stolen Identity ©2005-2006 Stockholm L’identité volée imprimée et publiée en Suède http://www.nazigassings.com/PDFs/StolenIdentity2.pdf.

«Miko Peled is from a famous and influential Israeli Zionist family and was born in Jerusalem. Miko’s father was a famous general in the Israeli army. Miko too has served his time there. When his niece was killed in a Palestinian suicide bomb attack, his family surprisingly placed the blame squarely on the state of Israel. They believed it was the torture, violence and forced eviction from their homes that was driving Palestinians to commit suicide to fight back. In this honest, ground breaking talk Peled reveals the truth about the terror state of Israel. His talk is based on his father’s insider knowledge on the Israeli war of terror, coupled with his own research. Many Jews and Israel supporters will be deeply shaken by this expose. Some facts from his talk are that the returning Jews are not the original expelled Jews, nor their descendants. He also reveals that until 1947 when Israel launched their illegal terrorist attacks on the people of Palestine, there was no conflict. Miko Peled is one of many modern day Jews who are standing up to the Zionist state of Israel. This talk is a must watch for everybody, to clear their minds of the lies spread and supported by the Zionist owned mainstream media. -eow-title8″>An honest Israeli Jew tells the Real Truth about Israel December 2, 2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ.

Brexit, Russia & Proxy Wars Sheikh Imran Hosein Interview 5323 Views July 03, 2016 – 21 Comments

http://thesaker.is/brexit-russia-proxy-wars-sheikh-imran-hosein-interview/.

Putin – Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man By Finian Cunningham November 18, 2015-yiv6553610906yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467313894673_101241″>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43469.htm.

Brexit : et si la City était pour ? 5 juillet 2016 Valérie Bugault est avocate spécialisée en fiscalité internationale

http://www.medias-presse.info/le-brexit-et-si-la-city-etait-pour-jean-michel-vernochet-valerie-bugault/57528.

Interrogée par Jean-Michel Vernochet, Valérie Bugault analyse les suites du référendum pour la sortie du Royaume-Uni de l’Union européenne. Les élites financières ont-elles anticipé le Brexit ?http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Brexit-et-si-la-City-etait-pour-40282.html

24 September 2015 Britain bets the bank on a pivot to China UK assumes an economic relationship requires submission on everything else

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d8cdea2-6210-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz4E5JiTXfw. We can pivot too 24 October 2015 – The government makes a big bet on …http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21676773-government-makes-big-bet-asias-rising-power-we-can-pivot-too.

 

UK Labour Party in Grip of Zionist Inquisition

April 30, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

 by Stuart Littlewood

The orchestrated smear campaign against pro-Palestine sympathisers sent me reaching for my pen. But Gilad Atzmon too was eyeing the Labour Party’s crazed witch hunt for “antisemites” with misgiving and had already declared, in his usual robust way, that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn was not so much a party as a piece of Zionist-occupied territory.

Writing in his blog about Corbyn and McDonnell’s servile commitment to expel anyone whose remarks might be interpreted by Zionist mafioso as hateful or simply upsetting to Jews, Atzmon concludes: “Corbyn’s Labour is now unequivocally a spineless club of Sabbos Goyim” [which I take to mean non-Jewish dogsbodies who do menial jobs that Jews are forbidden to do for religious reasons].

“The Labour party’s policies,” says Atzmon, “are now compatible with Jewish culture: intolerant to the core and concerned primarily with the imaginary suffering of one people only. These people are not the working class, they are probably the most privileged ethnic group in Britain.  Corbyn’s Labour is a Zionist Occupied Territory…  It proves my theses that the Left is not a friend to Palestine, the oppressed or the workless people.

“I would have never believed that Jeremy Corbyn would engage in such colossally treacherous politics. I did not anticipate that Corbyn would become a Zionist lapdog.  Corbyn was a great hope to many of us. I guess that the time has come to accept that The Left is a dead concept, it has nothing to offer.”

This writer too is shocked after signing up a supporter (though not a member) of the Labour Party with the express purpose of voting in the leadership election for that beacon of common sense, that staunch champion of high ideals, that great white hope who would start a revolution in British politics and sweep away the crap and corruption left behind by Blair and Brown.

Boy, was I in for a disappointment!

And the latest casualty in this ugly Zionist power-play is former mayor of London Ken Livingstone. In a heated public spat with one of the party’s chief inquisitors, MP John Mann, he had the temerity to defend a female MP, Naz Shah, who had fallen foul of the party’s antisemitism police for comments made on Facebook before becoming an MP. She had suggested that Israel be transferred to the United States. She apologised profusely, but Labour’s Israel lobby went ballistic after raking up this old remark. Had they forgotten that their hero, David Ben-Gurion, himself, was mad-keen on population transfer… of Palestinian Arabs, that is? So what’s to get excited about? Mann happens to be chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism. One-sidedness is the name of his game.

What seems to have generated greatest sound and fury is this observation by Livingstone: “When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, said: “To speak of Zionism – the right of the Jewish people to self-determination – and Hitler in the same sentence is quite breathtaking. I am appalled that Ken Livingstone has chosen to do so…. He should be suspended from the Labour Party immediately.”

It scarcely needs saying that Zionism may mean self-determination for the Jewish people but it has cruelly denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination for decades. Nevertheless Livingstone is suspended from the party after 47 years.

President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Jonathan Arkush can be relied on to put in his two-pennyworth on these occasions, and he didn’t disappoint: “Ken Livingston’s comments were abhorrent and beyond disgraceful.  His latest comments combine Holocaust revisionism with antisemitism denial, when the evidence is there for all to see.  He lacks any sense of decency.  He must now be expelled from the Labour Party.”

And on the suspension of Naz Shah, Arkush was in overdrive: “If the Labour party is to re-establish its credibility on this issue, it needs to take four important steps forward:

First, there must be a credible inquiry into the entire Naz Shah episode.  Secondly, the party has to take effective measures to eradicate antisemitism wherever it occurs within its membership.  Thirdly, the leader must make it clear that allegations of antisemitism are not to be dismissed as arguments about Israel.  Fourthly, Jeremy Corbyn must now respond to our repeated calls for him to accept that his meetings with rank antisemites before he became leader were not appropriate and will not be repeated.

Witch hunters’ balloon pricked

Whether Livingstone’s claim that Hitler was a Zionist is correct, I know not and care not. He presumably checked his facts and was itching to score with this mischievous titbit. Whether that was a wise thing to do is a matter for idle chatter, not expulsion. Meanwhile Zio hotheads inside and outside the party would do well to pay attention to the The Jewish Socialists’ Group, which has some sound advice for them and sticks a pin in their not-so-pretty balloon with this measured statement:

Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

Criticism of Israeli government policy and Israeli state actions against the Palestinians is not antisemitism. Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the antisemites. We reject any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds.

Accusations of antisemitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of antisemitism. This is despite Corbyn’s longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally.

A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of antisemitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism.

The JSG goes further and suggests that the attacks come from four main sources – the Conservative Party, Conservative-supporting media and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources, right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community, and opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour party. These groups make common cause to wreck the Corbyn leadership, divert attention from Israeli government crimes and discredit those who dare to criticise Israeli policy or the Zionist enterprise.

In short, the JSG says what needs to be said and puts the witchfinder-generals firmly in their place.

Of course, if Labour – or the Conservatives – truly wished to be squeaky-clean in matters of racism they would disband their Israel fan clubs (i.e. Friends of Israel) and suspend all who refuse to condemn Israel’s brutal acts of ethnic cleansing and other war crimes. If people holding public office put themselves in a position where they are influenced by a foreign military power, they flagrantly breach the Principles of Public Life. There are far too many Labour and Conservative MPs and MEPs who fall into that category.

The Labour Party announced today it is considering reviewing its rules to send a clear message of zero-tolerance on antisemitism. For balance, why not match this with zero-tolerance of those who use the party as a platform for promoting the criminal Israeli regime and its continuing territorial ambitions? Go on, Labour, prove Atzmon wrong… prove the party is not Zionist occupied territory.

 

source:

DV- http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/04/uk-labour-party-in-grip-of-zionist-inquisition/

 

Stuart Littlewood’s book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper, can now be read on the internet by visiting radiofreepalestine.org.ukRead other articles by Stuart.

What it really means to be a friend of israel

What it really means to be a friend of Israel

Israel Stooges

David Cameron Friend of Israel

The humbug of “shared values”

By Stuart Littlewood

Once again the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual pantomime in Washington DC has played itself out while the world outside watches aghast at the gullibility of America’s political elite. And how they flocked to hear Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s

Whatever happened to the Un-American Activities Committee set up to investigate disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens and public employees, one wonders?

Who is this “we”?

“The terrorists have no resolvable grievances. It’s not as if we could offer them Brussels or Istanbul, or California or even the West Bank,” said Netanyahu. “That won’t satisfy their grievances because what they seek is our utter destruction and their total domination. Their basic demand is that we should simply disappear.”

Funny, the Israelis have been working for nearly 70 years to make the Palestinians disappear. Domination is their specialty.

“The only way to defeat these terrorists is to join together and fight them together… with political unity and with moral clarity. I think we have that in abundance…” Achingly funny.

“The chain of attacks from Paris to San Bernardino to Istanbul to the Ivory Coast and now to Brussels, and the daily attacks on Israel… This is one continuous assault on all of us.” No it isn’t.

And who is this “we”? It’s Netanyahu’s endless attempt to push the old hasbara line to make us think we’re all in it together.

The Israel Project

A few years back The Israel Project, a US media advocacy group, produced a revised training manual to help the worldwide Zionist movement win the propaganda war, keep its ill-gotten territorial gains in Palestine and persuade international audiences to accept that its crimes are necessary and conform to “shared values” between Israel and the civilised West.

  • ”Draw direct parallels between Israel and America – including the need to defend against terrorism… The more you focus on the similarities between Israel and America, the more likely you are to win the support of those who are neutral. Indeed, Israel is an important American ally in the war against terrorism, and faces many of the same challenges as America in protecting their citizens.”

Note how Israel’s strategy is almost totally dependent on the false idea that Israelis are victims of terror and Western nations need to huddle together with Israel for mutual protection.

  • ”The language of Israel is the language of America: ‘democracy,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘security’ and ‘peace’. These four words are at the core of the American political, economic, social and cultural systems, and they should be repeated as often as possible because they resonate with virtually every American.”

If so fluent in this language, why won’t Israel acknowledge its neighbours’ rights to democracy, freedom, security and peace and end its military oppression? Level-headed people have begun to realise who the terrorists really are. And it is obvious by now that allowing parallels to be drawn between Israel and America only serves to increase the world’s hatred of America.

  • ”A simple rule of thumb is that once you get to the point of repeating the same message over and over again so many times that you think you might get sick — that is just about the time the public will wake up and say ‘Hey, this person just might be saying something interesting to me!’ But don’t confuse messages with facts… ”

The only people who are interested these days are the “Friends” and the other assorted stooges in thrall to the Israelis and the politicians they have bribed.

  • “Successful communications is not about being able to recite every fact from the long history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is about pointing out a few core principles of shared values – such as democracy and freedom – and repeating them over and over again… You need to start with empathy for both sides, remind your audience that Israel wants peace and then repeat the messages of democracy, freedom and peace over and over again… we need to repeat the message, on average, 10 times to be effective.”

Is democracy a shared value? Around Western nations, maybe. But Israel is an ethnocracy and a rather nasty one. Is freedom a shared value? The world is still waiting for Israel to allow the Palestinians their freedom after decades of brutal military occupation.

Embracing evil

As La Clinton and others perform their obscene ritual acts of obeisance, let us ponder what being a Friend of Israel really entails. It means aligning yourself with the vilest villainy. It means embracing the terror and ethnic cleansing on which the state of Israel was built.

It means embracing the dispossession at gunpoint and oppression of the native Palestinians. It means embracing the discriminatory laws against those who remain.

It means embracing the jackboot thuggery that abducts civilians, including children, and imprisons and tortures them without trial.

It means embracing the theft and annexation of Palestinian land and water resources, the imposition of hundreds of military checkpoints, severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods, and maximum interference with Palestinian life at every level.

It means embracing the strangulation of the West Bank’s economy and the cruel blockade on Gaza.

It means embracing the denial of Palestinians’ right to self-determination and return to their homes.

It means embracing the religious war that humiliates Muslims and Christians and prevents them from visiting their holy places.

It means endorsing a situation in which hard-pressed British and American taxpayers are having to subsidise Israel’s illegal occupation of the Holy Land.

And if, after the most recent bloodbaths inflicted by the Israelis on Gaza, you are still Israel’s special friend, you are comfortable with blowing to smithereens hundreds of children, maiming thousands more, trashing vital infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, power plants and clean water supplies, and causing USD 6 billion of devastation that will take 20 years to rebuild. And, by the way, where is the money for that coming from?

By then you should consider how you no longer qualify for membership of the human race and it’s time for the revolver on the silver tray

UK’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign blocks call to expel Israel from UN

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

The following article by Stuart Littlewood  is an opportunity to witness, once again, the degree of infiltration into the Palestinian Solidarity movement. As I have been arguing for years, the UK PSC subscribes to kosher agenda; it operates as a Zionist controlled opposition apparatus.

http://www.redressonline.com/

By Stuart Littlewood

At its Annual General Meeting last weekend the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) threw out a proposal to seek Israel’s expulsion from the United Nations.

Chairman Hugh Lanning is reported to have kicked off proceedings on a positive note saying: “Let us recommit to Palestine to make sure that we make a difference in the coming year.”

But the mask slipped when a motion was put for the PSC’s Executive Committee to

request the government of the United Kingdom, enforced by a petition and lobbying, to submit a motion to the Security Council recommending that the General Assembly expel Israel from the UN in compliance with the UN Charter, Article 6.

The motion failed – 76 in favour, 116 against. A statement by its main sponsor, Blake Alcott, says that an identical motion to the AGM a year ago was likewise opposed by the PSC leadership who felt “the time is not yet right”. His reaction to this latest rejection was to say: “Pro-Palestinians must wonder how much worse Israel’s crimes must be before the international community takes disciplinary action.”

There is ample reason for calling for Israel’s expulsion from the UN. It chimes very well with the “Sanctions” element of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions(BDS). And it is a good fit with the sort of measures that, in the “Call to Action” by the BDS Movement, should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognise the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonisation of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognising the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

Israel clearly isn’t the “peace-loving state” required by UN Charter Article 4. Nor has it fulfilled the four conditions put on its acceptance as a member back in May 1949. As the record shows, Israel has wilfully breached conditions of membership for decades. Many have argued it automatically disqualifies itself by failing to fulfil membership requirements in the first place. Furthermore, it continues to show contempt for numerous UN resolutions, despite frequent reminders.

Israel has certainly violated every norm, every rule of decency, every principle of humanity in the book. And it continues to do so without showing a shred of remorse. 

When considering an appropriate response for civil society to make, suspension sounds “softer” than expulsion as membership can be speedily restored if and when Israel satisfies the other member states that it now conforms. And, in the circumstances, suspension would surely be more difficult to veto.

But under the rules suspension isn’t an option, it seems. This is what the relevant part of the UN Charter says:

(Article 5) A member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may besuspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.
(Article 6) A member of the United Nations which haspersistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the organisation by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

It might be argued that the passing of numerous UN Security Council resolutions amounts to “preventive action” (although still awaiting “enforcement”). But Article 6, which stipulates expulsion, is more clear-cut. Israel has certainly violated every norm, every rule of decency, every principle of humanity in the book. And it continues to do so without showing a shred of remorse.

Too timid to put down a marker for upholding international law?

Of course, Alcott’s motion, if passed, would have been brushed off by the British government which is pledged by Prime Minister David Cameron to protect and reward Israel right or wrong. But that is not the point. The aim of the motion was to put down a marker and provide a focus around which other campaign groups across the world could mobilise, bringing similar pressure to bear on their own governments and creating an irresistible swell of global opinion to ensure international law is eventually upheld.

Where does the PSC go from here, after failing a simple test? How will it now “make a difference” on behalf of the long-suffering Palestinians? The PSC’s media people have been asked twice for comment and further information but are “too busy”.

Right now some 71 UK doctors are pressuring the World Medical Association to revoke the membership of the Israel Medical Association over claims that its doctors perform medical torture on Palestinian patients. According to Press TV/Al-Ray, if the British physicians succeed, the Tel Aviv regime will be banned from taking part in international medical conferences and publishing in journals. Evidently our doctors have the balls for firm action, so why not the PSC?

Meanwhile, ace propagandist and chief spokesman for the terror regime in Tel Aviv, Mark Regev, is due to take up his appointment as Israel’s ambassador to the UK later this year. His presence here will have special significance. If the PSC and the impotent Palestine Mission in London are the best he’ll come up against, we can expect a media communications massacre.

Look Who’s in Charge of UK Government Cyber Security

Global Research, November 08, 2015

Matthew_Gould

A chilling remark from a House of Lords debate just caught my eye.

Column GC355 in Hansard, the verbatim report of proceedings of the UK parliament, dated 4 November 2015, said:

Lord Mendelsohn: We welcome the appointment of the former British ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, who will have a key role in cyber security inside the Cabinet Office – a very useful and important position.

Sure enough, the UK government’s website confirms that Gould is now director of cyber security and information assurance at the Cabinet Office. “He and his team are focused on keeping Britain safe from cyber attack, through delivering the UK’s Cyber Security Strategy.”

They must think we have very short memories. As Britain’s first Jewish ambassador to Israel, Gould described himself as a “passionate” Zionist and while in Tel Aviv he was instrumental in setting up the UK-Israel Tech Hub. In the words of MATIMOP (the Israeli Industry Centre for Research and Development), the hub was established

to promote partnerships in technology and innovation between Israel and the UK, and is the first initiative of its kind for the British government and for an embassy in Israel. The hub’s creation followed an agreement between prime ministers David Cameron and Binyamin Netanyahu to build a UK-Israel partnership in technology.

Three years ago Cameron appointed venture capitalist Saul Klein as the UK Tech Envoy to Israel with the task of promoting the partnership, leading UK technology missions to Israel, bringing Israeli start-ups to Britain, and hosting technology events in both countries.

MATIMOP quotes Britain’s National Health Service as an example of successful UK-Israel technology collaboration. The NHS

has now formed strong collaborations with Israeli life sciences companies conducting clinical trials in the UK. The cooperation was made as part of the burgeoning partnership between Israel and Britain’s life sciences industries initiated by the UK-Israel Tech Hub.

Driven by the Israel lobby

Four years ago Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, argued that British policy was being driven in an underhanded fashion by the Israel lobby. He linked Gould with the Fox-Werritty scandal and raised questionsabout meetings between disgraced former Defence Secretary Liam Fox and Fox’s friend/adviser, Adam Werritty (who was backed financially by Israel lobbyists but had no security clearance and therefore no authorised role) and Gould.

Murray wrote to Gould asking when he first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind had passed between them. He was told these questions would be answered in Cabinet Secretary O’Donnell’s investigation. “But Gus O’Donnell’s report answered none of these questions,” wrote Murray. “It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present…”

This prompted Murray to dig further. “There were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O’Donnell… Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why?”

Murray, with many useful sources from his days as an ambassador, claimed to have serious evidence connecting Gould with a secret plan to attack Iran, but the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Secretary blocked questions. Murray published his story, “Matthew Gould and the plot to attack Iran”, here.

In it he pointed out that

Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in Jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “Not just an ambassador who is Jewish, but a Jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.

He went on to say that Gould stood suspected of long term participation with Fox and Werritty “in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel”. The stonewalling by O’Donnell and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office led Murray to conclude that “something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government”.

Labour Member of Parliament Paul Flynn remarked that no previous ambassadors to Israel had been Jewish so as to avoid conflict of interest and accusations of going native. He immediately came under intense flak. Flynn too asked about meetings between Werritty and Gould, as some reports suggested that Gould, Werritty and Fox discussed a potential military strike on Iran with Mossad. “I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories,” said Flynn, “but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has previously served in Iran.”

Fox had earlier made the idiotic claim: “Israel’s enemies are our enemies” and “in the battle for the values that we stand for… Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together”. The Jewish Chronicle hailed him as “a champion of Israel within the government”. Furthermore, Fox continually rattled the sabre against Iran which, of course, was no threat to Britain but is regarded by Israel as a bitter enemy. Iraq too was Israel’s enemy, not ours. Yet Fox, according to the theyworkforyou.com, voted “very strongly” for the Iraq war. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Afghanistan.

Gatekeepers or fifth columnists?

Given that Fox so eagerly waved the flag of a foreign military power and was a man with dangerous beliefs and demonstrably weak judgement, how could those who appointed him not see that he was unemployable as a minister of the British Crown – unless they were similarly tainted?

When the Werritty relationship came to light Fox jumped before being flung from the battlements. But the good people of North Somerset, in their wisdom, re-elected him at the general election last May. He’s already on the road to political rehabilitation among the Conservative high command.

Gould’s new job as head of the Office of Cyber Security and Information Assurance (OCSIA) involves giving strategic direction to cyber security and information assurance for the UK. This includes  internet crime, working with private sector partners on exchanging information, and engaging with international partners in improving the security of cyber space and information security. Does it seem right for such a person to be in charge of crucial security matters at the heart of our government? What was in fellow Zionist David Cameron’s mind when he appointed him?

Well, here’s a possible clue. In March of this year Francis Maude, the previous Cabinet Office minister responsible for cyber security, announced three UK-Israel academic collaboration ventures with cyber research funding, the partnerships being University of Bristol/Bar Ilan University, University College London/Bar Ilan University and University of Kent/University of Haifa. They’ll be working together on six specific areas of research:

  • identity management
  • governance: regulating cyber security
  • privacy assurance and perceptions
  • mobile and cloud security
  • human aspects of security or usable security
  • cryptography.

This builds on existing UK-Israel cooperation. Both parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding on digital cooperation in March 2014.

Still sitting comfortably? Only this week the Cameron government was lecturing us on threats to national security and announcing plans to trawl through our personal emails and web browsers in order to “keep us safe”. The question is, who trawls Gould’s private emails?

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

Who’s in Charge of U.K. Government Cybersecurity?

Via

cyberzion-529

by Stuart Littlewood, VT
(submitted by ‘Old Sniper‘)
[emphasis added]

Hansard 4 Nov 2015 : Column GC355

Lord Mendelsohn: We welcome the appointment of the former British ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, who will have a key role in cybersecurity inside the Cabinet Office — a very useful and important position.

Sure enough, the UK Government’s website confirms that Gould is now Director of Cyber Security and Information Assurance at the Cabinet Office.

“He and his team are focused on keeping Britain safe from cyber attack, through delivering the UK’s Cyber Security Strategy.”

They must think we have very short memories. Gould was the first Jew ever to hold the post of Britain’s ambassador to Israel. He describes himself as a “passionate” Zionist and whilst in Tel Aviv was instrumental in setting up the UK-Israel Tech Hub.

In the words of MATIMOP (the Israeli Industry Center for R&D), the Hub was established

“to promote partnerships in technology and innovation between Israel and the UK, and is the first initiative of its kind for the British Government and for an embassy in Israel. The Hub’s creation followed an agreement between Prime Ministers David Cameron and Benjamin Netanyahu to build a UK-Israel partnership in technology.”


Three years ago Cameron appointed venture capitalist Saul Klein as the UK Tech Envoy to Israel with the task of promoting the partnership, leading UK tech missions to Israel, bringing Israeli start-ups to Britain, and hosting tech events in both countries.

MATIMOP quotes Britain’s National Health Service as an example of successful UK-Israel tech collaboration.

The NHS “has now formed strong collaborations with Israeli life sciences companies conducting clinical trials in the UK. The cooperation was made as part of the burgeoning partnership between Israel and Britain’s life sciences industries initiated by the UK-Israel Tech Hub.”

Four years ago Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, argued that British policy was being driven in an underhanded fashion by the Israel lobby. He linked Gould with the Fox-Werritty scandal and raised questionsabout meetings between disgraced former Defense Minister Liam Fox and Fox’s friend/adviser Adam Werritty (who was backed financially by Israel lobbyists but had no security clearance and therefore no authorized role) and Gould.

Murray wrote to Gould asking when he first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind had passed between them. He was told these questions would be answered in Cabinet Secretary O’Donnell’s investigation. “But Gus O’Donnell’s report answered none of these questions, wrote Murray. “It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present…”

This prompted Murray to dig further. “There were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O’Donnell…. Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why?”

Murray, with many useful sources from his days as an ambassador, claimed to have serious evidence connecting Gould with a secret plan to attack Iran, but the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Secretary blocked questions. Murray published his story ‘Matthew Gould and the plot to attack Iran’ here.

In it he pointed out that “Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a Jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in Jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as ‘Not just an ambassador who is Jewish, but a Jewish ambassador’. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.”

He went on to say that Gould stood suspected of long term participation with Fox and Werritty “in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel”. The stonewalling by O’Donnell and the FCO led Murray to conclude that “something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government”.

Labour MP Paul Flynn remarked that no previous ambassadors to Israel had been Jewish so as to avoid conflict of interest and accusations of going native. He immediately came under intense flak. Flynn too asked about meetings between Werritty and Gould, as some reports suggested that Gould, Werritty and Fox discussed a potential military strike on Iran with Mossad. “I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories,” said Flynn, “but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has previously served in Iran.”

Fox had earlier made the idiotic claim: “Israel’s enemies are our enemies”and “in the battle for the values that we stand for… Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together”.

The Jewish Chronicle hailed him as “a champion of Israel within the government”. Furthermore Fox continually rattled the sabre against Iran which, of course, was no threat to Britain but is regarded by Israel as a bitter enemy. Iraq too was Israel’s enemy, not ours. Yet Fox, according to the theyworkforyou.com, voted “very strongly” for the Iraq war. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Afghanistan.

Given that Fox so eagerly waved the flag of a foreign military power and was a man with dangerous beliefs and demonstrably weak judgement, how could those who appointed him not see that he was unemployable as a Minister of the British Crown – unless they were similarly tainted?

When the Werrity relationship came to light Fox jumped before being flung from the battlements. But the good people of North Somerset, in their wisdom, re-elected him at the general election last May. He’s already on the road to political rehabilitation among the Conservative high command.

Gould’s new job as head of The Office of Cyber Security & Information Assurance (OCSIA) involves giving strategic direction to cyber security and information assurance for the UK. This includes e-crime, working with private sector partners on exchanging information, and engaging with international partners in improving the security of cyberspace and information security.

Does it seem right for such a person to be in charge of crucial security matters at the heart of our government?

What was in fellow Zionist David Cameron’s mind when he appointed him?

Well, here’s a possible clue. In March of this year Francis Maude, the previous Cabinet Office minister responsible for cyber security, announced three UK-Israel academic collaboration ventures with cyber research funding, the partnerships being University of Bristol/Bar Ilan University, University College London/Bar Ilan University and University of Kent/University of Haifa.

They’ll be working together on six specific areas of research:

  • identity management
  • governance: regulating cyber security
  • privacy assurance and perceptions
  • mobile and cloud security
  • human aspects of security or usable security

This builds on existing UK-Israel cooperation. Both parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding on digital co-operation in March 2014.

Still sitting comfortably?

Only this week the Cameron government was lecturing us on threats to national security and announcing plans to trawl through our personal emails and web browsers in order to “keep us safe”.

Question is, who trawls Gould’s private emails?


R E L A T E D      TO  :

Is “Israel”, the Zionist colonial entity with a long history of covert terrorist operations, with total control of the Sinai and of the security of local airports and skies, responsible of the Russian Metro-Jet crash in Egypt?

Kaiser_544

Regarding the destruction of the Russian civil flight A-321 on Egyptian skies: was the explosive device on board planted by agents of Western intelligence agencies and activated by an electronic control remotely from an American base? Most likely this is the truth ~ [Related Reports, Photos, Videos]

Kaiser_557


SOURCES:
VeteransToday
Submitted by 'The Old Sniper' 
WarPress.info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/u-k-cybersecurity/

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian 

  

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

‘Untouchable’ israel continues to cripple Gaza with its sea blockade

‘Untouchable’ Israel continues to cripple Gaza with its sea blockade

'Untouchable' Israel continues to cripple Gaza with its sea blockade

Palestinians hold their national flag as they ride boats during a rally to show support for activists aboard the flotilla (AFP Photo/Mahmud Hams)  

‘No humanitarian crisis here’ say Netanyahu and Ya’alon as….

 

by Stuart Littlewood

 Governments should support brave humanitarian voyagers and back their play in future

Welcome to the latest chapter in a long tale of unspeakable cruelty.

Israel’s military thugs are once more raiding mercy ships on the high seas in an effort to prevent humanitarian aid reaching the 1.8 million souls in shattered Gaza.

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Swedish boat Marianne with 18 passengers has been “interdicted” by Israeli commandos 85 miles from the Gaza coast and towed to Ashdod. The three other vessels in the flotilla turned back and another big-hearted mission ended “with a whimper”.

Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon called his operation to deprive desperate, poverty stricken Gazans a “success”. The Marianne’s passengers would be be deported. “There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” he added.

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu said: “This flotilla is nothing but a demonstration of hypocrisy and lies that is only assisting Hamas and ignores all of the horrors in our region”, and he added that a panel established by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon determined that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is lawful.

“Israel is a democracy that defends itself in accordance with international law.” He stressed there was no “siege” of Gaza,

There’s no siege of Gaza, no humanitarian crisis? Anyone who’s been there knows Netanyahu and Ya’alon are damned liars.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition said on Monday that at around 2:00am the Marianne reported that she was surrounded by three Israel Navy boats in international waters some 100 nautical miles from the Gaza coast. Radio contact was then lost. In a statement they said: “We have no reason to believe that Marianne’s capture was ‘uneventful’, because the last time the IDF said something like that, in 2012, the people on board the Estelle were badly tasered and beaten with clubs. Back in 2010, ten passengers of Mavi Marmara were murdered by the IDF during a similar operation in international waters.”

“Reckless to travel to Gaza”

Britain has ‘form’ when it comes to disregarding international law and keeping the Israeli blockade going. Back in July 2009, I received a letter from the office of Britain’s then foreign secretary, David Miliband, in reply to questions about Israel’s hijacking of the mercy ship Spirit of Humanity on the high seas and the outrageous treatment of six peace-loving British citizens including the skipper. They were en route to Gaza, not Israel, had their gear stolen or damaged and were thrown into Israeli jails. The letter said: “All those on board, including six British nationals, were handed over to Israeli immigration officials. British consular officials had good access to the British detainees and established that they were treated well.”

That’s not the story the peaceful seafarers told. They were assaulted, put in fear for their lives and deprived of their liberty for fully a week – a long time in a stinking Israeli jail – for committing no offence whatsoever.

The letter continued: “The Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons on 30 June that it was ‘vital that all states respect international law, including the law of the sea’… We regularly remind the Israeli government of its obligations under international law on a variety of issues, including with respect to humanitarian access to Gaza as well as Israel’s control of Gazan waters…

“Our Travel Advice makes clear that we advise against all travel to Gaza, including its offshore waters; that it is reckless to travel to Gaza at this time…

So, instead of keeping the seaways open, it seems the British Government was colluding with Israel to keep part of the Holy Land off-limits to British pilgrims, humanitarians and businesspeople and implicating itself in the collective punishment inflicted by the Israeli regime on the citizens of Gaza.

A year later the Mavi Marmara was the target for armed assault on the high seas by Israeli commandos, who left 9 passengers dead and dozens injured. The vessel was part of the Free Gaza flotilla. When reports were coming in that Israeli gunboats had “intercepted” the flotilla 90 miles out to sea and threatened humanitarian workers that they would be boarded and towed to an Israeli port, I emailed Britain’s then deputy prime minister Nick Clegg: “Where is the Royal Navy when it’s needed to protect life and limb of the 30-odd British nationals?”

Ministers had themselves received advanced warning of Israel’s intention to stop the flotilla “by any means”, and the British people wanted their government to do them proud and provide real protection for those brave souls in their peaceful mission to bring relief to Palestinians whose lives were made a living hell by the bully-boys of the Middle East.

They were, after all, only doing the right thing… doing what the West’s cowardly leaders wet their pants at the very thought of doing.

Blockade “unacceptable and unsustainable“. So why is it still in place 9 years later?

A few months earlier, in the run-up to the general election, Clegg had written in The Guardian:

“…And what has the British government and the international community done to lift the blockade? Next to nothing. Tough-sounding declarations are issued at regular intervals but little real pressure is applied. It is a scandal that the international community has sat on its hands in the face of this unfolding crisis.”

But Clegg, now in power and able to act, was as wimpish as every senior minister before him when put to the test:

“The Government was very clear in its disapproval of the Israeli actions which ended in such heavy and tragic loss of life.

“We have underlined the need for a full, credible, impartial and independent investigation into the events… Israel’s announcement of an inquiry headed by former Supreme Court judge Yaakov Tirkel is an important step forward….

“These events… arose from the unacceptable and unsustainable blockade of Gaza…. It has long been the view of the Government that restrictions on Gaza should be lifted – a view confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 1860, which called for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and called on states to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation persisting there.

“It is essential that there is unfettered access – not only to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, but to enable the reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place. “

It was then — and still is now — pointless calling for the blockade to be lifted. Israel’s repeated promises to “ease it” are purely cosmetic. In 2010 incoming goods to Gaza rose by a miserable 7 or 8% while the block on exports remained. That’s all the West’s feeble hand-wringing achieved.

UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (America abstained on Israel’s orders, according to former prime minister Ehud Olmert) called for the reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access. To this day there is no sign of Israeli compliance.

The following year, 2011, MP Caroline Lucas quizzed foreign secretary William Hague in the Commons, as recorded by Hansard (29 June)….

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion): Earlier today, Palestine solidarity groups, politicians, teachers and others marked the anniversary of the attacks on the Free Gaza flotilla last year by sailing down the river outside Parliament and marking the launch of a new Free Gaza flotilla. As the Foreign Secretary has previously said that the situation in Gaza is unacceptable and unsustainable, will he tell us what further action he is taking to help get the siege lifted, and will he do everything that he can to get guarantees that this new flotilla will be safe from attack?

Mr Hague: We have continued to take the action that I set out in the House last year. We have urged Israel greatly to improve access to Gaza. It has taken some steps, but those steps have not been as fruitful as we had hoped when they were set out. Egypt has now opened an important crossing into Gaza, which may also provide some relief. The answer relies on the general lifting of a blockade of Gaza and on a negotiated two-state solution in the middle east. However, embarking on new flotillas is not the way in which to bring that about. We advise against all travel to Gaza by British nationals, which includes people who may be thinking of boarding a flotilla to go there. We hope that Israel will make only a proportionate response to any such flotilla, but it is, none the less, not the way in which to sort out the problems of the middle east. Such problems require negotiations in good faith by the parties concerned.

Hague’s answer might have been written by Israeli speechwriters. He insisted that flotillas were “not the way”. Well, what is? The proper way to break a siege, which the UN itself calls “illegal and contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”, is surely for the UN to apply sanctions. Failing that, the right thing would be for UN warships to break the siege… or for international civil society to do it escorted by UN warships or by warships belonging to the nation(s) of the flagged humanitarian vessels threatened with piratical aggression.

The proper way for Israel to avoid trouble would be to end its illegal blockade of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the rest of Palestine, and not interfere with humanitarians going about their lawful business.

As for “negotiations in good faith”, when did they ever happen?

A year after Israel’s murderous assault on the Mavi Marmara Hague was making more daft remarks in the House of Commons:

• “Our clear advice to British nationals is not to travel to Gaza.” Music to Israel’s ears, of course, as Hague helped to legitimize the illegal sea blockade..

• “Their welfare [meaning the British nationals on board] is our top priority.” Hague knew of Israel’s intention to go to any lengths, including the use of lethal force, to stop the mercy ships but took no precautionary action.

• He referred to “individuals who are allegedly involved in violence against Israeli servicemen during the boarding”, but failed to grasp that the violence was committed by Israeli storm-troopers dropping from helicopters with guns blazing under cover of darkness in international waters.

• “Restrictions on Gaza should be lifted – a view confirmed in United Nations Security Council resolution 1860.” Bravo, he gets that bit right. But Resolution 1860 goes much further and calls for the sustained reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, which provides for

– the reduction of obstacles to movement within the West Bank

– bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and Gaza

– the building of a new seaport in Gaza

– re-opening of the airport in Gaza

When did we see any of that happen?

Hague was challenged by Sir Gerald Kaufman, the straight-talking Jewish MP, who pointed out that any one of the 37 UK citizens might have been killed when the Israelis “committed a war crime of piracy in international waters, kidnapping and murder—and all in pursuit of upholding an illegal blockade on Gaza that amounts to collective punishment…” He asked Mr Hague for his assurance that further steps would be taken if the Israelis failed to comply with the modest request that had been made.

But Hague sidestepped, saying: “It is our strong advice to British nationals, as it has been in the past and will be in the future, not to travel to Gaza — let me make that absolutely clear — as they would be going into a dangerous situation, but it is absolutely wrong to maintain the blockade.”

MP Jeremy Corbyn asked if it wasn’t time for sanctions such as revoking the EU-Israel trade agreement. Hague replied that he did not think imposing sanctions was the right policy either – but gave no reason.

MP Frank Dobson suggested that Britain and the other European members of NATO should give naval protection if another flotilla were to set off for Gaza, with the Royal Navy reverting to its traditional role of protecting the freedom of the seas. Hague dismissed this too.

As usual, no consequences for Israel’s crimes were contemplated. And the Government chicken coop happily clucked its approval as Hague handed the Israelis total victory. Today, five years on, Israel is making the same threats and committing the same acts of piracy against the latest flotilla.

Legal or not?

Israel’s naval blockade is illegal and so was Israel’s interception of the Mavi Marmara and other Gaza-bound vessels in international waters in May 2010. So said the United Nations fact-finding mission set up by the Human Rights Council.

The Mission’s team, chaired by Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, QC, a retired Judge of the International Criminal Court, reported they were “satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal…

“The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law… No case can be made for the legality of the interception and the Mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal.

That wasn’t all. The naval blockade was implemented in support of the overall closure regime. “As such it was part of a single disproportionate measure of armed conflict and as such cannot itself be found proportionate. Furthermore, the closure regime is considered by the Mission to constitute collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus to be illegal and contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

Intercepting the Mavi Marmara on the high seas was “clearly unlawful” and could not be justified even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations [the right of self-defence].

The Centre for Constitutional Rights also concluded that the Israeli blockade was illegal under international law. “Due both to the legal nature of Israel’s relationship to Gaza – that of occupier – and the impact of the blockade on the civilian population, amounting to ‘collective punishment’, the blockade cannot be reconciled with the principles of international law, including international humanitarian law. It is recalled that the international community, speaking through both the United Nations and individual States, has repeatedly and emphatically called for an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The flotilla did not seek to travel to Israel, let alone ‘attack’ Israel. Furthermore, the flotilla did not constitute an act which required an ‘urgent’ response, such that Israel had to launch a middle-of-the-night armed boarding… Israel could also have diplomatically engaged Turkey, arranged for a third party to verify there were no weapons onboard and then peacefully guided the vessel to Gaza.”

Craig Murray was Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and responsible for giving political and legal clearance to Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in enforcement of the UN authorised blockade against Iraqi weapons shipments. He is therefore an internationally recognized authority on these matters. Referring to the participation of an American boat he said: “Right of free passage is guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, to which the United States is a full party. Any incident which takes place upon a US flagged ship on the High Seas is subject to United States legal jurisdiction. A ship is entitled to look to its flag state for protection from attack on the High Seas

“Israel has declared a blockade on Gaza and justified previous fatal attacks on neutral civilian vessels on the High Seas in terms of enforcing that embargo, under the legal cover given by the San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. There are however fundamental flaws in this line of argument. It falls completely on one fact alone. San Remo only applies to blockade in times of armed conflict. Israel is not currently engaged in an armed conflict, and presumably does not wish to be. San Remo does not confer any right to impose a permanent blockade outwith times of armed conflict, and in fact specifically excludes as illegal a general blockade on an entire population.”

Sporadic attacks from Gaza did not come close to reaching the bar of armed conflict that would trigger the right to impose a naval blockade, he said. When the UK suffered continued terrorist attack from the IRA (Irish Republican Army), sustaining many more deaths than anything Israel has suffered in recent years from Gaza, it would have been ridiculous to argue that the UK had a right to mount a general naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland.

The EU Commission declared that “all those wishing to deliver goods to Gaza should do so through established channels”. The “established channel” for delivering goods to Gaza is of course the time-honoured route by sea, which is protected by maritime and international law. Flotilla organizers have offered their cargoes for inspection and verification by a trusted third party to allay Israel’s fears about weapon supplies. They should not have to deal direct with the belligerent regime that’s cruelly turning the screws on civilians with an illegal blockade. Anyone suggesting they must hand over their cargo to the aggressor seeks to legitimize the blockade, which we all know to be illegal and a crime against humanity.

Quite simply, an attack on civilian ships carrying humanitarian assistance to Gaza cannot be justified by the existence of a blockade that violates international law. So Israel doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Nor does the cowardly British Government. Nor do the 80 percent of Conservative MPs and MEPs who, for whatever dark reasons, love and adore the abhorrent Israeli regime and the war criminals who run it. Therefore “all good men and true” should rally to support those brave humanitarian voyagers and ensure their governments back their play in future.

Stuart Littlewood

Jewish Manifesto : Boycott Hamas, Brand Hezbollah Terrorists, Don’t Trust Iran…

Stuart Littlewood

10 February 2015

Jewish leaders in the UK have produced their own election Manifesto spelling out what they expect from our politicians

Every general election brings with it the irksome task of reading the manifestos of the political parties. Now the Board of Deputies of British Jews have launched their very own “Jewish Manifesto”. The 40-page document is intended to persuade policy-makers and politicians to promote key aspects of Jewish life in Britain and do some big favours for the abhorrent Zionist regime in Tel Aviv

It will form the centrepiece of the Board’s drive to ensure that all the political parties take the concerns of Britain’s 300,000-strong Jewish community into account when setting out their own proposals for government.

Favours we are asked to do for the Rogue State

At the heart of the Manifesto is a list of “policy asks”, some of which attempt to demonise Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran and portray them as Britain’s enemies as well as Israel’s.

Others aim to perpetuate Israeli dominance in the Holy Land at the Palestinians’ expense, like this one from the ‘Ten Commitments’:

  • Advocate for a permanent, comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, resulting in a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state.”

The Board of Deputies explicitly state that the UK Jewish community is committed to equality for Israel and the Palestinians, yet here they want us to press for a “secure” Israel with Palestine only “viable”. And that has become the mantra among Israel’s stooges in the West. We know what it will mean on the ground, and it’s despicable. Why should the Palestinians, whose land it is, live in permanent fear and subjugation, defenceless among the shredded and disconnected remnants of their territory and not even in control of their borders? Let’s turn it round so we have “a secure Palestine alongside a viable Israeli state”. How do the Board of Deputies like the sound of that?

Here are a few more Manifesto gems…

  • They want restitution for private property the Nazis stole during the Holocaust leaving many survivors living in dire poverty and without a legacy for the descendants.

This is a very cruel injustice. But what about all the land, homes, other property, infrastructure and natural resources the Jewish State confiscated from the Palestinians during the Nakba and continued to seize ever since? When will that be returned? According to the UN, last year alone Israel demolished the homes of 1,177 Palestinians in Jerusalem and West Bank (never mind the countless thousands of homes they reduced to rubble in Gaza).

They don’t like to see Israel boycotted.

  • “We urge resistance of calls for boycotts of Israel. By their very nature, such measures attribute blame to only one side of the conflict, and through this stigmatisation they perpetuate a one-sided narrative.”

At the same time they want our help in boycotting Palestinians.

  • The Manifesto urges the British government “to refuse to engage with Hamas politicians, officials or supporters until the movement agrees to recognise Israel, abide by previous diplomatic agreements, and desists from terrorist attacks”.

Are the Board of Deputies aware that Israel refuses to recognise the Palestinian State, has failed to honour previous agreements and never ceases its terrorist attacks? Are they also aware that the UK does not list Hamas’s political wing as a proscribed organisation, only its military wing – the Izz al-Din al-Qassem brigades.

The boycott of Israel simply calls for non-violent measures that “should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

  1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
  2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
  3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.”

There’s nothing controversial. The same is required of Israel by international and humanitarian law.

Other bizarre “asks” include these:

  • The Manifesto wants us to “promote awareness of the acute threats to Israeli and regional security, and encourage further security cooperation between the UK and Israel”.

Many experts conclude that the main threat to Middle East peace is Israel itself. It would be foolish to be drawn into closer co-operation. Our already slavish support for Israel (and indeed its protector, the US) undermines our own security, puts UK citizens in harm’s way and blackens our reputation. It is hard to see how this is in our national interest.

  • The Manifesto says the world must ensure “no backsliding towards an Iranian military nuclear capability… it is vital that Iran knows that there is a credible military option to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons if diplomacy should fail”.

The Zionist regime is reckoned to have up to 400 nuclear warheads. It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. In short, Israel is the neighbour from Hell.

These endless attempts to drive a wedge between Britain and Iran are tiresome. Israel would love to launch a war against Iran if support from the US and its EU lackeys was assured. Iran has no nuclear weapons and poses no threat to the UK. What’s more, our Iranian friends are menaced by an unrestrained nuclear-armed Israeli regime on their doorstep. UN Security Council resolution 487, in 1981, called on Israel “urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards”. Israel has defied it for 34 years. In 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. Israel still refuses while Iran has complied.

  • “Years of disingenuity and obfuscation from the Iranian authorities should not be naively forgotten.”

So says the Manifesto, oblivious to the staggering hypocrisy.

The “violent nature” of Hezbollah

For a long time Israel has planned to annex Lebanon’s Litani River. Hezbollah (the ‘party of God’) was formed in response to the Israelis’ 1982 invasion and occupation. An international commission concluded that Israel’s aggression was contrary to international law, the government of Israel had no valid reasons for invading Lebanon and Israel was directly or indirectly responsible for the massacres in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, declared an act of genocide by the UN General Assembly.

So Hezbollah came into being for very good reasons. Israel began overflying Lebanese territory in 2000 after its troops vacated parts of southern Lebanon they had occupied since 1978. These flights are a constant provocation. In 2006 Israel launched another invasion and received a bloody nose from Hezbollah. The conflict killed over six thousand people and severely damaged Lebanese infrastructure. Much of Southern Lebanon was left uninhabitable due to unexploded Israeli cluster bombs.

The Jewish Manifesto talks of Hezbollah’s “violent nature” but in the circumstances how valid is this next “ask”?

  • It wants Hezbollah in its entirety designated as a terrorist organisation, and asks the UK to take the lead in getting the whole EU to proscribe Hezbollah’s political wing.

Lebanon’s Cabinet has confirmed Hezbollah as an armed organisation with the right to “liberate or recover occupied lands”. Israel routinely breaches UN Resolution 1701 by crossing the Blue Line or violating Lebanese airspace and still occupies the Shebaa Farms area. Hezbollah is hardly going to disband with Israel nextdoor always poised to grab what isn’t theirs.

Why should the UK take on another of Israel’s enemies and try to weaken Lebanon’s defence against the Zionist predator?

In case we forget, the US defines terrorism as an activity that

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and

(ii) appears to be intended

  • to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
  • to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
  • to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

Anyone spring immediately to mind?

  • The Manifesto also asks Britain to maintain an expenditure of 0.7% of GNP on overseas development.

So that so we continue to subsidise the Zionists’ never-ending occupation of Palestine?

  • It urges us to “support efforts to remember and understand the Holocaust and strive to prevent any future genocide”.

Most ordinary people in the UK (though not necessarily our politicians) have taken on-board the lessons of the Holocaust and don’t need constant reminding. How about the Israeli regime?

The ‘Israel problem’ a Jewish family matter

Finally, this ‘hot potato’:

  • July 2014 was the worst month for anti-semitism on record, presumably on account of another murderous assault on Gaza by the Israeli military. “A robust political and policing response is required when criticism of the policies of a government spills over in to hatred, intimidation or violence against a religious or ethnic group” .

Prime Minister Cameron’s Holocaust Commission Report says: “The Community Security Trust, an organisation that looks after the safety and security needs of the Jewish community, recorded more than 1,000 incidents last year, making 2014 the worst year on record.”

Do Jewish leaders in the UK need reminding that Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land have suffered a high tide of hatred, intimidation, violence and worse for decades under Israel’s brutal occupation?

We’re told that anti-semitism is often bound up with perceptions of the political and military decisions of the Israeli government, and that Israel represents a fundamental component of Jewish identity. In that case, one would have thought, Israel’s appalling conduct – and damage to reputation – is something the global Jewish family would wish to deal with themselves. Wise heads have warned long enough that Jews worldwide will pay the price for Israel’s crimes. Many Jews, to their great credit, have taken heed and faced up to the moral challenge, and are now fiercely critical of the Israeli regime’s behaviour.

For example, over 400 rabbis from Israel, the USA, Canada, Britain and other countries have just signed a call to Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu to stop the practice of home demolitions.

Every year, hundreds of Palestinian homes are demolished due to discriminatory administrative plans created and implemented by the Israel military without significant Palestinian influence. Palestinians are very rarely allowed to build, even on their own land.

That’s leadership.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

“Wait!” Says Dennis Ross. “No Need for a UN Resolution

Posted by Stuart Littlewood

Posted on12 January 2015.

Ross’s accusation reminds me of the The Israel Project’s training manual designed to help the worldwide Zionist movement win the propaganda war.

Dennis Ross, writing in The New York Times, criticizes Mahmoud Abbas for using international institutions to put pressure on Israel.Abbas, after failing to obtain a UN Security Council resolution requiring Israel to end its decades-long occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, had announced his intention to join Palestine to the International Criminal Court and seek justice via that route.“Why not wait?” asks Ross. “If a new Israeli government after the elections is prepared to take a peace initiative and build settlements only on land that is likely to be part of Israel and not part of Palestine, there will be no need for a United Nations resolution.”

If not, and the Europeans decide to pursue a resolution, it must be balanced.

“It cannot simply address Palestinian needs by offering borders based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps and a capital in Arab East Jerusalem without offering something equally specific to Israel — namely, security arrangements that leave Israel able to defend itself by itself, phased withdrawal tied to the Palestinian Authority’s performance on security and governance, and a resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue that allows Israel to retain its Jewish character.”

Why should the Israelis be offered anything? The aim is to make them give back what they have stolen at gunpoint. The Palestinians have been waiting 37 years while, week by week, Israel confiscates more of their land and water and plots to steal their offshore gas too. Why drag out the torment unless you’re the worst kind of sadist? Why wait a moment longer for restitution?

This is not a sudden demand. Back in November 1967 Resolution 242 was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council requiring “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict [i.e. the Six-Day War]” in fulfillment of UN Charter principles. That’s 37 years for the Israelis to get used to it.

The preamble referred to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security”. So would Palestine be able to “defend itself, by itself” and retain its Arab character? We hear ad nauseam about Israel’s security, never Palestine’s.

Israel’s interpretation of the Resolution seems to be that they needn’t withdraw until there’s a fully negotiated peace – as if peace was ever in their game plan. But others such as the Russian, Kuznetsov, weren’t fooled. Kuznetsov explained the position for us thus:

“In the resolution adopted by the Security Council, the ‘withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict’ becomes the first necessary principle for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Near East. We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/8247] which stresses the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’. It follows that the provision contained in that draft relating to the right of all States in the Near East ‘to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries’ cannot serve as a pretext for the maintenance of Israel forces on any part of the Arab territories seized by them as a result of war.”

Dennis Ross may have difficulty understanding the language of Resolution 242, but to your average native English speaker, like the man on the Clapham omnibus, it’s crystal clear. “Withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict” plainly means “get the hell out of there”.

US Secretary of State Dean Rusk writing in 1990 remarked:

“We wanted [it] to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be “rationalized”; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties….But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war.”

Palestinians blamed for saying ‘no’ to humiliating peace offers

Peace processor Dennis Ross speaking  at J Street (a pro-Israel Lobby)

Peace processor Dennis Ross speaking at J Street (a pro-Israel Lobby)

Dennis Ross co-founded the (pro-Israel Lobby) AIPAC-sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy and has been described as more pro-Israel than the Israelis. He served the Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations as a top advisor and special envoy on Middle East affairs but is so cosy with the regime in Tel Aviv that few see him as the honest broker he is held out to be. The State Department seems stuffed to the gunwales with people like him and the consequences are worrying.

In his NYT article Ross blames the Palestinian leadership for not accepting “three serious negotiations that culminated in offers to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Bill Clinton’s parameters in 2000, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts last year”. In each case, he says, a proposal on all the core issues was made to Palestinian leaders and the answer was either “no” or no response.Ross’s accusation reminds me of the The Israel Project’s training manual designed to help the worldwide Zionist movement win the propaganda war.

It teaches how to justify the endless occupation, the slaughter, the ethnic cleansing, the land-grabbing, the cruelty and the blatant disregard for international law and UN resolutions, how to demonize Hamas and Iran in particular, and how to make Israel smell sweeter with a few squirts of the aerosol of persuasive language. This advice at the beginning sets the tone: “Remember, it’s not what you say that counts. It’s what people hear.”The manual recommends numerous messages that are aimed at the mass of “persuadables”, primarily in America but also in the UK. Here is one that’s not unlike the nonsense Ross is trying to put across…

“How can the current Palestinian leadership honestly say it will pursue peace
when previous leaders rejected an offer to create a Palestinian state just a
few short years ago and now refuse to live up to their responsibilities as
outlined in the Road Map?

This is surely a reference to Barak’s so-called “generous offer” of 2000, one of the three “serious negotiations” Ross now taunts Abbas with and also one of the many myths Israelis and their stooges love to peddle. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, seized by Israel in 1967 and occupied ever since, comprise just 22% of pre-partition Palestine. When the Palestinians signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993 they agreed to accept the measly 22% and recognize Israel within ‘Green Line’ borders (i.e. the 1949 Armistice Line established after the Arab-Israeli War). Conceding 78% of the land that was originally theirs was an astonishing compromise.But it wasn’t enough for greedy Barak. His ‘generous offer’ required the inclusion of 69 Israeli settlements within that 22% remnant.

It was plain to see on the map that these settlement blocs would create impossible borders where Palestinian life in the West Bank was already severely disrupted. Barak also demanded the Palestinian territories be placed under “Temporary Israeli Control”, meaning Israeli military and administrative control indefinitely. The ‘generous offer’ also gave Israel control over all the border crossings of the new Palestinian State. What nation in the world would accept that?

The map, never shown publicly, revealed the preposterous reality of Barak’s offer, but the truth was cunningly hidden by propaganda spin.The following year at Taba, Barak produced a revised map but it was withdrawn after his election defeat. Don’t take my word for it – the facts are well documented and explained by organizations such as Gush Shalom.The only thing this and the many other ‘peace’ exercises achieved was a deep distrust of any pretense of good intentions by Israel.

David Makovsky, the pro-Israel hawk to draft Kerry's peace plan.

David Makovsky, the pro-Israel hawk to draft Kerry’s peace plan.

David Makovsky, a Fellow of Ross’s Washington Institute, says of Abbas’s move : “Internationalizing the conflict will have only one sure fire result: making the prospects of Israelis and Palestinians resolving their own differences ever more distant.” After decades of brutal oppression during which the Palestinians have continued to be dispossessed and murdered, does he not think those prospects are distant enough?

Makovsky adds that the Palestinian Authority “has torpedoed any chances for near-term diplomacy” and “invited US financial countermeasures” merely by opening the ICC door. Once again the policy wonks in Washington are warning defenceless people criminally abused by America’s ally that seeking justice under the law is counter-productive.  What a sad, sad world they are creating.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

Seeking justice is counter-productive, US tells terrorised Palestinians

by Stuart Littlewood 

January 3, 2015 i

You could not make it up.

“The one who needs to fear the International Criminal Court in The Hague is the Palestinian Authority, which has a unity government with Hamas, a terror organization like [the Islamic State group] which commits war crimes.” So says Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This certifiable crackpot, this bloody butcher who tops the world’s ‘most wanted’ list, was speaking after Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas signed the Rome Statute, at long last joining Palestine to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Membership of the ICC could enable the Palestinians to file charges against Israel for war crimes.

Abbas’s move came after his disapointment when a UN Security Council Resolution calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state and an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza by late 2017 was blocked. Only eight members of the 15-strong Security Council voted for the resolution. The US and Australia opposed it while the UK government, ignoring Parliament’s overwhelming vote for Palestinian statehood, once again disgraced itself – and British citizens – by withholding support for Palestinian freedom and abstaining.

Netanyahu on that occasion said the resolution should be rejected: “What we need is direct negotiations and not dictated terms…” as if the world wasn’t already exasperated with negotiations made futile by Israel’s dictated terms.

A US State Department spokesman, Jeff Rathke, said that the resolution “sets arbitrary deadlines for reaching a peace agreement and for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank, and those are more likely to curtail useful negotiations than to bring them to a successful conclusion”. There have never been any negotiations that could be described as useful and Israel’s withdrawal has been required by numerous UN resolutions which the US, perversely, has helped the Tel Aviv regime to defy.

And Netanyahu’s insistence that Israel cannot accept an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and intends maintaining military control over the territory surely tells even the dimmest in the State Department that negotiations are pointless and justice (and therefore peace) can only be delivered by implementing international law.

So has the State Department anything intelligent to say? Apparently not. When it came to the Palestinians’ application to the ICC, US State Department spokesman Edgar Vasquez said the United States strongly opposed the move and warned it would be “counter-productive and do nothing to further the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a sovereign and independent state. It will badly damage the atmosphere with the very people with whom they ultimately need to make peace.”

In case he hadn’t noticed, the atmosphere is wrecked beyond repair and has been for a long time.

So why is Vasquez annoying us with this claptrap? He describes himself on his Linked-In page as a “hard-charging, take no prisoners communications professional who is highly skilled in strategic and tactical communications with an emphasis on both proactive affirmative messaging and crisis rapid response.” That says it all – another playground loudmouth with no experience, it would seem, outside the hothouse of the US Department of State and law school yet given the dizzy and seriously responsible rank of Senior Advisor on Middle East affairs. Again, you couldn’t make it up.

Does Vasquez have any concept of what a just peace would look like in the Holy Land? Does he really think that successive Israeli governments ever wanted a just peace with Christian and Muslim Palestinians? He and his State Department buddies should either produce the evidence or drop their pain-in-the-ass “affirmative messaging”.

Is the ICC actually ‘fit for purpose’?

Few people feel confident that the ICC will deal justly with the Palestinians’ long struggle for peace and self-determination. The Court must nevertheless be properly tested before it can be written off as corrupted and not fit for purpose. The very process of testing will amplify the Palestinians’ case, focus world opinion and mobilise action to isolate Israel. It might even act as catalyst to bring about a drastic overhaul of the UN, which is now a major embarrassment to the world’s civilised nations.

Abbas could, and should, have gone to the ICC in 2012 when the UN General Assembly recognized “Palestine” in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as a non-member observer state. This upgrade made it possible to apply for ICC jurisdiction in Palestine. But the quislings dragged their feet, preferring to engage in more time-wasting, US-brokered negotiations under cover of which Israel openly seized more land.

Abbas’s ceaseless demands that the UN and the international community intervene to end the occupation and the war crimes were hardly realistic when he had not even attempted to use the tools available to him first. If he’d acted promptly the most recent land grabs and other atrocities, including the slaughter in Gaza last summer, would probably not have happened.

Having finally joined, does Abbas have his charges against Israel prepared and ready to bring to the Court? And does all this signify a bright start to the New Year for Palestinians?

Only if the shadowy grey suits of the PLO can pluck up courage to really stick the boot in.

Osamah Khalil, professor of US and Middle East history at Syracuse University, remarked that joining the ICC is “only meaningful if Abbas actually uses it to hold Israel accountable for its repeated violations of international law and Palestinian rights.

“Otherwise, it will be little more than a symbolic gesture that will not change Israel’s behaviour or force Washington to engage in a meaningful way.”

Stuart Littlewood
1 January 2015

Related Videos 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

The Dirty Dozen MPs who prolong the Palestinians’ misery…

Posted on02 November 2014.
NOVANEWS

Where is their ‘common humanity’?

Jonathan Simon Djanogly is a British politician, solicitor and Conservative Member of Parliament for Huntingdon

Jonathan Simon Djanogly is a British politician, solicitor and Conservative Member of Parliament for Huntingdon

Mr Djanogly was parachuted from London into the ultra-safe Conservative seat vacated by John Major. He has enjoyed a very soft ride so far. But by voting the way he did, he effectively condemns more Palestinian children to die in their parents’ endless struggle for freedom and creates the distinct impression that he is not in tune with British values of decency and compassion.

by Stuart Littlewood

In the local newspaper where I used to live somebody wrote in demanding to know why local MP Jonathan Djanogly was one of the 12 who voted to deny Palestinians their statehood and right to self-determination in the recent House of Commons debate.

The answer, of course, is that Mr Djanogly waves the flag for the illegal occupier, Israel. Earlier this year he attended the AIPAC/US-Europe-Israel National Security Forum in Washington. AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is an immensely powerful lobby group that aggressively promotes Israel’s interests in the US Congress using methods that don’t bear examination. The US-Europe-Israel National Security Forum is concerned with locking Israel into US and British military know-how and ensuring Israel’s military superiority over its neighbours — a collaboration guaranteed to keep the Middle East in turmoil and Britain a target for reprisals.

AIPAC TAKES THE HILL LARGE

On its website AIPAC “urges all members of Congress to support Israel through… the  promotion of a negotiated two-state solution… A Jewish state of Israel living in peace with a demilitarized Palestinian state – with an end to all claims is the clear path to resolving this generations-old conflict.

“Only direct talks between the parties can lead to a real and lasting peace. The Palestinians must not attempt to achieve their goals by attempting to use international organizations such as the United Nations to impose their will on Israel.” In other words, we mustn’t let law and justice get in the way of a shameless stitch-up. And the Palestine state, when it’s allowed to emerge, must be unarmed and helpless to defend itself, as if any self-rerspecting nation would agree to such nonsense.

Mr Djanogly’s visit was paid for by the Henry Jackson Society which, along with AIPAC, is populated by the sort of people who brought us the Iraq war, for which Mr Djanogly voted “very strongly” (according to theyworkforyou.com).

Britain, as the mandated occupying power in Palestine from the end of WW1 up to 1948 (when we walked away), is largely responsible for the plight of Christians and Muslims of the Holy Land today. A few years ago I went to see Mr Djanogly after returning from Palestine sickened by Israel’s human rights abuses. No need to tell you how the meeting went.

The Foreign Office says “we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time of our choosing, when we think it can best bring about peace” and, just like AIPAC, insists that a negotiated end to the occupation is the only way forward. They know full well there’s no shred of evidence from the last 50 years that Israel has ever intended to reach a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.

Justice would be best served by a solution based on international law and the umpteen UN resolutions waiting to be enforced, not by a resumption of the ‘peace talks’ charade with a gun to the Palestinians’ head, brokered by corrupt US politicians, while Israel continues to steal more Palestinian land and water and create enough ‘facts on the ground’ to make the occupation permanent. A respected Israeli source (B’Tselem) puts the killings since the first Intifada (September 2000) at 8.588 Palestinians and 593 Israelis dead, a ratio of 14 to 1. The slaughter includes 2,289 Palestinian women and children compared with 106 Israeli women and children. Add to these the tens of thousands of Palestinians horribly injured and the hundreds of thousands made homeless.

Meanwhile, we taxpayers continue to subsidise — directly and through the EU — Israel’s brutal occupation and pay for the wanton destruction inflicted by its military, while our government stupidly rewards the criminal regime with trading privileges.

Mr Djanogly’s parliamentary colleague Sir Edward Leigh was surely speaking for the entire British nation when he said in the debate:

“We are part of a common humanity, whether we are Christian, Jew or Arab. When we vote tonight — and I will vote for the motion — we will be making a gesture in favour of that common humanity, and we should be proud of that.”

Mr Djanogly was parachuted from London into the ultra-safe Conservative seat vacated by John Major. He has enjoyed a very soft ride so far. But by voting the way he did, he effectively condemns more Palestinian children to die in their parents’ endless struggle for freedom and creates the distinct impression that he is not in tune with British values of decency and compassion.
Israel “a vicious racist construct”

Naftali Bennett (Haaretz)

Naftali Bennett (Haaretz)

Meanwhile, Israeli economics minister Naftali Bennett was reported in The Guardian as proclaiming Benyamin Netanyahu the leader of the Jewish state and the whole Jewish world. “Really?” replied Criag Murray in his blog. “Netanyahu is the leader of all the Jews in London, or California, or Ethiopia, who may never have set foot in his state? This extraordinary remark by Bennett lays bare the fundamental flaw in the very concept of Israel. It is not a modern state, defined as a territory and comprising all the various citizens of whatever descent who live within it. It is rather a vicious racist construct, defined absolutely by race, refusing territorial limits, and with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world….

By their increasingly hardline racialist approach, their unceasing encroachment on Palestinian land and their rigorous adoption of all the racist mechanisms of an apartheid state internally, I fear that the window of opportunity for a peaceful future for those Jewish people living in what is currently Israel is closing fast.”

That’s as good a summation as I’ve heard. Craig Murray is the straight-talking former British ambassador to Uzbekistan.

But as spooky Hallowe’en draws near Netanhayu, far from resembling the leader of the Jewish world, looks to me increasingly like one of the Undead, and loving it. Is it my imagination, or is ‘Nosferatu’ Netanyahu – sounds like the title for a new rap song – actually a corpse re-animated by the life forces of a steady local supply of dead and dying?

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

%d bloggers like this: