How do you evaluate Bennett’s comment about Iran, the “a death by a thousand cuts strategy”?
By blathering about “death by a thousand cuts” (Israeli PM )Bennett is tacitly admitting that he doesn’t have a strategy.
Since Biden won’t go along with Israel’s plans for a major war in the region, the Israelis have no choice but to keep doing what they’re already doing.
They are going to just keep harassing Iran the way they always have.
If they escalate their harassment, Iran will of course escalate its retaliation.
So Bennett’s slogan “death by a thousand cuts” is a way of disguising Israel’s strategic failure for an Israeli domestic audience.
He is implying that the ongoing Israeli policy, small-time harassment, will somehow succeed in the future, even though it never has in the past.
That of course is not true; the policy will continue to fail. But Bennett has to put an optimistic spin on the situation for political reasons.
What reasons have forced Israel to change its strategy?
Israel is facing the reality that its post-2001 strategy of trying to orchestrate a US war on Iran will not be successful any time soon, if ever.
Since the Zionist-inspired Israeli-assisted neoconservative coup d’état of September 11, 2001, Israel has intended to hijack the US military to overthrow its regional enemies in general and Iran in particular.
When Gen. Wesley Clark revealed that the real purpose of 9/11 was to “overthrow seven countries in five years,” he explained that the last and most important country on the list was Iran.
In 2007 the Israelis were close to their objective of dragging the US into a war on Iran.
But Gwenyth Todd, an advisor to the Admiral in charge of the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain, alerted the State Department to a neocon plan to stage an attack on US ships in the Gulf and blame Iran-backed Bahraini Shia forces.
Though she was forced to flee for her life, Todd succeeded in derailing the false flag attempt and the planned US attack on Iran.
Again during the Trump-Bolton-Pompeo era, the Israelis once again nearly succeeded in inciting a US-Iran war.
Their agents in the Trump Administration, Kushner, Bolton, and Pompeo, had dialed up tensions.
The assassination of General Soleimani nearly triggered the war Israel wanted. Iran’s devastating but fortunately non-lethal retaliation managed to deter Trump and derail Israel’s hoped-for US attack on Iran.
Today, with risk-averse Biden in the White House and the US in full retreat from empire after its crushing defeat in Afghanistan, Israel recognizes that its chances of tricking the US into going to war against Iran are essentially zero.
How do you see the United States’ role in the Israel’s new strategy?
The US will continue to verbally and materially support Israel, as it always has.
Rich Zionist Jews dominate the US media and financial sectors, and provide about half of the bribes to politicians (euphemistically known as “campaign contributions”) that fuel the ultra-corrupt US political system.
So even though many middle-class Jews and other liberal Americans are gravitating away from Israel and toward support for the Palestinians, the domination of the heights of power by billionaire and multi-millionaire Zionist Jews ensures that the US will continue to undermine its own interests by throwing away its money and reputation propping up the Zionist entity for the foreseeable future.
But the US defeat in Afghanistan has dramatically lowered the already-low probability that the US could be tricked into fighting a major war against Iran for Israel.
Instead it will support Israel’s continued acts of small-scale terrorism against Iran, including cyber-terrorism, sabotage of energy infrastructure, and so on.
This policy, of course, is not in the US interest.
The Americans would do much better for themselves by cutting off aid to Israel and befriending Iran.
But that cannot happen for domestic political reasons.
What do you suppose Iran will do to neutralize the Israelis’ new plot?
Iran will undoubtedly continue with its policy of steadfast patience in the face of provocation, inflicting limited, proportionate retaliation for Israeli attacks.
It will not give the Israelis any hope of arranging a dramatic incident aimed at changing the US and international reluctance to support major escalation against Iran.
Like China vis-a-vis the US, Iran gets stronger every year in its face-off with Israel.
Iran’s and Hezbollah’s ever-improving, ever-more-numerous rockets are becoming an ever-more-effective deterrent to Zionist adventurism.
And the slow erosion of US power in the region works to the advantage of independent Iran, and against countries that are dependent on the US, above all Israel.
In the short term, Iran will defy Zionist and American plots and send fuel and other relief to suffering Lebanon.
Israel cannot stop those shipments, because they are a vital interest for Lebanon and any attempt to stop them would be met by Hezbollah rockets.
By continually countering the Zionists’ anti-Iran moves, and drawing red lines where necessary, Iran will outlast Israel. In the end, it will be the Zionist entity that dies the “death of 1000 cuts.”
“Israel is sort of a convenient entity, for many years, for many people to espouse bigotry.” ADL spokesperson
Aug 17 , 2021
In the USA, the Zionist Political Movement has successfully connected the phrase “Anti-Semitic” into being anti-Israel and/or anti-Jewish. Successful marketing? You betcha! Incorrect and doing harm to our intellectual and genuine debate? Absolutely! We need to adjust for the sake of everyone so the debate is very clear.
For the AJC, these numbers are a problem.
They’re a problem because, on a fair reading, they would require the organization to devote most of its resources to battling the anti-Semitism of the right.
But the AJC wants to be bipartisan.
More importantly, part of its mission is to defend the Israeli government against harsh criticism and external pressure.
Since that criticism comes mostly from the left, defining it as anti-Semitism allows the AJC to pretend that its work against bigotry and its work on behalf of Benjamin Netanyahu are one and the same.
Mayors from over 100 American cities participated in a training session on combating anti-Semitism in their communities hosted by the American Jewish Committee (AJC).
The one-hour virtual event was organized by the US Conference of Mayors (USCM) in partnership with the ACJ.
In January, both organizations issued a joint statement calling on mayors and municipal leaders to sign a statement declaring that “anti-Semitism is not only an attack on Jews, but an assault on the core values of any democratic and pluralistic society.”
So far, 690 mayors have signed the statement titled “Mayors United Against Antisemitism.”
*Anti-Semitism has been redefined to mean anything that opposes the policies and interests of Israel.
The beginning of this redefinition may be said to date, in part, from the 1974 publication of the book The New Anti-Semitism by Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein, leaders of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.
The nature of the “new” anti-Semitism, according to Forster and Epstein, is not necessarily hostility toward Jews as Jews, or toward Judaism, but, instead a critical attitude toward Israel and its policies.
The tactic of using the term “anti-Semitism” as a weapon against dissenters is not new.
The first Chicago newspaper report from the 1860s that revealed that a secret organization of “Israelites” had existed in Chicago for some 20 years.
Dorothy Thompson, the distinguished journalist who was one of the earliest enemies of Nazism, found herself criticizing the policies of Israel shortly after its creation.
Despite her valiant crusade against Hitler, she, too, was subject to the charge of “anti-Semitism.” In a letter to The Jewish Newsletter (April 6, 1951) she wrote:
Really, I think continued emphasis should be put upon the extreme damage to the Jewish community of branding people like myself as anti-Semitic … The State of Israel has got to learn to live in the same atmosphere of free criticism which every other state in the world must endure … There are many subjects on which writers in this country are, because of these pressures, becoming craven and mealy-mouthed. But people don’t like to be craven and mealy-mouthed; every time one yields to such pressure one is filled with self-contempt and this self-contempt works itself out in a resentment of those who caused it.
B’nai B’rith was instrumental in gaining U.S. support for the nascent Zionist state of Israel in the late 1940s.
The Jewish secret society of Freemasons used President Harry Truman’s friend – and their agent – Eddie Jacobson of Kansas City (standing behind Truman) in off-the-record meetings in the Oval Office to persuade the president to approve the Zionist land grab known as the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan of Palestine and then to recognize the state of Israel the next year following the Zionist ethnic cleansing of nearly 400 Palestinian villages and towns.
By applying pressure directly on Truman, B’nai B’rith dictated U.S. policy in spite of strong resistance from the U.S. Department of State.
When Truman extended de jure recognition of the Zionist state on January 31, 1949, the only guests invited to the signing ceremony in the Oval Office were members of B’nai B’rith: Eddie Jacobson, the B’nai B’rith executive vice president Maurice Bisgyer, and the secret society’s president, Frank Goldman
“Hamas is clear in its statements: it targets Israeli cities, that is, civilians. That’s a war crime. Moreover, its weapons are inherently indiscriminate: they can’t effectively be directed at military targets.” They “killed civilians almost exclusively.”https://t.co/RBtiyYXtQ4pic.twitter.com/MxJiAYsgkq
As Israel continues to pummel the Palestinian people with bombs and artillery shot into Gaza from troops amassed along its borders in preparation for a ground invasion, the Biden administration has reaffirmed its unwavering support for Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians.
Israel could not commit its crimes without the overwhelming support of the U.S. government. U.S. officials are aiding and abetting Israel’s crimes with massive military aid and scotching any criticism of Israel in the UN Security Council.
President Joe Biden said he didn’t think Israel’s attack on Gaza has been a “significant overreaction.” He expressed his “unwavering support” for Israel’s “right to defend itself” from rocket attacks from Gaza, but he did not condemn Israel’s airstrikes that are killing Palestinian civilians and destroying residential buildings, or the Israeli attacks on worshippers at the Al Aqsa Mosque.
“Blanket statements like these with little context or acknowledgement of what precipitated this cycle of violence — namely, the expulsions of Palestinians and attacks on Al Aqsa — dehumanize Palestinians & imply the U.S. will look the other way at human rights violations,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) tweeted, and said Biden was giving Israel a “green light” to continue its onslaught.
“By only stepping in to name Hamas’ actions — which are condemnable — and refusing to acknowledge the rights of Palestinians, Biden reinforces the false idea that Palestinians instigated this cycle of violence,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “This is not neutral language. It takes a side — the side of occupation.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticizing the Biden administration’s defense of Israeli attacks on Gaza, May 13. (C-Span)
Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that there is a “fundamental difference between a terrorist organization in Hamas that is indiscriminately targeting civilians and Israel, which is defending itself.”
But as Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, wrote in an email to this writer, claims like Blinken’s obscure the fact that nearly all of Israel’s targets have been civilians.
And the vast majority of those killed have been Palestinians.
Moreover, as an occupying power, Israel cannot use military force against the occupied Palestinian people because under international law, the occupier has a duty to protect the territory it occupies.
On May 13, Israeli troops bombed the Gaza Strip with artillery, tanks and war planes, and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) prepared at least three brigades of troops for action.
Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz, who served as chief of general staff for the IDF during Israel’s 2014 massacre of 2,251 Palestinians in Gaza, threatened to commit additional war crimes. Gantz warned that “Gaza will burn” if Israelis have to sleep in shelters.
Hamas has fired rockets into Israel in response to the Israeli attack on worshipers at the holy Al Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem.
“This is the worst I witnessed in my life,” Sourani wrote in his email. “No safe haven in Gaza, so bloody and brutal; all the targets, almost are civilians, the most intention to exert pressure on resistance.” Sourani added:
“They are terrorizing the two million in Gaza day and night, the peak this morning. We did not believe we will see the sunshine again. Everything is shaking in the house including our bodies.
They destroyed the civilian police stations and headquarters, internal security, infrastructure, big building towers, etc. None of these, to the best of our knowledge, has any security significance.”
Israeli War Crimes in 2014
On March 3, 2021, Fatou Bensouda, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), announced that her office was launching a formal investigation into war crimes committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip since Israel’s 2014 “Operation Protective Edge,” in which Israeli forces killed 2,251 Palestinians.
Bensouda found a reasonable basis to believe that Israeli forces committed the war crimes of willful killing, willfully causing serious injury, disproportionate use of force, and the transfer of Israelis into Palestinian territory.
She also found a reasonable basis to investigate possible war crimes by Palestinians, including intentional attacks against civilians, using civilians as human shields, and torture and willful killing.
Seven years after Operation Protective Edge, Israeli officials are once again committing war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories. In its current “Operation Guardian of the Walls,” Israeli leaders are perpetrating the same war crimes as those they committed in 2014.
August 2014: Palestinian residents walk beside a damaged UN school at the Jabalia refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip after the area was hit by Israeli shelling. (UN Photo)
Israeli Apartheid Is a Crime Against Humanity
Under the ICC’s Rome Statute, “inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutional regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another racial group, with the intent to maintain that regime” constitutes the crime against humanity of apartheid.
In 2001, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) sent a delegation to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and subsequently published a report documenting a system of apartheid.
Richard Falk, former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories and professor emeritus at Princeton University, and Virginia Tilley, professor of political science at Southern Illinois University, co-authored a report for the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia in 2017. It found “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians constitutes “the crime of Apartheid.”
Like B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch had long resisted charging that Israeli leaders were committing the crime of apartheid.
But on April 27, Human Rights Watch issued a detailed report describing Israel’s “intent to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” including East Jerusalem.
The report added that this Israeli government intent “has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them.
When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid.”
Palestinians’ Right to Resist Israeli Occupation
Under international law, the Palestinians have a lawful right to resist Israel’s occupation of their lands, including through armed struggle.
In 1982, the UN General Assembly “reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”
The Biden administration is claiming that Israel is acting in self-defense against the Hamas rockets, but under international law, Israel, as an occupying force, does not have the right to use military force in self-defense against its occupied territory.
Noura Erakat, a human rights attorney and associate professor at Rutgers University, wrote in Jadaliyya, “A state cannot simultaneously exercise control over territory it occupies and militarily attack that territory on the claim that it is ‘foreign’ and poses an exogenous national security threat.
In doing precisely that, Israel is asserting rights that may be consistent with colonial domination but simply do not exist under international law.”
As Falk said in an interview with Truthout, “It is always deceptive to treat the oppressor and the oppressed as if equal.”
In the current situation, he added, “the oppressor acts contrary to applicable international law and elementary morality while the oppressed is countering by exercising rights of resistance and suffering the deprivation of basic rights.
Of course,” Falk added, “the tactics of resistance should be scrutinized by reference to legal and moral constraints, but without losing sight of overwhelming structures of dominance and the far greater harm done by state violence than by the violence of resistance.”
Yet the Biden administration maintains a false equivalency between Palestinian rockets and Israeli bombs.
Biden Administration Abetting Israeli Crimes
An individual can be convicted of a war crime or a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute if he or she “aids, abets or otherwise assists” in the commission or attempted commission of the crime, “including providing the means for its commission.”
The U.S. government gives Israel $3.8 billion in military aid annually. Israel could not maintain its occupation of Palestinian lands and persecution of the Palestinian people without U.S. assistance.
Moreover, the United States regularly prevents the UN Security Council from issuing resolutions or statements that criticize Israel.
The U.S. was the only country on the Security Council to oppose a statement urging Israel to prevent the evictions of Palestinian families from the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem.
The proposed statement, endorsed by 14 of the 15 Council members, called on Israel “to cease settlement activities, demolitions and evictions, including in east Jerusalem in line with its obligations under international humanitarian law” and refrain from taking unilateral actions “that exacerbate tensions and undermine the viability of the two-state solution.”
Between 1967 and 2017, the United States used its veto in the Security Council 43 times to protect Israel from international accountability.
Israeli warplanes bomb a civilian residential building in Gaza, May 14. (Osps7, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
End U.S. Military Aid to Israel
Countries that receive U.S. military aid can only use weapons for legitimate self-defense and internal security, according to the Arms Export Control Act.
In addition, the Leahy Law forbids military units that commit human rights abuses from receiving U.S. weapons or training.
Moreover, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibits U.S. assistance to any country “which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” U.S. military aid to Israel violates all three of these laws.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin) tweeted, “We cannot just condemn rockets fired by Hamas and ignore Israel’s state-sanctioned police violence against Palestinians — including unlawful evictions, violent attacks on protestors, and the murder of Palestinian children.” Pocan added, “U.S. aid should not be funding this violence.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan), the first Palestinian American woman to serve in Congress, tweeted, “American taxpayer money is being used to commit human rights violations,” adding, “Congress must condition the aid we send to Israel, and end it altogether if those conditions are not followed. Statements aren’t working, Blinken. Enough is enough.”
Twenty-three members of Congress joined Representatives Marie Newman (D-Illinois) and Pocan in signing a letter urging the Biden administration to pressure Israeli leaders to “desist from its plans to demolish Palestinian homes in Al-Bustan and evict Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah,” two neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
On April 13, Rep. Betty McCollum introduced H.R. 2590, “To promote and protect the human rights of Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation and to ensure that United States taxpayer funds are not used by the Government of Israel to support the military detention of Palestinian children, the unlawful seizure, appropriation, and destruction of Palestinian property and forcible transfer of civilians in the West Bank, or further annexation of Palestinian land in violation of international law.”
The National Lawyers Guild issued a statement in solidarity with the Palestinian people.
It notes that May 15 is the 73–year anniversary of the Nakba, the Arabic word for catastrophe.
“In 1948, the Zionist settler colonial movement with the support of imperialist powers established the state of Israel through the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, waged through massacres and the destruction of over 500 Palestinian villages,” the statement reads.
“This colonial project continues today as we are witnessing the forced expulsion of Palestinians in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem by armed settlers, indiscriminate violence against Palestinian protestors, attacks on Palestinian holy sites, and the ongoing devastating closure and indiscriminate bombing of Gaza.”
As Israel continues its assault on Gaza, congressional disapproval and international opposition will increase. Those who oppose Israeli war crimes should pressure their congressmembers and the White House to halt U.S. military assistance to Israel and stop blocking UN Security Council action to end Israel’s human rights violations.
The BBC has become embroiled in a fact-checking row with demands for an apology over a presenter’s claims that Libya was the first nation to carry out a state-sponsored hijacking of an airliner in the Middle East.
According to the broadcaster’s flagship radio show, “The Long View”, the assertion was based on a hijacking incident in 1971.
Counter-claims have emerged, though, pointing out that it was actually Israel which was the first ever state to carry out an act of sky piracy when, in 1954, it hijacked a Syrian civilian airliner.
The 29 June episode of “The Long View” was presented by Jonathan Freedland.
He looked at the history of state-sponsored hijackings following a recent well-documented incident in Belarusian air space, involving a Ryanair plane en route from the Greek capital, Athens.
Belarus scrambled a fighter jet to force the Lithuania-bound plane to land in Minsk on 23 May; the pretext was an alleged bomb threat.
However, this was simply a ruse to arrest journalist Roman Protasevich, 26, who was removed by Belarusian police when passengers disembarked from the aircraft.
Journalist Freedland used the major news story to link to similar historic incidents for the weekly show.
However, after the broadcast, several listeners contacted the BBC accusing Freedland of using his platform to conceal Israel’s pioneering role during the programme which, according to the BBC website, explored “the history of state sponsored air-hijacking”.
Complainant Mick Napier, one of the co-founders of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, insists that the claim is demonstrably false.
“Freedland must have known – half way competent programme researchers would have told him — that 16 years earlier [than the Libyan incident] Israeli warplanes had forced a Syrian Airways scheduled flight over the Mediterranean to divert from international air space to Lydda Airport in Israel.”
On the 11th of July 1948 Lydda Airport was captured by the Israeli Defense Forces and renamed Lod International Airport. In 1974 the airport was renamed Ben Gurion International Airport.
This was on 12 December, 1954: Israeli war planes forced a Syrian Airways Dakota aircraft carrying four passengers and five crewmen to land inside Israel.
The passengers were interrogated for two days before international protests, including strong complaints from the US, finally persuaded the Zionist state to release both the aircraft and its passengers.
“I have no reason to doubt the truth of the factual affirmation of the US State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice,” wrote Israel’s foreign minister at the time, Moshe Sharett, in his diary.
“What shocks and worries me is the narrow-mindedness and the short-sightedness of our military leaders.
They seem to presume that the state of Israel may — or even must — behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle.”
Some observers might claim that Israel still operates in such a manner, as it continually flouts international laws and casually ignores countless UN resolutions.
For a state which claims that its legitimacy stems from a UN resolution, this is indeed ironic.
The unprecedented act of aviation piracy was down to Israel’s Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan.
He needed hostages to trade for the release of five Israeli soldiers who were caught red-handed and arrested for trying to retrieve tapping devices on telephone wires on the Syrian Golan Heights.
Israel expressed outrage at their imprisonment, but despite appeals the government in Damascus refused to release them.
Tensions mounted a month later when one of the Israeli soldiers, Uri Ilan, the son of a former Israeli politician, committed suicide in jail on 13 January, 1955.
Although the Israeli media accused Syria of torture, an examination by the UN showed “no signs of physical ill-treatment” of Ilan.
Despite his death, Syria still refused to release the remaining prisoners, and accused Israel of holding Syrian civilians as prisoners.
The impasse spiralled out of control in December 1955, when two Israeli paratroop battalions backed by artillery and mortar fire under the command of Ariel Sharon (who went on to be held responsible for the 1982 Sabra and Shatila Massacre of Palestinian refugees in Beirut, among other atrocities) attacked Syrian military posts at Buteiha Farm and Koursi near the north-east shore of Lake Tiberias.
آريل شارون قصاب صبرا و شتيلا
It was Israel’s largest military raid inside Syria at that time and resulted in 56 Syrians being killed, including three women; many more were wounded.
Sharon’s troops also took 30 prisoners, who were later used by Israel as hostages to exchange for the four Israelis held by Syria.
The US expressed its “shock” at the raid and supported a resolution by the UN Security Council that condemned Israel for its “flagrant violation” of the armistice agreement.
Clearly, back in the 1950s Israel did not hold sway over Washington as much as it does today.
That was the fifth time that the Security Council had condemned, censured, called upon and otherwise passed resolutions critical of Israel.
Since then, there have been countless more, but the occupation state simply ignores them.
The support that it gets from the US means that it gets away with this with alarming frequency.
It’s a mystery why the award-winning Freedland, editor of the Guardian’s opinion pages, appears to have airbrushed this episode from the history of state sponsored hijacking in his programme.
Did he allow his own Zionism to dictate his output?
Maybe we will never know if the BBC’s dismissive response to Napier’s complaint is anything to go by.
That response is available in full in an article that he has written for the SPSC website.
His complaint centres on the “untruthfulness of Freedland’s claim that the 1971 Libyan and not the 1954 Israeli air piracy was ‘the first ever case where a commercial scheduled passenger [aircraft] had been hijacked, taken over by a government’.”
Napier told me that his point is not that the Israeli crime wasn’t highlighted but that the Libyan example was falsely claimed to be “the first ever case” of such an incident.
“Freedland ignored Israel’s trailblazing role in state air piracy, and attributing that role to an Arab regime is not indicative of any bias, despite Mr Freedland’s very prominent role defending the Israeli state and attacking its opponents.
The programme concealed from the public a historical fact that Israel introduced air piracy into the Middle East and falsely attributed that innovation to Libya.
My complaint is that he claimed that Libya rather than Israel introduced the practice (hijacking) into the Middle East; this is false. He is entitled to his own militantly pro-Israel opinions but not to his own facts.”
Napier says that he and others will not let the matter drop until the BBC puts the record straight and issues an apology. At the time of writing, Jonathan Freedland could not be reached for a comment.
The BBC Complaints Department says that it will respond to Napier’s follow up complaint within 20 days.
As the veteran pro-Palestine campaigner insists, this is not about trying to change someone’s opinion, but to ensure that facts are presented accurately.
That Israel carried out the first state-sponsored hijacking of a civilian airliner isn’t open to interpretation.
The BBC needs to acknowledge this history lesson, and issue a correction without delay.
A “protection racket” is a scam where an aggressor instigates an attack, blames a bogeyman, and then offers to protect the victim from this bogeyman in return for money and power.
The “War on Terror” is a protection racket. The aggressor is the world financial elite known as the “Crown” based in the City of London. Their instrument is the Zionist project, specifically Israel, the Mossad and its Neo Con allies.
ByPhilip Weiss Just as relative today as then, nothing has changed!
On Monday, President Obama appealed to the Congress to approve his nominee for the counter-terrorism czar in Treasury: Adam Szubin.
“This is a vital position for our anti-terrorism efforts,” Obama said, and Szubin is “highly qualified.”
Is one of those qualifications that Szubin is Jewish? It sure looks that way.
As the Jewish Telegraphic Agency pointed out when Szubin was nominated in April, he would be the third Jew to hold this job: “In 2002, he helped found DC Minyan, an Orthodox congregation based on egalitarian principles.”
Michael Chertoff, an Israeli citizen, the son of an Orthodox rabbi and a pioneer of the Mossad, headed the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in 2001, and as such was responsible for the retention and destruction of all evidence regarding the 11th of September – from Pentagon cameras to World Trade Center beams. It is to him also that the “dancing Israelis” owe their discreet repatriation. In 2003, he was appointed to head the new Department of Homeland Security in charge of counter-terrorism on U.S. territory, which allows him to control dissent while continuing to restrict access to the file of Sept. 11 through the law of Sensitive Security Information.
It’s a good bet that Szubin also has pro-Israel cred.
The reality is that the position of counter-terrorism czar is an Israel lobby job.
He (they’re all men) is tasked with keeping up sanctions pressure on Iran through the international banking system, but also supporting the president’s efforts to negotiate a new relationship with Iran.
David Cohen talked very tough about Iran when I heard him at NYU 3 years ago; and Obama could certainly point to Cohen and Levey as living proof that he was not being soft on Iran, and is trying to shut down Hezbollah and Hamas even as he seeks change. Covering his bases.
Levey was a George Bush appointee; but Obama kept him on in his administration, and got cheers from the Jewish community for doing so.
That organized pro-Israel community wanted a signal that Jews who care about Israel are involved in making policy on Iran.
And Obama cared what Jews thought. He has to.
Who else opposes the Iran deal besides the organized pro-Israel Jewish community?
As Eli Clifton reports, it’s megadonors Thomas Kaplan and Sheldon Adelson, both giant supporters of Israel, who are backing one of the leading attack dog groups trying to stop the Iran deal.
The Iran deal could be a huge win for the president.
But he needs organized Jewish community support to bring it off.
So yes, that’s why Under-secretary of Treasury for counter terrorism and financial intelligence is in essence a Jewish position.
Speaking of the pressure on the Obama administration over Iran from the organized Jewish community, look at the unseemly piece at Huffo about UN Ambassador Samantha Power from rightwing rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
Boteach is Power’s former character reference, which on its face is ludicrous, but a reflection of the political power dynamics.
He notes that the “Jewish community” never really trusted Power till he stood up for her, but it will turn against “Samantha” — addressing her in a familiar manner– if she doesn’t oppose a Palestinian state…
Ambassador Power wasn’t implicitly trusted by members of the Jewish community when she took her role in the National Security Council.
After writing an op-ed where I encouraged her to clarify her statements, she did just that.
We met in the White House… I became intent on transforming the Jewish community’s opinion of her, working side-by-side to persuade others that she was someone whose judgment and understanding of the conflict could be trusted when it came to issues related to Israel.
Ultimately, when the time came for her nomination to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations, the Jewish American community registered strong, widespread support.
Yet in recent months, the Ambassador Power currently representing America before the United Nations has been a far cry from Samantha I knew.
It has pained me to see her embrace the disastrous Iran deal, even as its leadership repeatedly and unapologetically threatened Israel with genocide.
You’d think Boteach is a rightwing loose cannon, but he’s not.
He writes an op-ed and gets invited to the White House.
He’s got power because the lobby transcends party alliances.
Just as Stuart Levey served two presidents, it didn’t matter what party they were.
On this day seven years ago, Israel launched one of its deadliest military offensives against the Gaza Strip in recent history.
The offensive left 2,251 people dead, with more than 11,000 wounded, according to Palestinian and UN sources.
Seven years on, Gaza is still subject to intense attacks by Israel as well as the ongoing blockade which has been enforced for more than 11 years.
One of the deadliest attacks was the one launched between 11 and 12 May 2021 when 266 people killed including 67 children, 41 women, 16 elderly.
What: 2014 Israelis offensive against Gaza
When: 8 July – 26 August 2014
Where: The occupied Gaza Strip
Israel’s military offensive on the Gaza Strip took place against the backdrop of a second Palestinian unity government being formed in early June by the Islamic Resistance Movement — Hamas — in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Threatened by the reconciliation between the two main Palestinian factions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the PA had to choose between peace with Hamas and peace with Israel.
Ten days later, on 12 June, three Israeli settlers went missing in the West Bank, an incident for which Israel blamed Hamas, despite providing no evidence to back the allegation.
Netanyahu also stated that the kidnapping proved that the unity pact between the Palestinian factions could not be endorsed.
High ranking Hamas officials denied involvement and the PA attributed the abductions to the Qawasameh clan, a group within Hamas that has frequently acted against the party’s policies.
Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has said that the motivation for the kidnapping was the murder of two Palestinian teenagers by Israeli forces in May 2014; the autopsy report which showed that the teens were killed by Israeli soldiers’ live fire had been made public the day before the kidnapping.
In the aftermath of the abduction, Israel launched a crackdown on alleged Hamas associates in the West Bank.
Some 11 Palestinians were killed and dozens were wounded in the run up to 2 July, with hundreds arrested, many of whom had been freed in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange deal.
The murder of a Palestinian teen by Israeli settlers then sparked widespread protests in the occupied territories.
Israel also bombarded the Gaza Strip, prompting some minor rocket fire from various factions in the besieged enclave.
After attempts to agree to a ceasefire failed, with Tel Aviv refusing to meet Hamas conditions that the siege be ended and prisoners released, on 7 July the Israeli military announced the start of Operative Protective Edge to “hit Hamas hard“.
Within the first 48 hours of the operation, Israel dropped 400 tonnes of bombs on Gaza. Over the next two months, some 6,000 air strikes were launched on the besieged 365 km2 of the coastal territory.
The subsequent bombardment displaced some 500,000 people; 300,000 civilians were forced to shelter in UNRWA schools. Electricity to hospitals was cut off, rendering thousands without basic medical care.
Hamas fired rockets towards Israel in response, but did little damage.
Lacking in precision guidance systems, the attacks were indiscriminate by default, but Hamas has said on many occasions that its rockets are always intended to hit military targets.
Conversely, Israel used its high-powered US-financed precision-guided arsenal to target civilian areas deliberately, claiming that militants were hiding in homes, schools and hospitals.
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) also began a limited ground invasion, focusing on destroying tunnels used to transfer much-needed humanitarian supplies to the besieged population. The tunnels have been described as “Gaza’s lifeline”.
The offensive prompted outrage from the international community, with protests organized around the world in support of the Palestinians.
What happened next?
On 3 August, the IDF pulled most of its ground forces out of the Gaza Strip after completing the destruction of 32 tunnels.
A week later, a three-day truce negotiated by Egypt came into effect, which led to a series of brief ceasefires, before Israel and Hamas agreed to an end to hostilities on 26 August.
The “Gaza War” has had enduring consequences for the Strip’s two million inhabitants.
Over 2,250 Palestinians were killed, 500 of whom were children, and 11,000 were wounded, placing a huge strain on the already severely stretched medical sector.
Moreover, at least 20,000 buildings were destroyed in the Israeli bombardment, either reduced to rubble or rendered uninhabitable, including mosques, churches, hospitals and schools.
Pierre Krähenbühl, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, appealed for £178 million ($295 million) in international aid towards its recovery operations, but little of the planned reconstruction has been completed.
The Israeli death toll was 67 soldiers and six civilians by the time of the ceasefire.
The UN affirmed in 2015 that Israel committed war crimes during the offensive due to its targeting of civilians areas.
Israel had refused to co-operate with the UN investigation, which it claimed had drawn its conclusions in advance.
The report supported the Palestinians in the filing of a petition to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has yet to open a full investigation into the allegations, despite dossiers of evidence reportedly having been provided by the PA.
A two-year investigation by Israel’s official watchdog into the operation also revealed last year that the government failed to explore diplomatic solutions to prevent the seven-week conflict.
The 200-page report also criticized the Netanyahu government for ignoring several warnings by security services that the ongoing blockade in Gaza was escalating tensions and could lead to violence if not relaxed.
Four years down the line, the Palestinians in Gaza continue to be subject to Israeli brutality, as demonstrated most recently during the Great March of Return protests since the end of March.
We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. – Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1924), p. 155.
THE PURPOSE of this intellectual exercise is not to state what will happen, but to expose underlying assumptions about the essential nature of Jews, their objectives, and the Gentiles recruited to serve them.
Assume that Jewry and its powerful Rainbow Gentile supporters succeed in exterminating the White race, which they are in the process of doing.
What might happen next? Follow the thought to its logical conclusion, assuming for purposes of argument that nothing decisive intervenes to stop the process before it completely unfolds.
Many readers are familiar with the messianic concept central to Judaism of a global government (really a Left-wing dictatorship) controlled by Jews.
All Gentiles are subordinate to the Chosen in this scheme. Communism and the current new world order are “secular” variants of this ideology. (In truth, they are fanatical cults themselves.)
Given the modern instruments of social control now at their disposal — the mass media, the Internet (a combined brainwashing/total surveillance mechanism), governments, secret police agencies, military troops and armaments, academia, scientists, corporations, the dissolution of nations, replacement migration, miscegenation, destruction of the family and group reproduction, genetic engineering, “transhumanism” — it is easy to envision such an outcome.
David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978:
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”
In practice the new world order would resemble the Soviet Union, except it would be more gray, aesthetically ugly, oppressive, and impoverished, because there is no longer an external society, no West, no major free zone of the planet to counterbalance and subsidize the dictatorship, no outside civilization to leech off of.
The rulers would be thrown back on their own devices.
They would make a complete botch of it. Their obsequious Gentiles would not be able to correct the situation for them.
Jews would of course possess a monopoly of the best of everything available, but it would not come close to matching what they’re accustomed to now.
This doesn’t mean the rulers of the new order couldn’t eliminate tens of millions of human beings.
They could and they would. They have done it before.
Nor does it mean millions wouldn’t be tortured, prosecuted, and locked away in prisons and concentration camps.
That, too, would happen. It does not mean that the dictators couldn’t maintain their death grip over the peoples of the earth indefinitely. That, too, they could do.
But there would be no utopia.
An extension of this scenario is also conceivable.
Jews need people to hate, people to persecute, people to victimize, people to kill.
They are what they claimed Whites are: “the cancer of human history.”
One of many elastic code words for their enemy-of-the-moment (“anti-Semite” is the most common one), drawn from their religion, is “Amalek”/“Amalekites.” Amalek is interpreted to mean anybody Jews hate. Amalek is not an ancient extinct tribe, but a generic enemy that each generation of Jews is free to identify for itself.
Jews are convinced that they have a “god”-given right to physically destroy “Amalek,” killing even the children and infants of their victims — as Passover itself memorably celebrates.
The same hatred prevails among secular Jews (and Gentiles) fired up on Left-wing ideology, as we daily see confirmed in Jewry’s media, “social media” (the Internet), government, academia, corporations, and other ultra-privileged venues.
This trait will not magically disappear once the US and other governments have eradicated Whites and established their new world order. It is innate.
The Jew, like the scorpion and every other creature, does what it is in his nature to do.
He has always lived not by settling down on a piece of turf of his own and planting his own crops and building his own house, but rather by breaking into someone else’s house.
And once in he doesn’t try to repair the damage he did by breaking in, but he continues to cause more and more damage as he loots everything of value and then, when there is nothing of value remaining, finding another house to break into — and then another — and another.
That is his nature. – William L. Pierce, “The Scorpion and the Frog,” American Dissident Voices, 2001.
An ungovernable genocidal urge to torture and kill has been noticed by many empirically-minded Gentiles skeptical of Jewish behavior and their loud, chauvinist claims to divine right and moral superiority.
An example is German writer, activist, and early Hitler proponent Dietrich Eckart, who penned a posthumously published pamphlet, Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin (Munich, 1924; trans., ed., and slightly modified by William L. Pierce).
The Jew’s very survival, Eckart wrote, involves “unconditional dependence” on the victims he loathes. His goal is,
beyond world domination, the annihilation of the world.
He must wear down all the rest of mankind, he persuades himself, in order to prepare a paradise on earth.
He has made himself believe that only he is capable of this great task . . .
[But] if a halt is not ordered, he will destroy all men.
His nature compels him to that goal, even though he dimly realizes that he must thereby destroy himself.
There is no other way for him; he must act thus.
The first logical step after the destruction of Whites might be the elimination of Blacks, who Jews perceive as our mirror opposite: the two major Gentile races differing most radically from the mean.
But the elimination of Blacks, or large masses of Gentiles, or whatever other target is chosen, will not slake their thirst for blood, just as 60 million victims of European Communism and the slaughters in the Middle East haven’t.
New attacks on an endless succession of nationalities, all “Jew haters,” would proceed apace.
If, one dark day (a new dawn to them), all Gentiles (in their terminology: “anti-Semites”) are eliminated from the planet, what would come next?
A zoological analogy suggests a possible answer.
Certain species of ants, called slave-making ants, exploit the labor or resources of other species of ants — equivalent to the racial Other in our example.
They depend on the subjugated ants to forage for their food, dig and maintain their nests, tend their young, and feed the adult members of the colony.
But if the slave ants are separated from the ants that are exploiting them, the dominant ants perish even in the presence of food.
Jews are analogues of these slave-making ants. They, too, cannot survive on their own. They, too, would perish.
This natural outcome would be accelerated by another: because psychopathic hatred is central to their collective being, Jews would turn on one another. The ferocious malice formerly directed outward would of necessity be directed inward against themselves.
Finally, at some point, “far out in exterior darkness where no breath stirs, no light shines, and no sound is heard,” the Earth would continue spinning — devoid of human life.
No reprieve! Israel continues flooding Gaza farmland to destroy Palestinian food supply
Zionist News with a Zionist Perspective
B’Tselem denied that the hill was under Israeli control, claiming that the land in question belongs to Jabber.
Two activists belonging to the ‘B’tselem’ organization, Imad Abu Shamasiya and Araf Jabar, were arrested last week on suspicion of igniting a brushfire adjacent to Kiryat Arba near Hebron.
The investigation is being conducted by Israel’s security forces reports Mako.
Israel reduces Gaza fishing zone, attacks Palestinian fishermen
The B’tselem organization is funded primarily by the European Union (EU).
Shamsiya was B’tselem’s photographer who in 2016 filmed ex-IDF soldier Elor Azariya killing an Arab.
Pro-Israel watchdog group Im Tirzu responded to the event saying that the hill that was set ablaze was Israeli state land.
Israeli forces destroyed Gaza airport (after stealing Palestine’s Lod and turning into Ben Gurion airport. Now No one can get into the west bank except through the Israhelli’s.
Additionally, the group charges that the fields were burned to clear the path for a ‘Palestinian’ agricultural land grab.
“This isn’t the first time a connection has been found between activists of anti-Israel propaganda organizations that enjoy foreign funding and the New Israel Fund and terrorist activities for all intents and purposes,” said Im Tirtzu head Matan Peleg.
Israel Razed And Seized 617 Palestinian Structures Since January
He called on the government of Israel to “act immediately to limit the funding of foreign governments to organizations that delegitimize Israel.”
The army responded to the event saying: “the suspects were arrested and were interrogated under suspicion of arson after they were spotted setting brush on fire in an open field.
Once the investigation is completed, it will be transferred and will be passed over to the Military police.”
In an open letter, 224 members of staff at the British university say the Israeli institution has helped develop Israel’s policy of disproportionate violence against Arab neighbors
More than 200 members of staff and researchers at the University of Manchester are calling on the institution to cut its ties with Tel Aviv University in the wake of Israel’s recent bombing campaign in the besieged Gaza Strip.
An open letter addressed to the university’s vice-chancellor Dame Nancy Rothwell said the Israeli university was “deeply implicated” in the May bombardment, which killed 248 Palestinians, including 66 children.
The authors of the letter, signed by 224 people as of Wednesday, said the University of Manchester’s continued relationship with Tel Aviv University is in violation of its commitment to oppose racist violence and oppression.
With this flawed antisemitism definition, Britain is closing down academic freedom
“Not only does the University of Manchester fail to speak up for Palestinians and heed their call for material support, but we also forge a strategic partnership with Tel Aviv University, an institution deeply implicated in their violent oppression,” the letter said.
Around 1,900 Palestinians were wounded by Israeli bombings in May and close to 60,000 were displaced in the violence.
The attacks on Gaza came amid police and far-right violence against Palestinian citizens of Israel, as well as a deadly crackdown on protesters in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Tensions came to a head in early May after Israeli settler attempts to appropriate Palestinian property in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah and an Israeli assault against Palestinian worshippers protesting evictions at Al-Aqsa Mosque during the holiest night of the Islamic calendar. Dahiya doctrine
Tel Aviv University is home to the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a think-tank close to the Israeli military establishment, which has helped define the state’s military philosophy when it comes to Palestinians and neighbouring Arab states.
The Dahiya doctrine, named after a Beirut neighborhood nearly destroyed by Israel during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, encourages the destruction of civilian infrastructure as a supposed deterrence to groups taking up arms against Israel.
In a paper no longer hosted by the INSS website but cited by the Institute for Middle East Understanding, Gabi Siboni, director of the Military and Strategic Affairs programme at INSS says: “[Israel] will have to respond disproportionately in order to make it abundantly clear that the State of Israel will accept no attempt to disrupt the calm currently prevailing along its borders.” Gaza Reuters A woman stands in front of the rubble of a building destroyed by Israeli in its recent bombing of Gaza (Reuters)
Alongside other Israeli universities, Tel Aviv University is also heavily involved in arms research, in collaboration with Israeli arms manufacturers and the Israeli military.
A 2009 publication issued by the university’s marketing department lauds the institution’s role in developing technology used by the Israeli army.
Isaac Ben-Israel, a former general who heads the Israeli Space Agency and Tel Aviv University’s Security Studies programme, is quoted as saying: “Military [research and development] in Israel would not exist without the universities. They carry out all the basic scientific investigation, which is then developed either by defense industries or the army.” Manchester ties
The University of Manchester’s website currently lists collaborative research projects with Tel Aviv University involving the schools of Natural Sciences, Medicine and Environment, Education and Development.
Officials at the university have previously been criticized after technology developed by the institution ended up being shared with Israeli arms manufacturers. UK universities must stop repressing Palestinian activism Read More »
Nanene, a graphene-based material developed by Manchester researchers, which has uses in aircraft production, is being purchased by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI).
IAI produces missiles and drones used by the Israeli military, as well as the Iron Dome anti-missile system.
One signatory told MEE that while they were proud of the university’s stated commitment to anti-racism and inclusion, officials had to match words with action.
By not taking a stand on Israel’s policies against Palestinians, the university’s “opposition to racism becomes merely an empty phrase to use for public relations and marketing”, they said.
Another signatory to the letter said: “In our climate of renewed attention to racial oppression, it is glaring when an institution claims anti-racism in word but not in deed.”
The signatories did not wish to share their names as they wished to speak as a group and not as any one individual.
Middle East Eye reached out to the University of Manchester for its reaction to the open letter and to ask whether it had any plans to end its ties with Israeli institutions.
A spokesperson said the university would like to reassure its staff and students that “the partnership has nothing whatsoever to do with military matters or any political endorsement.
“We value our connections with universities in Israel as an important part of our international strategy for engagement with higher education institutes. All such interactions are based on UK government guidance and regulation.”
The US will not get involved in the current government turbulence in Israel, but remains committed to the security of the settler-colonial state, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has declared.
Her words are a far cry from the impositions which Palestinians faced from the US and the international community when Hamas was elected in 2006 in the “free and fair” Palestinian legislative election.
Palestinian democracy was subjected to unacceptable conditions and the US disregarded the whole electoral process, and the will of the people, to create a false narrative of democracy out of international impositions.
When it comes to Israel, the US won’t interfere in political affairs, even when the government displays open contempt for US policy in the region.
And Washington’s chequebook is always open.
During the course of Israel’s recent military offensive against Gaza, for example, President Joe Biden went ahead and allocated $735 million worth of arms to be “sold” to the rogue state, illustrating how political allegiances have little to do with democracy and everything to do with human and political rights violations.
A week after Israel unleashed its military might against Palestinians, Defence Minister Benny Gantz was in Washington securing assurances from the Biden administration and funding for the Iron Dome missile defence system.
Such funding, of course, was unquestionable.
According to the Acting Secretary of State Joey Hood, Biden is “clear about this administration’s support for replenishing this system to support Israel’s ability to defend itself in the future.”
Since the 1967 Six-Day War, the US has offered unequivocal support for Israel, while embarking upon a pretence of securing the minimum of Palestinian rights; in other words, ensuring that the Palestinian people remain shackled to a humanitarian aid programme and not a path to freedom and justice.
While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s name has become synonymous with state and settler violations against the Palestinian people, this is merely a question of timeframes.
The incoming coalition led by Naftali Bennett is likely to be just as ruthless and in contempt of international law.
Annexation, for example, was one of Bennett’s aims in previous years, even though many people associate this with Donald Trump and Netanyahu.
Trump/US the puppet of Israel – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]
Bennett has also been outspoken in terms of refuting the two-state compromise.
His position makes it even more obvious that the “solution” is dead and buried, in large part due to international inaction over Israel’s colonial expansion.
However, in typical fashion, the international community has not mustered any political opposition to settlement expansion, meaning that Bennett’s annexation aims will be fulfilled at an opportune time, as former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman often reiterated in his interviews.
Besides the US military aid which guarantees Israel’s hegemony in the region, the Biden administration’s insistence on the two-state compromise — despite the evidence that it is a farce —is likely to remain the game changer, to the detriment of the Palestinians.
An inconspicuous tactic because it is driven by international consensus, yet influential when it comes to colonial expansion, two-state politics are driving Israel’s annexation plans in the absence of the so-called “deal of the century”.
Bennett or Netanyahu, or anyone else for that matter, will not influence the unconditional US backing for Israel, because it is driven by support for colonialism and regional interests, for which the Zionist state was created to protect.
Similarly, Britons can criticise Britain, but not Israel. Germans can criticise Germany… and so on.
What does this tell us? It tells us that, in spite of how Britons, Americans or Germans vote, they are not free to form their own governments.
There is a non-elected government that controls the UK Parliament, the US Congress, the German Bundestag, and many other legislatures.
It is a foreign reign of terror run by Israel and its Zionist networks.
Have you wondered why so many members of the US Congress have Israeli citizenship?
Or why a US citizen in Texas has to pledge allegiance to Israel (promise to refrain from participating in the boycott of Israel) in order to keep her job in Texas?
Over 50 per cent of US states, including Texas, has anti-BDS legislation.
The laws vary from state to state, but anti-BDS legislation has been widely challenged on legal grounds, and with good reason.
Without going into the specifics of the various anti-BDS laws, it would suffice it to say that unless Israel is officially a part of the US (or vice versa), state enacted anti-BDS laws violate the US Constitution by engaging in foreign relations (granting political privileges to Israel) – a right reserved for the federal government.
Moreover, whether state or federal law, prohibiting boycotts is a violation of the US Constitution’s First Amendment – the right to free speech and the right to political boycott.
In the US, as in all Western nations, “elections” and governments have become institutions of Zionist vetted and sustained selections.
Yet, we falsely believe that we exercised choices; that there were choices to exercise.
If you live in a “Western democracy”, your government supports Zionism, at least in the sense that it has buckled under to it.
Look at what happens to rare conscientious objectors, like Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Represnetative Ilhan Omar in the US.
My hat goes off to those honourable human beings for what they have endured in their attempts to pursue justice.
We might not all have the intellectual or emotional capacity of Corbyn and Omar, but we can surely all pull our weight. We mustn’t get intellectually lazy.
When a country acts against its own interests in favour of Israel, what does that mean?
Does it mean that Glasgow, Vancouver, Milwaukee and Bonn are Israeli territory?
Your guess is as good as mine. One of the five criteria for being a country is having borders.
To the best of my understanding, Israel has never established borders.
Therefore, we don’t exactly know where it is.
The USA has military bases in over 130 countries – some sources say over 170 countries.
But since Israel controls the US to the extent it does, the US is not a sovereign nation.
It would be more accurate to call it the USI.
No – Israel is not a country like any other, it is the world’s largest and oldest terror network, and it has achieved territory, no borders. We can call it Terror Without Borders.
In the run up to the recent Israeli elections, we saw Binyamin Netanyahu forming a partnership with Otzma Yehudit, or Jewish Power, a group that openly advocates the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. 2
Jewish Power, whose leaders have a long history of expressing support for the persecution of the Palestinians, the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine, the banning of intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Arabs, proudly call themselves disciples of Meir Kahane.
Similarly, Netanyahu’s primary challenger, former Israeli army chief Benny Gantz, broadcast a promo bragging about how much killing and destruction he committed in Gaza in 2014, in a series of campaign videos for his political party, posted on YouTube and social media prior to the elections.3
The Israeli New Right’s co-leader, Ayelet Shaked, performed in an advertisement where she sprayed on perfume from a bottle labelled “Fascism”, proclaiming that it “smells like democracy to me”.
That sort of thing works in Israel – a country where well over 90 per cent of the voting population have chosen to support ethnic cleansing. For over 70 years!
You can’t say that about the population of Saudi Arabia or any autocratic country.
You can’t even say it about the 12-year autocratic rule in Hitler’s Germany. Hitler was a crazy despot who, somewhat democratically elected, became a genocidal maniac.
In Nazi Germany, you could be killed for being Jewish. Or Roma. Or homosexual, etc.
In Israel, you can be killed for not being Jewish.
Zionism’s claimed raison d’être is that Jews from anywhere have a right to “return” to Palestine/Israel after thousands of years.
The logic changes in mid-sentence: Palestinians – although their right to return to identifiable properties can be verified (many families even retain keys to homes they were expelled from) – must accept “the realities on the ground”, after 70 years.
We are all Palestinians. The statement is not to be construed as cheapening the suffering of the Palestinians.
It is said to indicate that we all run the risk of the destiny that is theirs, if we don’t start resisting, like they have for over 70 years.
“We are all Palestinians” is also not to be construed as indicating that Rwandans, Sudanese, Congolese, the people of Yemen or any other people are not equally deserving of protection.
“We are all Palestinians” simply signifies that we are subject to the exact same dynamics of Zionist pursuit as the ethnically diminished Palestinians. Just at an earlier stage.
Zionist greed isn’t a legitimate cause, nor is the freedom to perpetuate it at everyone else’s expense.
Yet, the infliction of intellectual anaesthesia, alternated with threats, that we endure to prevent us from realising this, and from rising up against the obliteration of democracy is forceful, repeated, and often accompanied by popular symbols of freedom.
Anything to create a total chaos in the mind. Chaos and fear. Or simply exhaustion.
What levels of brainwash will we accept before taking back reason and humanity?
How much corruption of the minds of our children and ourselves are we willing to accept from institutions of learning or from “news” outlets?
This article addresses some of the reasons that our overriding pursuit of democracy needs to be concerned with, first and foremost, throwing off the multi-level terror of Israel.
The issues of this article will be roughly divided into the following four subsections (although they overlap to a large extent):
Democracy presupposes informed consent of the people to be governed.
How and why are people “educated”?
Is it a matter of opinion or fact whether the World Trade Centre exploded or imploded?
Punished for noticing the largest scale holocaust in known history
Democracy (people power) is a term derived from the Greek demos(people) and kratos(rule).
Democracy can exist only with the informed consent of the people, the governed. Consent is meaningless unless it rests on relevant information. Democracy does not exist where votes are either obtained by fraud or embezzled after the ballots are counted.
Democracy dies where information is suffocated.
What happens to your vote after the poll count? Does it die behind closed doors?
If the decisions that impact the “represented” are made behind closed doors, as a result of so-called lobbying that is inserted between the voter and the decision-maker, the vote is effectively cancelled.4
Israel sports an unbroken legacy of generation after generation of democratically elected genocide.
To achieve the Israeli brand of democracy, however, the population – the demos — had to be replaced, with Zionists.
The result is an ethnically cleansed democracy – voilá! That is Israel, or occupied Palestine or whatever you choose to call it.
As Israel has no borders, its brand of “democracy” affects a few other countries as well.
How do other Zionist-ruled countries replace the demos and its natural choices with Zionists, ruling in ways that go against the interests of the majority of people?
It is not necessary to replace every non-Zionist by eliminating them physically in all countries.
It often suffices to eliminate their ability, or their courage, or just their energy to think.
Was it Steve Biko who said that the most powerful weapon in the hands of an oppressor is the mind of the oppressed?That is pretty incisive and succinct.
To confuse us from seeing clearly, Hitler ramrodded down your throats throughout our educational captivity.
We are simply not told that Zionism is older and more organized than Nazism.
That that’s how it has had the time to achieve such depth and magnitude, to become even more deadly, more culture-suffocating.
In order to prevent us from noticing a holocaust even huger than Hitler’s mind-boggling genocide of Jews and Roma and many others, almost everything we have heard about Israel in school consists of outright fabrications.
Below: Rolf Mengele regarding his father, SS Dr. Josef Mengele. Joseph instructs son that his knoweledge of him is based on lies and propaganda.
I’m not just talking about how we were deceived about Israel’s “inception” or the 1967 war.
I’m talking about almost everything we are told about Israel in school.
Or did your teachers tell you that the plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine and replace the population with immigrants started in the 19thCentury?
Yet, we are compelled, by subtle and not so subtle terror permeating all areas of life, to reason and act against our better judgement.
The terror is executed, for instance, by attacking access to facts; instilling fear of retribution for asking questions or analysing; creating emotional exhaustion by ignoring obvious truths, making people prove self-evident things ad nauseum. Let’s have a look at how we are “educated”.
2. How and why are people “educated”?
Let’s start with the question of why anyone who has the power to influence education would want to educate people about anything.
The reason is likely to compel them to act in a certain way.
It has been explicitly stated in various terms that perception management and, where that doesn’t work, action management is at the core of Zionist goals.
The Oded Yinon Plan and the Project for the New American Century are but two chilling examples.
How are such plans implemented in daily life? How can the mind and its perceptions be controlled? One has to rinse the brain of competing impulses, including the impulse to question.
Hijacking and loading the language is a favorite means of controlling people’s thoughts and actions.
Ponder the term “holocaust denial” its expanding definitions, its application and who is excused from its reach.
Another perfect example of this type of brainwash is the term “diaspora”.
It implies a right to “return” to a place, i.e. it presupposes dispersement from a common geographical origin.
How about the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”?
I’m particularly impressed with that deflection.
How about “conspiracy theorist”? Am I a conspiracy theorist?
I understand the term “conspiracy” to refer to the planning of a crime by more than one person.
Do I believe that more than one person is involved in the biggest heist since white supremacy – Zionism – which is expanding to new depth and magnitude as we speak?
Yes. I will explore the term anti-Semitismin a separate article.
For the time being, I will work with the following definition: I understand the term “anti-Semitism” to be limited to include any person or notion that does not support Jewish supremacy,
as naturally manifested by the right of Zionist Israel to create a Jewish democracy that has a right to defend itself against discomfort in any form by eliminating the suggestion of any threat to its way of life, by any means necessary, limited to the territory of Israel Without Borders.
While blackmail, extortion, racketeering, bribery, murder, money laundering, embezzlement, arson, robbery, dealing in obscene matter, etc. constitute prohibited acts in most or all legal systems, Zionist terror networks need not fear the application of these prohibitions to them, anywhere in the West.
In the US, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO) is a federal law that provides for severe criminal penalties and civil causes of action for mafia-like tactics and organised crime which affects interstate or foreign commerce.
RICO covers the aforementioned crimes and others, when performed as part of an ongoing criminal organisation, and provides that leaders of a syndicate can be tried for crimes they have ordered.
We know that RICO is not enforced against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) or similar networks.
Instead, these entities’may, and do, offer all-expenses-paid trips to Israel to each member of the US Congress, while enjoying the privilege of “legal” backing by a system that has “found” these trips to be educational.
This is a result of brainwash, as well as of subtle and not so subtle coercion of law-enforcement agents, including judges. Law-enforcement agents have been carefully educated in what they can and can’t “find”.
Similarly, acts of extortion, harassment, slander, libel, sabotage, persecution, including threats to life and livelihood, are determined to be “lobbying” if done by a Zionist.
Let’s compare the benign term lobbyingto the knee-jerk term terrorism. Obviously, if a Muslim engages in these practices, they are to be labelled “terrorism”.
Stated differently, the terms “lobbyism” and “terrorism” are interchangeable to a large extent,distinguished only by the identity of the actor, not by any element of the act.
Please folks, please, stop calling these acts “lobbying” – reinforcing the smoke screen plays right into the hands of the vilest terrorists on record.
Let’s consult the experts on how education works practically on an ongoing basis.
How do you go about information-suffocation, including culture-suffocation, with the aim of achieving reality replacement and maintaining self-censorship among the masses?
Following is a selection of means for Isra-Zio occupation of mind territory.
a. Israel’s internet-Invasion – Google, Wikipedia, the “Anti”-Defamation League, etc.
It is increasingly difficult to find certain relevant information on the web, even when you know it is there, including things you have viewed before, or even published yourself.
It is obvious that algorithms are re-set to catch what suits Google, the ADL, AIPAC and their ilk, while they simply remove a lot that threatens to shed light on Zionist terror.
[inaudible], in conjunction with My Israel, has arranged Instruction day for Wiki editors. The goal of the day is to teach people to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world… We wanna be there. We wanna be the guys who influence what is written there, how it’s written, and to ensure that it’sbalanced and Zionist in nature (emphasis added).
b. AIPAC and campus control
One avenue of culture strangulation / enforced cultureis the concerted threat-mechanism that has been part and parcel of Western campuses for a very long time.
One example is the onslaught on University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) students who voted in favour of the boycott Israeli products campaign, BDS. UCLA students have told me that one student received a phone call in which he was informed that if he voted for BDS, he “will never go to med[ical] school, you’ll see”.
Another student received a death threat around the time of the vote, but was not able to determine where the threat came from.
In the following clip from an AIPAC conference, AIPAC tells you in its own words how it replaces people who don’t agree with Israel (in the United States government and on campuses):
AIPAC student outreach:
A short version of AIPAC’s announcement of how it will take over student governments can be seen here:
c. Presstitution and the role of mainstream media
The above explains how the same blatant fabrications can come at us from hundreds of media outlets simultaneously, giving the illusion that so many reports must be based on actual facts or events.
When “investigative” journalists of almost all media outlets collectively lose the drive or the courage to investigate, they fall in line with official narratives that couldn’t be true by the laws of physics.
How many suspect that something is wrong with, say, the official 9/11-narrative? Why do they choose to remain silent if they do suspect?
Could it be that the overwhelming majority of journalists accept, or even agree, that it is necessary to keep the essential truths from the readers,to keep them voting for forces that bring about their destruction? Is the press one of these forces?
Does the press aim at subjugating us into thinking the government’s thoughts for it? Is the Press, like the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, and arm of the government in Western “democracies”?
If almost all “investigative” journalists are entirely without opinion, or integrity, in relation to the issues they spend their careers writing about, why do we keep calling them journalists? Shouldn’t they be referred to as presstitutes? 5
It would be less confusing. The alternative would be to declare almost every journalist of a mainstream “news” outlet mentally and emotionally unequipped to understand the results of what they write.
That might be preferable, since it clears them of responsibility for complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely, aiding and abetting the most sinister and well planned world war in our documented history.
There are a precious few conscientious objectors among mainstream journalists.
For example, Marc Lamont Hill. Look what happened to him.
3. Is it a matter of opinion or of fact whether the World Trade Centre exploded or imploded?
The reason I address this issue here is that the official 9/11 story has become one of the most devastating devices of deception that Zionism uses to gear the masses towards accepting endless war.
It is deception management at its finest.
The Official 9/11 narrative is one of those issues (mentioned below) that come to us in sealed envelopes, permitted conclusions provided within.
Questioning any part of it invokes reprisals; suggesting it was an inside job is taboo.
I have been called a “conspiracy theorist” for disbelieving the official narrative of how the 9/11 bombings against some of the most surveilled places in the world were planned and carried out by a man operating from a cave in Afghanistan, probably while on dialysis.
(What do you call someone who believes it?)
I have been met with angry responses like “Are you a holocaust denier as well?” “Are you anti-Semitic?”
My initial reaction to these responses was to wonder what kind of somnolent mind would jump to that impression from what I said.
However, I had to reflect anew when a very intelligent, honest, and well-educated friend recently stated that her main reason for believing the official story of 9/11 was that she couldn’t believe that so many people would be able to remain silent about what had actually happened.
She said that people in the know would not be able to keep quiet about it; that if there were people other than Muslim terrorists behind the bombings, they would start talking about it.
They do talk about it! But she is justified in not knowing that people go to great lengths, confer and compare notes, to pursue fact-finding on 9/11.
Most media outlets never touch the matter.
Even more interesting, in a sense, is that most media didn’t question who did it even in the very beginning. So, they didn’t have any questions to start with? Now, that chills me.
No, truth isn’toptional. There is a wide spectrum of room for opinions, but it is not a matter of opinion whether the World Trade Centre exploded or imploded.
Ask any engineer who hasn’t sold his or her mind. Or just ask any person who has seen an implosion.
The official explanation we receive for the collapse of the Twin Towers is that they exploded as a result ofbeing hit by jets. Yet, this doesn’t explain why the third tower of the WTC (Building 7) imploded in the same manner after not being hit by a jet. Does it?
The 9/11 example highlights the compelling need for history laws (discussed in the next section) in order to prevent our minds from wiggling about in the pond of knowledge. Perception managers will have you believe that it is your extremist leanings that lead you to doubt the official account.
4. Punished for noticing the largest scale holocaust in known history
We are in the midst of the largest scale holocaust in our known history. Over 40 million Muslims, and counting, have been ethnically cleansed as a direct and intended result of meticulously planned Zionist-operated wars.
But we don’t have a name for this holocaust.
It is a matter of no mention in every major news outlet.All focus must be reserved for the German holocaust.
Let me rephrase that. We must focus on the part of the German holocaust that targeted the Jews.
I just referred to that holocaust with a lower case “h”. Definitely anti-Semitic.
We have laws against “holocaust-denial”, which includes asking questions about the German holocaust. What happened? How many died?
You can go to prison for asking questions like that in Europe, and you are pretty much guaranteed to lose your job.
Not in 1619. In 2019. In other words, these history laws criminalise research and the broadcasting of information about the German holocaust.
The idea is that we don’t need to ask questions, because all legitimate questions have already been asked and answered by the relevant authorities.
The questions have been served upon us in sealed envelopes, permissible conclusions provided within.
In a message on YouTube, Gilad Atzmon argues that history is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along.
Accordingly, he says, history becomes a meaningful adventure once we revisit and revise the past.
He indicates that when history becomes a sealed, untouchable, chapter, it is to be equated with a religion and, when this happens, we have the right to be agnostic.
I note with sadness that not only do we lack the freedoms of information, thought, speech and press, but also the freedom of religion.
Germany has an anti-Semitism commissioner, and other countries have similar governmental posts. To protect Semites? Hardly.
Only Jews (I should sayallegedlyto protect the Jews) – Semites or not. So, what are these commissioners expected to monitor, and to prevent or punish? Xenophobia?
Or research and analysis? What I see is that we are punished in many ways if we notice the unparalleled genocide unfolding before us. In the Western world we are fond of boasting that we have democracy.
But we persecute those who try to enjoy it, by attempting to silence them with blackmail, threats and slander, or other methods that are formally illegal in every system of nominal democracy.
Danish journalist Poul Osmundsen is a case in point.
His published article, “Asmaas holocaust-porno [on] Facebook“,6 took issue with a photo gallery that Asmaa Abdol-Hamid posted on Facebook, which features photographs of the Nazi and Zio holocausts.
The title of the photo gallery translates as “the holocaust of our time”.
Osmundsen dedicated his entire article to what he called “holocaust porno” and “anti-Israel death-porno”.
He went on and on with variations on that theme.
Untroubled by facts, Osmundsen was unmoved by what he saw in the photos. That shocks me. I was very disturbed indeed by what I saw.
But Osmundsen was outraged that Abdol-Hamid dares to equate the Nazi holocaust with the Israeli holocaust.
I use the present tense about the gallery, because it is still available to view.
Osmundsen complained about the site’s 5,000 followers.
At the time of writing it had 10,845. His main complaint concerned the fact that pictures from the Nazi extermination of Jews were coupled with corresponding pictures from the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict” (sic).
He ranted about the distasteful anti-Israeli propaganda of equating Israel’s “policy” (sic) towards the Palestinians with the Nazi extermination of Jews; was outraged by the temerity of likening Palestinian deaths to Jewish deaths, of calling the Zionist holocaust planned.
He considered the photo of a dead Jew to depict the holocaust.
A similar photo of a dead Palestinian to depict “Palestinian death-porno”.
The mendacity of his article was outshone only by the intensity of his hatred, possibly paralleled by a perplexing stupidity.
His revelling in terms like “porno” (the article was replete with sexual innuendo) is interesting.
When I read his rantings and ravings, I felt a sense of embarrassment for witnessing what was nothing short of an onanistic frenzy of narcissism.
One does wish that people would do these things in private.
Osmundsen asserted that Israel practices self-criticism, that it punishes those who persecute Palestinians, but that the media fail to report this.
Osmundsen explained that, “in Arab culture”, no distinction is made between Israeli and Jew – they are all guilty.
In “Arab culture”, theyfail to distinguish the guilty from the non-guilty. The article was supplemented by shocking outpourings of raw hatred, in the comments section. Shocking outpourings.
And Zionism is to be treated as a political ideology?