The Forgotten History of the Jewish, Anti-Zionist Left

“Zion¬≠ism is a tox¬≠ic mix¬≠ture of Euro¬≠pean nation¬≠al¬≠ism and British impe¬≠ri¬≠al¬≠ism graft¬≠ed onto a cul¬≠tur¬≠al reser¬≠voir of Jew¬≠ish tropes and mytholo¬≠gies that come from Jew¬≠ish litur¬≠gy and culture.”

“WHEREVER WE LIVE, THAT’S OUR HOMELAND”

“The Zionists have become known in the world, and they are considered like the lowest and the cheapest.” ~-Rabbi Shalom Dov Ber Schneersohn,Rebbe of Lubavitch, Russia (1866-1920)

A conversation with scholar Benjamin Balthaser about Jewish, working-class anti-Zionism in the 1930s and ’40s.

Israeli Prime Min­is­ter Ben­jamin Netanyahu’s push to forcibly annex up to 30% of the occu­pied West Bank is expos­ing the vio­lence inher­ent in impos­ing a Jew­ish eth­no-state on an indige­nous Pales­tin­ian pop­u­la­tion.

While the plan is delayed for now, the human rights orga­ni­za­tion B’Tselem reports that, in prepa­ra­tion for annex­a­tion, Israel already ramped up its demo­li­tions of Pales­tin­ian homes in the West Bank in June, destroy­ing 30 that month, a fig­ure that does not include demo­li­tions in East Jerusalem.

We can see the emptiness and barrenness of aligning ourselves with an American imperial project.

The theft and destruc¬≠tion of Pales¬≠tin¬≠ian homes and com¬≠mu¬≠ni¬≠ties, how¬≠ev¬≠er, is just one piece of a¬†much larg¬≠er‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČand old¬≠er‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČcolo¬≠nial project.

As Pales¬≠tin¬≠ian orga¬≠niz¬≠er San¬≠dra Tamari writes, ‚Äč‚ÄúPales¬≠tini¬≠ans have been forced to endure Israel‚Äôs poli¬≠cies of expul¬≠sion and land appro¬≠pri¬≠a¬≠tion for over 70¬†years.‚ÄĚ

Today, this real­i­ty has evolved into an overt apartheid sys­tem: Pales­tini­ans with­in Israel are sec­ond-class cit­i­zens, with Israel now offi­cial­ly cod­i­fy­ing that self-deter­mi­na­tion is for Jews only.

Pales¬≠tini¬≠ans in the West Bank and Gaza are sub¬≠ject to mil¬≠i¬≠tary occu¬≠pa¬≠tion, siege, block¬≠ade and mar¬≠tial law‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČa sys¬≠tem of vio¬≠lent dom¬≠i¬≠na¬≠tion enabled by polit¬≠i¬≠cal and finan¬≠cial sup¬≠port from the Unit¬≠ed¬†States.

Anti-Zion­ists argue that this bru­tal real­i­ty is not just the prod­uct of a right-wing gov­ern­ment or fail­ure to effec­tive­ly pro­cure a two-state solu­tion.

Rather, it stems from the mod­ern Zion­ist project itself, one estab­lished in a colo­nial con­text, and fun­da­men­tal­ly reliant on eth­nic cleans­ing and vio­lent dom­i­na­tion of Pales­tin­ian peo­ple.

Jews around the world are among those who call them¬≠selves anti-Zion¬≠ists, and who vocif¬≠er¬≠ous¬≠ly object to the claim that the state of Israel rep¬≠re¬≠sents the will‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČor inter¬≠ests‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČof Jew¬≠ish¬†people.

In These Times spoke with Ben­jamin Balthas­er, an asso­ciate pro­fes­sor of mul­ti­eth­nic lit­er­a­ture at Indi­ana Uni­ver­si­ty at South Bend.

His recent arti¬≠cle, ‚Äč‚ÄúWhen Anti-Zion¬≠ism Was Jew¬≠ish: Jew¬≠ish Racial Sub¬≠jec¬≠tiv¬≠i¬≠ty and the Anti-Impe¬≠ri¬≠al¬≠ist Lit¬≠er¬≠ary Left from the Great Depres¬≠sion to the Cold War,‚ÄĚ exam¬≠ines the erased his¬≠to¬≠ry of anti-Zion¬≠ism among the Jew¬≠ish, work¬≠ing-class left in the 1930s and ‚Äč‚Äė40s.

Anti-Zionism - Wikipedia

Balthas­er is the author of a book of poems about the old Jew­ish left called Ded­i­ca­tion, and an aca­d­e­m­ic mono­graph titled Anti-Impe­ri­al­ist Mod­ernism.

He is work­ing on a book about Jew­ish Marx­ists, social­ist thought and anti-Zion­ism in the 20th century.

He spoke with In These Times about the colo­nial ori­gins of mod­ern Zion­ism, and the Jew­ish left’s quar­rel with it, on the grounds that it is a form of right-wing nation­al­ism, is fun­da­men­tal­ly opposed to work­ing-class inter­na­tion­al­ism, and is a form of impe­ri­al­ism.

Accord­ing to Balthas­er, this polit­i­cal tra­di­tion under­mines the claim that Zion­ism reflects the will of all Jew­ish peo­ple, and offers sign­posts for the present day.

‚Äč‚ÄúFor Jews in the Unit¬≠ed States who are try¬≠ing to think about their rela¬≠tion¬≠ship not only to Pales¬≠tine, but also their own place in the world as an his¬≠tor¬≠i¬≠cal¬≠ly per¬≠se¬≠cut¬≠ed eth¬≠no-cul¬≠tur¬≠al dias¬≠poric minor¬≠i¬≠ty, we have to think of whose side we are on, and which glob¬≠al forces we want to align with,‚ÄĚ he says.

‚Äč‚ÄúIf we do not want to side with the exe¬≠cu¬≠tion¬≠ers of the far-right, with colo¬≠nial¬≠ism, and with racism, there is a¬†Jew¬≠ish cul¬≠tur¬≠al resource for us to draw on‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČa polit¬≠i¬≠cal resource to draw¬†on.‚ÄĚ

Sarah Lazare: Can you please explain what the ide­ol­o­gy of Zion­ism is? Who devel­oped it and when?

Ben­jamin Balthas­er: A cou­ple of things need to be dis­en­tan­gled.

First of all, there is a long Jew­ish his­to­ry that pre­dates the ide­ol­o­gy of Zion­ism that looks at Jerusalem, the ancient king­dom of Judea, as a site of cul­tur­al, reli­gious and, you can say, mes­sian­ic long­ing.

If you know Jew­ish litur­gy, there are ref­er­ences that go back thou­sands of years to the land of Zion, to Jerusalem, the old king­dom that the Romans destroyed.

There have been attempts through¬≠out Jew¬≠ish his¬≠to¬≠ry, dis¬≠as¬≠trous¬≠ly, to ‚Äč‚Äúreturn‚ÄĚ to the land of Pales¬≠tine, most famous¬≠ly, Sab¬≠batai Zevi in the 17th cen¬≠tu¬≠ry.

But for the most part, through much of Jew¬≠ish his¬≠to¬≠ry, ‚Äč‚ÄúIsrael‚ÄĚ was under¬≠stood as a¬†kind of a¬†cul¬≠tur¬≠al and mes¬≠sian¬≠ic long¬≠ing, but there was no desire to actu¬≠al¬≠ly phys¬≠i¬≠cal¬≠ly move there, out¬≠side of small reli¬≠gious com¬≠mu¬≠ni¬≠ties in Jerusalem and, of course, the small num¬≠ber of Jews who con¬≠tin¬≠ued to live in Pales¬≠tine under the Ottoman Empire‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČabout 5% of the¬†population.

Con­tem­po­rary Zion­ism, par­tic­u­lar­ly polit­i­cal Zion­ism, does draw on that large reser­voir of cul­tur­al long­ing and reli­gious text to legit­imize itself, and that’s where the con­fu­sion comes.

Mod­ern Zion­ism arose in the late 19th cen­tu­ry as a Euro­pean nation­al­ist move­ment. And I think that’s the way to under­stand it. It was one of these many Euro­pean nation­al­ist move­ments of oppressed minori­ties that attempt­ed to con­struct out of the diverse cul­tures of West­ern and East­ern Europe eth­ni­cal­ly homogeneous nation-states.

And there were many Jew­ish nationalism of the late 19th and ear­ly 20th cen­turies, of which Zion­ism was only one.

There was the Jew­ish Bund, which was a left-wing social­ist move­ment that rose to promi­nence in the ear­ly 20th cen­tu­ry that artic­u­lat­ed a deter­ri­to­ri­al­ized nation­al­ism in East­ern Europe.

They felt their place was East­ern Europe, their land was East­ern Europe, their lan­guage was Yid­dish.

And they want­ed to strug­gle for free­dom in Europe where they actu­al­ly lived.

And they felt that their strug­gle for lib­er­a­tion was against oppres­sive cap­i­tal­ist gov­ern­ments in Europe.

Had the Holo­caust not wiped out the Bund and oth­er Jew­ish social­ists in East­ern Europe, we might be talk­ing about Jew­ish nation­al­ism in a very dif­fer­ent con­text now.

Of course, there were Sovi­et exper­i­ments, prob­a­bly most famous in Biro­bidzhan, but also one very brief one in Ukraine, to cre­ate Jew­ish autonomous zones with­in ter­ri­to­ries that Jews lived, or else­where with­in the Sovi­et Union, root­ed in the Yid­dish idea of doykait, dias­poric here­ness, and Yid­dish lan­guage and culture.

Zion­ism was one of these cul­tur­al nation­al­ist move­ments.

What made it dif¬≠fer¬≠ent was that it graft¬≠ed itself onto British colo¬≠nial¬≠ism, a¬†rela¬≠tion¬≠ship made explic¬≠it with the Bal¬≠four Dec¬≠la¬≠ra¬≠tion in 1917, and actu¬≠al¬≠ly tried to cre¬≠ate a¬†coun¬≠try out of a¬†British colony‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČMan¬≠date Pales¬≠tine‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČand use British colo¬≠nial¬≠ism as a¬†way to help estab¬≠lish itself in the Mid¬≠dle East.

The Bal­four Dec­la­ra­tion was essen­tial­ly a way to use the British Empire for its own ends.

On some lev­el, you could say Zion­ism is a tox­ic mix­ture of Euro­pean nation­al­ism and British impe­ri­al­ism graft­ed onto a cul­tur­al reser­voir of Jew­ish tropes and mytholo­gies that come from Jew­ish litur­gy and culture.

Sarah: One of the under­pin­nings of mod­ern Zion­ism is that it’s an ide­ol­o­gy that rep­re­sents the will of all Jews.

But in your paper, you argue that crit¬≠i¬≠cism of Zion¬≠ism was actu¬≠al¬≠ly quite com¬≠mon on the Jew¬≠ish left in the 1930s and ‚Äč‚Äô40s, and that this his¬≠to¬≠ry has been large¬≠ly erased.

Can you talk about what these crit­i­cisms were and who was mak­ing them?

Ben­jamin: The fun­ny part about the Unit­ed States, and I would say this is most­ly true for Europe, is that before the end of World War II, and even a lit­tle after, most Jews dis­par­aged Zion­ists.

And it didn’t mat­ter if you were a com­mu­nist, it didn’t mat­ter if you were a Reform Jew, Zion­ism was not pop­u­lar. There were a lot of dif­fer­ent rea­sons for Amer­i­can Jews to not like Zion­ism before the 1940s.

There’s the lib­er­al cri­tique of Zion­ism most famous­ly artic­u­lat­ed by Elmer Berg­er and the Amer­i­can Coun­cil for Judaism.

The anx­i­ety among these folks was that Zion­ism would basi­cal­ly be a kind of dual loy­al­ty, that it would open Jews up to the claim that they’re not real Amer­i­cans, and that it would actu­al­ly frus­trate their attempts to assim­i­late into main­stream Amer­i­can cul­ture.

Elmer Berg­er also for­ward­ed the idea that Jews are not a cul­ture or a peo­ple, but sim­ply a reli­gion, and there­fore have noth­ing in com­mon with one anoth­er out­side of the reli­gious faith.

This, I¬†would argue, is an assim¬≠i¬≠la¬≠tion¬≠ist idea that comes out of the 1920s and ‚Äč‚Äô30s and tries to resem¬≠ble a¬†Protes¬≠tant notion of ‚Äč‚Äúcom¬≠mu¬≠ni¬≠ties of¬†faith.‚ÄĚ

 

But for the Jew¬≠ish left‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČthe com¬≠mu¬≠nist, social¬≠ist, Trot¬≠sky¬≠ist and Marx¬≠ist left‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČtheir cri¬≠tique of Zion¬≠ism came from two quar¬≠ters: a¬†cri¬≠tique of nation¬≠al¬≠ism and a¬†cri¬≠tique of colo¬≠nial¬≠ism.

They under­stood Zion­ism as a right-wing nation­al­ism and, in that sense, bour­geois.

They saw it as in line with oth¬≠er forms of nation¬≠al¬≠ism‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČan attempt to align the work¬≠ing class with the inter¬≠ests of the bour¬≠geoisie.

There was at the time a well-known take­down of Vladimir Jabotin­sky in the New Mass­es in 1935, in which Marx­ist crit­ic Robert Gess­ner calls Jabotin­sky a lit­tle Hitler on the Red Sea.

Jewish labor Bund

Gess­ner calls the Zion­ists Nazis and the left in gen­er­al saw Jew­ish nation­al­ism as a right-wing for­ma­tion try­ing to cre­ate a uni­fied, mil­i­taris­tic cul­ture that aligns work­ing-class Jew­ish inter­ests with the inter­ests of the Jew­ish bourgeoisie.

So that’s one cri­tique of Zion­ism. The oth­er cri­tique of Zion­ism, which I think is more con­tem­po­rary to the left today, is that Zion­ism is a form of impe­ri­al­ism.

If you look at the pam¬≠phlets and mag¬≠a¬≠zines and speech¬≠es that are giv¬≠en on the Jew¬≠ish left in the 1930s and ‚Äč‚Äô40s, they saw that Zion¬≠ists were align¬≠ing them¬≠selves with British impe¬≠ri¬≠al¬≠ism.

They also were very aware of the fact that the Mid­dle East was col­o­nized, first by the Ottomans and then by the British.

They saw the Pales­tin­ian strug­gle for lib­er­a­tion as part of a glob­al anti-impe­ri­al­ist movement.

Of course, Jew­ish com­mu­nists saw them­selves not as cit­i­zens of a nation-state, but as part of the glob­al pro­le­tari­at: part of the glob­al work­ing class, part of the glob­al rev­o­lu­tion.

And so for them to think about their home¬≠land as this small strip of land in the Mediter¬≠ranean‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČregard¬≠less of any cul¬≠tur¬≠al affin¬≠i¬≠ty to Jerusalem‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČwould just be against every¬≠thing they¬†believe.

As the Holo­caust began in earnest in the 1940s, and Jews were flee­ing Europe in any way they pos­si­bly could, some mem­bers of the Com­mu­nist Par­ty advo­cat­ed that Jews should be allowed to go to Pales­tine.

If you’re flee­ing anni­hi­la­tion and Pales­tine is the only place you can go that is nat­ur­al.

But that doesn’t mean you can cre­ate a nation-state there. You need to get along with the peo­ple who live there as best as you pos­si­bly can.

There was a¬†com¬≠mu¬≠nist par¬≠ty of Pales¬≠tine that did advo¬≠cate for Jew¬≠ish and Pales¬≠tin¬≠ian col¬≠lab¬≠o¬≠ra¬≠tion to oust the British and cre¬≠ate a¬†bina¬≠tion¬≠al state‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČwhich, for a¬†host of rea¬≠sons, includ¬≠ing the seg¬≠re¬≠gat¬≠ed nature of Jew¬≠ish set¬≠tle¬≠ment, proved hard¬≠er in prac¬≠tice than in¬†theory.

In any case, the Jew­ish left in the 1930s and 1940s under­stood, crit­i­cal­ly, that the only way Zion­ism would be able to emerge in Pales­tine was through a colo­nial project and through the expul­sion of the indige­nous Pales­tini­ans from the land.

In a speech by Earl Brow­der, chair­man of the Com­mu­nist Par­ty, in Manhattan’s Hip­po­drome, he declares that a Jew­ish state can only be formed through the expul­sion of a quar­ter-mil­lion Pales­tini­ans, which atten­dees thought was very shock­ing at the time, but it actu­al­ly end­ed up being a dra­mat­ic undercount.

Sarah: You wrote in your recent jour¬≠nal arti¬≠cle, ‚Äč‚ÄúPer¬≠haps the sin¬≠gle most per¬≠va¬≠sive nar¬≠ra¬≠tive about Zion¬≠ism, even among schol¬≠ars and writ¬≠ers who acknowl¬≠edge its mar¬≠gin¬≠al sta¬≠tus before the war, is that the Holo¬≠caust changed Jew¬≠ish opin¬≠ioin and con¬≠vinced Jews of its neces¬≠si¬≠ty.‚ÄĚ You iden¬≠ti¬≠fy some major holes in this nar¬≠ra¬≠tive. Can you explain what they¬†are?

Ben­jamin: I would alter that a bit to say I’m real­ly talk­ing about the com­mu­nist and Marx­ist left in this con­text.

I grew up with in a left-wing fam¬≠i¬≠ly where opin¬≠ion was def¬≠i¬≠nite¬≠ly divid¬≠ed on the ques¬≠tion of Zion¬≠ism‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČyet, nonethe¬≠less, there was a per¬≠va¬≠sive idea that the Holo¬≠caust changed opin¬≠ion universally, and every¬≠one fell in line as soon as the details of the Holo¬≠caust were revealed, Zion¬≠ist and anti-Zion¬≠ist alike.

It’s unde­ni­ably cor­rect to say that with­out the Holo­caust there prob­a­bly would have been no Israel, if just for the sin­gle fact that there was a mas­sive influx of Jew­ish refugees after the war who would have undoubt­ed­ly stayed in Europe oth­er­wise.

With­out that influx of Jews who could fight the 1948 war and pop­u­late Israel just after, it’s doubt­ful an inde­pen­dent state of Israel could have succeeded.

How¬≠ev¬≠er, one thing I¬†found most sur¬≠pris¬≠ing going through the Jew¬≠ish left press in the 1940s‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČpub¬≠li¬≠ca¬≠tions of the Trot¬≠sky¬≠ist Social¬≠ist Work¬≠ers Par¬≠ty, the Com¬≠mu¬≠nist Par¬≠ty, and writ¬≠ings by Han¬≠nah Arendt‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČis that even after the scope of the Holo¬≠caust was wide¬≠ly under¬≠stood, their offi¬≠cial posi¬≠tion was still anti-Zion¬≠ist.

They may have called for Jews to be allowed to reset­tle in the lands from which they were expelled or mas­sa­cred, with full rights and full cit­i­zen­ship, be allowed to immi­grate to the Unit­ed States, or even be allowed to emi­grate to Pales­tine if there was nowhere else to go (as was often the case).

But they were still whol­ly against par­ti­tion and the estab­lish­ment of a Jew­ish-only state.

What is impor¬≠tant to under¬≠stand about that moment was that Zion¬≠ism was a¬†polit¬≠i¬≠cal choice‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČnot only by west¬≠ern impe¬≠r¬≠i¬≠al pow¬≠ers, but also by Jew¬≠ish lead¬≠er¬≠ship.

They could have fought more stren­u­ous­ly for Jew­ish immi­gra­tion to the Unit­ed States.

And a lot of the Zion­ist lead­ers actu­al­ly fought against immi­gra­tion to the Unit­ed States.

There were a num­ber of sto­ries report­ed in the Jew­ish Com­mu­nist press about how Zion­ists col­lab­o­rat­ed with the British and Amer­i­cans to force Jews to go to Man­date Pales­tine, when they would have rather gone to the Unit­ed States, or Eng­land.

There‚Äôs a¬†famous quote by Ernest Bevin, the British For¬≠eign Sec¬≠re¬≠tary, who said the only rea¬≠son the Unit¬≠ed States sent Jews to Pales¬≠tine was ‚Äč‚Äúbecause they do not want too many more of them in New York.‚ÄĚ

And the Zion­ists agreed with this.

While this may seem like ancient his¬≠to¬≠ry, it is impor¬≠tant because it dis¬≠rupts the com¬≠mon sense sur¬≠round¬≠ing Israel‚Äôs for¬≠ma¬≠tion. ‚Äč

‚ÄúYes, maybe there could have been peace between Jews and Pales¬≠tini¬≠ans, but the Holo¬≠caust made all of that impos¬≠si¬≠ble.‚ÄĚ

And I would say that this debate after 1945 shows that there was a long moment in which there were oth­er pos­si­bil­i­ties, and anoth­er future could have happened.

Iron­i­cal­ly, per­haps, the Sovi­et Union did more than any oth­er sin­gle force to change the minds of the Jew­ish Marx­ist left in the late 1940s about Israel.

Andrei Gromyko, the Sovi­et Union’s ambas­sador to the Unit­ed Nations, came out in 1947 and backed par­ti­tion in the Unit­ed Nations after declar­ing the West­ern world did noth­ing to stop the Holo­caust, and sud­den­ly there’s this about-face.

All these Jew­ish left-wing pub­li­ca­tions that were denounc­ing Zion­ism, lit­er­al­ly the next day, were embrac­ing par­ti­tion and the for­ma­tion of the nation-state of Israel.

You have to under¬≠stand, for a¬†lot of Jew¬≠ish com¬≠mu¬≠nists and even social¬≠ists, the Sovi¬≠et Union was the promised land‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČnot Zion¬≠ism.

This was the place where they had, accord­ing to the pro­pa­gan­da, erad­i­cat­ed anti­semisitm.

The Russ­ian Empire was the most anti­se­mit­ic place through­out the late 19th and ear­ly 20th cen­tu­ry, before the rise of Nazism.

Many of the Jew­ish Com­mu­nist Par­ty mem­bers were from East­ern Europe, or their fam­i­lies were, and they had very vivid mem­o­ries of Rus­sia as the cru­cible of anti­semitism.

For them, the Russ­ian Rev­o­lu­tion was a rup­ture in his­to­ry, a chance to start over.

And, of course, this is after World War II, when the Sovi­et Union had just defeat­ed the Nazis.

For the Sovi­et Union to embrace Zion­ism real­ly sent a shock­wave through the left-wing Jew­ish world.

The Sovi­et Union changed its pol­i­cy a decade or so lat­er, open­ly embrac­ing anti-Zion­ism by the 1960s. But for this brief piv­otal moment, the Sovi­et Union firm­ly came down in favor of par­ti­tion, and that seems to be what real­ly changed the Jew­ish left.

With­out this kind of legitimization, I think we are all start­ing to see the Jew­ish left such as it exists return back in an impor­tant way to the posi­tions that it had orig­i­nal­ly held, which is that Zion­ism is a right-wing nation­al­ism and that it is also racist and colo­nial­ist. We are see­ing the Jew­ish left return to its first principles.

Sarah: That’s a good segue to some ques­tions I want­ed to ask you about the rel­e­vance of anti-Zion­ist his­to­ry to the present day. For a lot of peo­ple, Israel’s plan to annex huge amounts of Pales­tin­ian land in the West Bank, while delayed, is still lay­ing bare the vio­lence of the Zion­ist project of estab­lish­ing Jew­ish rule over a Pales­tin­ian pop­u­la­tion. And we are see­ing some promi­nent lib­er­al Zion­ists like Peter Beinart pub­licly pro­claim that the two-state solu­tion is dead and one state based on equal rights is the best path. Do you see now as an impor­tant moment to con­nect with the his­to­ry of Jew­ish anti-Zion­ism? Do you see open­ings or pos­si­bil­i­ties for chang­ing peo­ple’s minds?

Ben­jamin: In a way, Beinart’s let­ter was 70 years too late.

But it is still a very impor­tant cul­tur­al turn, to the extent that he is part of a lib­er­al Jew­ish estab­lish­ment.

I¬†would also say that we‚Äôre in a¬†dif¬≠fer¬≠ent his¬≠tor¬≠i¬≠cal moment. In the 1930s and ‚Äč‚Äô40s, you can real¬≠ly talk about a¬†kind of glob¬≠al rev¬≠o¬≠lu¬≠tion¬≠ary sen¬≠ti¬≠ment and a¬†real Jew¬≠ish left that‚Äôs locat¬≠ed in orga¬≠ni¬≠za¬≠tions like the Com¬≠mu¬≠nist Par¬≠ty, the Social¬≠ist Work¬≠ers Par¬≠ty and the Social¬≠ist Par¬≠ty.

And you can see that again in the 1960s. Stu­dents for a Demo­c­ra­t­ic Soci­ety, which also had a very size­able Jew­ish mem­ber­ship, for­mal­ly backed anti-Zion­ism in the 1960s, along with the Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty, and formed alliances with the Stu­dent Non­vi­o­lent Coor­di­nat­ing Com­mit­tee, which had also tak­en an offi­cial anti-Zion­ist posi­tion in the late 1960s.

You could think about a¬†glob¬≠al rev¬≠o¬≠lu¬≠tion¬≠ary frame¬≠work in which Pales¬≠tin¬≠ian lib¬≠er¬≠a¬≠tion was an artic¬≠u¬≠lat¬≠ed part‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČyou could think about the Pop¬≠u¬≠lar Front for the Lib¬≠er¬≠a¬≠tion of Pales¬≠tine and the Pales¬≠tine Lib¬≠er¬≠a¬≠tion Orga¬≠ni¬≠za¬≠tion as part of the fab¬≠ric of glob¬≠al rev¬≠o¬≠lu¬≠tion¬≠ary¬†movements.

Today we’re in a much more frag­ment­ed space.

On the same note, though, we‚Äôre see¬≠ing the rebirth, or maybe con¬≠ti¬≠nu¬≠ity, of Pales¬≠tin¬≠ian civ¬≠il rights move¬≠ments, with Pales¬≠tin¬≠ian civ¬≠il soci¬≠ety putting out a¬†call for decol¬≠o¬≠niza¬≠tion‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČboth out of their own tra¬≠di¬≠tions of lib¬≠er¬≠a¬≠tion, but also look¬≠ing to mod¬≠els from the South African free¬≠dom strug¬≠gle.

For con­tem­po­rary Jews who are pro­gres­sive and see them­selves on the left, they’re sud­den­ly real­iz­ing that there real­ly is no cen­ter any­more, there is no lib­er­al Zion­ist posi­tion any longer.

The cen­ter has real­ly fall­en away. And we’re faced with this very stark deci­sion: that either you’re going to be on the side of lib­er­a­tion, or you’re going to be on the side of the Israeli right, which has elim­i­na­tion­ist and geno­ci­dal intent that has always been there, but is naked­ly appar­ent now.

And so I¬†think peo¬≠ple like Beinart are wak¬≠ing up and say¬≠ing, ‚Äč‚ÄúI don‚Äôt want to be on the side of the¬†executioners.‚ÄĚ

The his­to­ry of the old Jew­ish left and the new Jew­ish left of the 1960s shows us this isn’t new.

Any lib­er­a­tion strug­gle is going to come from the oppressed them­selves, so the Pales­tin­ian lib­er­a­tion move­ment is going to set its terms for strug­gles.

But for Jews in the Unit­ed States who are try­ing to think about their rela­tion­ship, not only to Pales­tine, but also their own place in the world as an his­tor­i­cal­ly per­se­cut­ed eth­no-cul­tur­al dias­poric minor­i­ty, we have to think of whose side we are on, and which glob­al forces we want to align with.

If we do not want to side with the exe¬≠cu¬≠tion¬≠ers of the far-right, with colo¬≠nial¬≠ism and with racism, there is a¬†Jew¬≠ish cul¬≠tur¬≠al resource for us to draw on‚ÄČ‚ÄĒ‚ÄČa polit¬≠i¬≠cal resource to draw on.

This his­to­ry of the anti-Zion­ist Jew­ish left demon­strates that an impor­tant his­tor­i­cal role in a dias­po­ra has been sol­i­dar­i­ty with oth­er oppressed peo­ple.

That‚Äôs the place from which we‚Äôve gath¬≠ered the most strength his¬≠tor¬≠i¬≠cal¬≠ly. So I¬†look at this not as say¬≠ing, ‚Äč‚ÄúWe‚Äôre not going to repro¬≠duce the Com¬≠mu¬≠nist Par¬≠ty of the 1930s and 1940s.‚ÄĚ

We‚Äôre say¬≠ing, ‚Äč‚ÄúWe‚Äôll pro¬≠duce some¬≠thing new, but the past can be a¬†cul¬≠tur¬≠al resource that we can use¬†today.‚ÄĚ

Sarah: Who or what is respon­si­ble for the era­sure of this his­to­ry of Jew­ish, left anti-Zionism?

Ben­jamin: I wouldn’t blame the era­sure sole­ly on the Sovi­et Union or Zion­ism, because we also have to think of the Cold War and how the Cold War destroyed the old Jew­ish left, and real­ly drove it under­ground and shat­tered its orga­ni­za­tions.

So I think we also have to see how the turn toward Zion­ism was under­stood as some­thing that would nor­mal­ize Jews in a post-war era.

With the exe¬≠cu¬≠tion of the Rosen¬≠bergs, the Red Scare of the late 1940s and ‚Äč‚Äô50s, and the vir¬≠tu¬≠al ban¬≠ning of the Com¬≠mu¬≠nist Par¬≠ty, which had been through¬≠out the 1930s and ‚Äč‚Äô40s half Jew¬≠ish, for much of the Jew¬≠ish estab¬≠lish¬≠ment, align¬≠ing them¬≠selves with Amer¬≠i¬≠can impe¬≠ri¬≠al¬≠ism was a¬†way for Jews to nor¬≠mal¬≠ize their pres¬≠ence in the Unit¬≠ed States.

And hope­ful­ly that moment has to some degree passed. We can see the empti­ness and bar­ren­ness of align­ing our­selves with an Amer­i­can impe­r­i­al project, with peo­ple like Bari Weiss and Jared Kush­n­er.

Why would some­one like Bari Weiss, who describes her­self as lib­er­al, want to align her­self with the most reac­tionary forces in Amer­i­can life?

It’s a bloody matrix of assim­i­la­tion and white­ness that emerged out of the Cold War sub­ur­ban­iza­tion of the 1950s. Israel was part of that devil’s bar­gain.

Yes, you can become real Amer­i­cans: You can go to good U.S. uni­ver­si­ties, you can join the sub­urbs, enter into the main­stream of Amer­i­can life, as long as you do this one lit­tle thing for us, which is back the Amer­i­can Empire.

Hope­ful­ly, with the emer­gence of new grass­roots orga­ni­za­tions in the Unit­ed States, among Jews and non-Jews who are ques­tion­ing the U.S. role sup­port­ing Zion­ism, this cal­cu­lus can begin to change.

With the rise of Jew­ish Voice for Peace, IfNot­Now, the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Social­ists of Amer­i­ca and the Move­ment for Black Lives all tak­ing a seri­ous stance against U.S. sup­port for Zion­ism, the com­mon sense in the Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty has begun to move in a dif­fer­ent direc­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly among the younger gen­er­a­tion.

The bat­tle is very far from over, but it makes me just a lit­tle opti­mistic about the future.

Reagan Calls Israel ‘Prime Mover’ In Iran-Contra

Zionist /Israelis are con artists by nature, no one is exempt from their cons, not even presidents.

In his new autobiography, former president Ronald Reagan says Israel was the instigator and prime mover in the Iran-contra affair.

He blames the Israelis for misleading him into believing he was selling arms to so-called Iranian moderates when some “may have had links to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s government and were trying to obtain weapons under false pretenses.”

Israel began the arms deals with Iran when it contacted Robert C. McFarlane, Reagan’s national security adviser, to propose the first sale, and continued to press the secret dealings thereafter, Reagan writes in “An American Life,” published today.

“Prime Minister Shimon Peres was behind the proposal,” the former president says.

Iranian middlemen endorsed by Israel helped “win the freedom of three hostages,” Reagan adds, but the same middlemen “behaved at times like bait-and-switch con men . . . with the sole intention of profiteering.”

How Israel helped Latin America’s death squads

snip‚úāÔłŹ

Israeli military advisors ‚ÄĒ mercenaries from Spearhead, the firm whose personnel operated with the permission of the Israeli authorities ‚ÄĒ aided Guatemala‚Äôs dictator, General Efrain Rios Montt. In 1982, they participated in one of his worst crimes: the ‚ÄúPlan Victoria‚ÄĚ scorched earth campaign. The Guatemala Embassy in Washington admitted that ‚Äúpersonnel sent by the Israeli government were participating in the repopulation and readjustment programmes for those displaced as entire villages vanished.‚ÄĚ

‚ÄúVanishing‚ÄĚ entire villages, of course, is something of an Israeli speciality. During the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Zionist militias bulldozed and dynamited their way through as many Palestinian villages as they possibly could, having already driven out or slaughtered their inhabitants. More than 500 Palestinian towns and villages were wiped off the map in this way. The demolition of Palestinian property continues to be an Israeli tactic to clear the occupied territories of the indigenous population.

Staged event : Reagan did NOT deliver this speech at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. He taped it on a soundstage in Hollywood, California.

Ronald Reagan delivers his “A Time for Choosing” speech in support of Senator Barry Goldwater in the waning days of the 1964 general election. “The Speech” as it is also known launched Reagan’s political career. Two years after this film was broadcast on NBC on October 27, 1964, he was elected governor of California.

Why did the Zionists Choose Palestine As It’s Homeland?

Industrial killing is no problem for these devilish people playing with the world and the people as toys on a map.

The value of the minerals of the Dead Sea is estimated at five trillion dollars. This estimate appears to be optimistic but it is supported in part by the report of the Crown Agents of the British Colonies entitled “Production of Minerals From the Waters of the Dead Sea“.

It is alleged that all copies of this booklet containing this report have been destroyed except those in the British Museum, Colonial office, and House of Commons.

 This official report estimates the minerals, except oil, in 1925 as follows: Magnesium Chloride, 22,000 tons, value 600 billion dollars; Potassium Chloride, 20,000 tons, value 75 billion dollars; other minerals valued at 1,200 billion dollars; or a total of about three trillion dollars, exclusive of oil (The Palestine Mystery, pages 12 and 13).

The financial backers of Theodor Herzl were M. A. Rothschild & Son of Paris and N. M. Rothschild & Son of London. Mr. Klein confirms the opinion expressed by Henry Ford in The International Jew, viz: That the protocols explain current history.

There can be no reasonable question about the authenticity of the protocols and the fact that they were adopted by World Zionist Jewry and that they represent the plan of the Zionist Jews for creating a World Empire.

The first and second World Wars were for that purpose and so, likewise, was the Jewish invasion of Palestine.

That was also the purpose of the League of Nations and is the purpose of the United Nations – all Zionist enterprises.

Arthur Balfour (C), former British prime minister, and Chaim Weizmann (3rd-R), the then future first president of Israel, visiting Tel Aviv in 1925 Jacob Rothschild said that a scientist named Chaim Weizmann went to the United Kingdom, where he gave this idea of forming Israel to a select group of people, including the Rothschild family.

Mr. Klein says further that the “American Group,” owners of 51,000 shares of Palestine Potash, Ltd., incorporated in 1930 under the name of “Palestine Associates, Inc.,” and that “at least seven of the directors of this corporation are members of the American Jewish Committee.”

He says that ex-Governor of New York Herbert H. Lehman has been honorary head of Palestine Economic Corporation for many years and that this corporation “owns banks, water companies, land holding companies, hotels, and agricultural corporations in Palestine.”

He says that these facts have been concealed from the Jews and that they have been used as tools by their Zionist leaders.

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. is now at the head of this corporation.

Holocaust hoax is what the Germans generally refer to Auschwitzl√ľge (Auschwitz lie)

The “Balfour Declaration” was made in a letter from Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild.

This same Lord Rothschild was a member of the Zionist International Conference at Bazle, Switzerland in 1897 that adopted the Protocols.

This same Lord Rothschild was also a member of the British House of Lords that gave this huge wealth to Palestine Potash Ltd.

The Rothschild interests are at the head of political Zionism and they promoted the invasion of Palestine.

Their position in our government and financial system is such that they can bring about deflation and a third world war.

A Gigantic Steal

If Palestine has one fourth of its estimated mineral value it will enable the Zionists to control the destiny of the peoples of the world.

The Zionist invasion of Palestine is a gigantic steal and an infamous outrage against Christian civilization.

Under present circumstances it means a third world war and that the new state of Israeli will line up with the Bolsheviks.

The only way to avoid it and to assure permanent peace is to destroy the Rothschild agencies, – alias Zionist Wall Street.

It is indeed the best way to restore the solvency of our country and of the world, and to restore constitutional government.

The “Balfour Declaration” to Lord Rothschild and the gift of this fabulous wealth to him and his fellow Zionists is evidence that he and his fellow Zionists then controlled the British Empire.

If the British Government were authorized to give it to the Zionists they had the power to keep it or to give it to us as security for our donations, or to give it to the United Nations for the preservation of world peace.

They gave it to the war-promoting Zionists for the obvious purpose of promoting Zionism.

What Does the US Have to Hide From the ICC?


Below: Winter Soldier: Hundreds of Iraq and Afghan War Veterans to Testify in Echo of 1971 Vietnam Hearings

Below: Former Israeli soldier with PTSD following combat in Gaza, speaks before the Israeli State Control Committee, on November 2015.
In his Testimony, he admits to murdering over 40 Palestinians;
“I killed for you, with these hands. You say terrorists with blood on their hands? I killed more than 40 people for you. ..
‚Äú[At night] he comes to me and says, ‚ÄėWhy did you kill me?


Recent statements from the Trump administration suggest that the United States is now preparing to go to war against the ICC itself, motivated largely by an effort to silence investigations into alleged American war crimes committed in Afghanistan, as well as alleged crimes committed by Israel during the 2014 war in the Gaza Strip.

Al-Haq recalls that the US has previously revoked the visas of staff members of the Office of the Prosecutor, including the Prosecutor, threatened the Court‚Äôs Judges, and, along with its ally Israel, has, without justification, sought to smear the Court as ‚Äúcorrupt‚ÄĚ and in the Situation in the State of Palestine specifically, ‚Äúanti-Semitic‚ÄĚ.

‚ÄúI vow that I‚Äôll burn every Palestinian child that will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child are more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child‚Äôs existence infers that generations will go on‚Ķ‚ÄĚ ‚ÄĒ Ariel Sharon in an interview by Ouze Merham ‚Äď Verified by journalist Chris Hedges in 2001 article ‚ÄúGaza Diary‚ÄĚ ‚Äď Sport-shootings of children that Hedges witnessed are official Israeli policy + British Medical Journal confirmed more than 600 sniper murders of Palestinian children by the Israeli military.

In a speech at a D.C. event held by the Federalist Society on Monday, Donald Trump‚Äôs national security adviser John Bolton denounced the ICC as ‚Äúillegitimate‚ÄĚ and expressed his intentions toward the institution in no uncertain terms.

‚ÄúWe will not cooperate with the ICC,‚ÄĚ Bolton said. ‚ÄúWe will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC.

We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.‚ÄĚ

In addition to this death wish against the court, Bolton said that the United States would retaliate against any ICC investigations into U.S. activities by sanctioning the travel and finances of ICC officials, even threatening to prosecute them in American courts.

The 2016 ICC report makes allegations of serious crimes committed by the U.S., including ‚Äútorture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape.‚ÄĚ

Because it involves U.S. officials themselves, at the center of the campaign against the ICC is a 2016 report by ICC prosecutors that deals in part with the war in Afghanistan.

That report alleges the commission of widespread crimes by the Taliban and Afghan government forces.

But the report also makes allegations of serious crimes committed by U.S. military forces and the CIA, including ‚Äútorture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape.‚ÄĚ

The crimes in question appear to have been related to detention programs run in Afghanistan during the early years of the U.S. occupation.

While the report does not name the individuals responsible nor their victims, it indicates that there are dozens of cases in which torture, cruel treatment, and sexual assault were committed by American soldiers and CIA officers in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2004.

The report also states that the alleged crimes ‚Äúwere not the abuses of a few isolated individuals,‚ÄĚ adding that ‚Äúthere is a reasonable basis to believe these alleged crimes were committed in furtherance of a policy or policies aimed at eliciting information through the use of interrogation techniques involving cruel or violent methods which would support U.S. objectives in the conflict in Afghanistan.‚ÄĚ

Given longstanding U.S. refusals to cooperate with ICC investigations, it‚Äôs unlikely that the 2016 document ‚ÄĒ a preliminary report from the prosecutor‚Äôs office ‚ÄĒ would have succeeded in bringing U.S. officials to trial at the Hague.

Bolton’s campaign thus seems intended on solidifying the fact that the United States is free of international norms on human rights conduct, with those who even investigate its actions subject to threat.

That the ICC investigation reaches back to the George W. Bush era, when Bolton served as United Nations ambassador, is fitting.

In the years after the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States began to come under withering scrutiny for its detention policies in those countries.

In addition to high-profile cases of torture at prison sites like Abu Ghraib, the CIA and U.S. military have been accused of brutalizing and even murdering prisoners held in their custody at detention facilities like Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan.

To date, Passaro, a civilian, is the only person to have been held legally accountable for torture and murder carried out under the CIA detention program.

Civilian contractors working for the CIA have also engaged in the murder of Afghan detainees, including David Passaro, who beat to death an Afghan man named Abdul Wali who had turned himself in to authorities after being accused of involvement in a militant attack.

Passaro was later sentenced to eight and a half years in jail by an American court. Following his release, he briefly returned to the public eye in media interviews justifying his involvement in the murder.

To date, Passaro, a civilian, is the only person to have been held legally accountable for torture and murder carried out under the CIA detention program, in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

This despite a landmark 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee that documented, in excruciating detail, widespread evidence of torture and other abuses carried out by CIA officials.

The unwillingness or inability of U.S. courts to seriously investigate war crimes carried out by American citizens is part of why the ICC mandate in Afghanistan has been viewed as an important effort to bring a minimum level of accountability over the conflict. This past November, the court announced that it planned to move forward with investigations stemming from its 2016 report.

‚ÄĒ Ariel Sharon ‚Äď published in Israeli newspaper Davar Dec 17th, 1982 ‚Äď Following the Sabra and Shatila most brutal massacres in human history caught red-handed.

In a statement responding to Bolton‚Äôs threats, the ICC said that ‚Äúthe ICC, as a court of law, will continue to do its work undeterred, in accordance with those principles and the overarching idea of the rule of law.‚ÄĚ

Given its longstanding intransigence toward the ICC, it was unlikely that the United States would ever have cooperated with its investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, even under a less bellicose administration.

But the Trump administration’s threats to target specific ICC officials over their war crimes investigations enters a new realm of hostility against international law.

The consequences could be a further degradation of already shaky international norms surrounding human rights in conflict zones.

“The ICC is not stepping in just for the sake of how Bolton put it, just to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

This is really nonsense. They are stepping in because we failed ‚ÄĒ the United States failed to uphold the rule of law,‚ÄĚ said Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU‚Äôs Human Rights Program, in a television segment on Democracy Now! Tuesday morning about Bolton‚Äôs comments.

‚ÄúThis is the same Trump administration that has an abysmal record of human rights here in the United States and is trying to encourage other countries to follow its pattern.‚ÄĚ

Top photo: National security adviser John Bolton speaks at a Federalist Society luncheon at the Mayflower Hotel on Sept. 10, 2018, in Washington, D.C.

Israel Annexation Plan: Jordan’s Existential Threat

“A haunting reminder to all mankind of man’s inexplicable cruelty towards his fellow man.” ~King Hussein of Jordan

More than any other Arab state, Jordan’s past, present and future are inextricably linked to the question of Palestine. Jordan’s emergence is an outcome of British imperialism, which imposed the infamous Balfour Declaration and the Zionist settler-colonial project on the indigenous population of Palestine and the region. 

‚ÄúORIGIN OF TWO COUNTRIES They say Churchill said: ‚ÄúJordan was an idea I had one spring at about four-thirty in the afternoon.‚ÄĚ

The fact is that during the month of March 1921, in just three days, British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill and his forty advisers drew a new map for the Middle East.

They invented two countries, named them, appointed their monarchs, and sketched their borders with a finger in the sand.

Thus the land embraced by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the clay of the very first books, was called Iraq.

And the new country amputated from Palestine was called Transjordan, later Jordan.

The task at hand was to change the names of colonies so they would at least appear to be Arab kingdoms.

And to divide those colonies, to break them up: an urgent lesson drawn from imperial memory.

While France pulled Lebanon out of a hat, Churchill bestowed the crown of Iraq on the errant Prince Faisal, and a plebiscite ratified him with suspicious enthusiasm: he got 96 percent of the vote.

His brother Prince Abdullah became king of Jordan.

Both monarchs belonged to a family placed on the British payroll at the recommendation of Lawrence of Arabia.

The manufacturers of countries signed the birth certificates of Iraq and Jordan in Cairo’s Semiramis Hotel, and then went out to see the pyramids.

Settler-colonialism is the essence of the question of Palestine. All else is derivative.

Jordan emerged out of this historical reality, and therefore, its present and future will always be subject to it.

The founder of present-day Jordan, Emir Abdullah bin Al-Hussein, successfully carved a new sovereign space in Transjordan.

But this was only possible because of his cooperation with British imperialism and ‚Äúcollusion‚ÄĚ with Zionist settler-colonialism.

This tacit relationship resulted in mutual restraint between Jordan and Israel, even during their direct military confrontations.

National security interest

In 1994, Jordan and Israel signed the Wadi Araba peace treaty, turning their tacit understandings and secretive relationship into an official peace between the two countries ‚Äď even if an unpopular one.

This peace treaty would have been inconceivable without the 1993 Oslo Accord and the implied promise of Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, which were occupied in 1967 from Jordan and Egypt respectively, to establish an independent Palestinian state.

Land repatriation and Palestinian statehood hold a high national security interest for Jordan.

Only the achievement of these two conditions can halt the border elasticity of the Israeli state and its expansion eastwards, which poses grave geographic and demographic threats to the Hashemite kingdom.

Besides the strategic significance, a Palestinian state would allow a substantial number of Palestinian refugees displaced in 1967 to return to the West Bank, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 237.

Yet, not only have neither of the two conditions been realized, but regional and international political dynamics have changed since 1994.

¬†In Israel, the political landscape has dramatically shifted to the far right, fueling the settler-colonial practice of creating ‚Äúfacts on the ground‚ÄĚ that make the prospect of Palestinian statehood and self-determination via the ‚Äúpeace process‚ÄĚ a remote fantasy.

The political and material developments on the ground are complemented by complex regional and international dynamics. In particular, the Trump administration has taken a new approach towards most international conflicts, especially in the Middle East.

The Trump-Netanyahu plan (aka ‚Äúthe deal of century‚ÄĚ) for Israel-Palestine promotes Israeli colonization/annexation of the West Bank and sovereignty over the entirety of historic Palestine, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.

Shifting geopolitics

Even worse for Jordanians and Palestinians, this plan enjoys the support of influential Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have stepped up their political rapprochement and normalization with Israel.

The EU, a staunch supporter and sponsor of the so-called peace process and two-state solution, failed not only to reach a common position on the US plan, but also to condemn Israel’s plans to officially annex any part of the West Bank.

Amid the changing international and regional politics, Jordan’s alliance with the US and EU has been a letdown. Jordan has become a victim of its own foreign and security policy, which has grown interlinked with the US and, more recently, the EU.

While half of this alliance, the US, is promoting Israel’s annexation and sovereignty over Palestine, the other half, the EU, is unwilling to act decisively.

The annexation is planned to take place while the entire world, including Jordanians and Palestinians, and the media are exhausted by the coronavirus pandemic.

It provides the needed distraction for Israel to complete the annexation quietly, without effective local and international scrutiny and resistance.

Covid-19 has further entrenched the nationalist-driven trend in the Middle East. Even before the outbreak, the Arab world was consumed by domestic concerns, showing few qualms about the Trump-Netanyahu plan or recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Israeli expansionism

The feeble Arab (including Palestinian and Jordanian) and international response to the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, has encouraged Israel and the US to press ahead and turn Israel’s de facto sovereignty over all of Palestine into de jure.

While this is all illegal under international law, it is a mistake to believe that empirical reality and time will not deflect, strain and fracture international law and legality.

Since 1967, the Israeli strategy has pivoted on two parallel components: empirical colonization on the ground, coupled with the facade of a ‚Äúpeace and negotiations‚ÄĚ public relations campaign to obfuscate the settler-colonial structure and market it to the international community, as well as Arab regimes.

With this strategy, Israel has expanded in the region both territorially, by de facto taking over Arab land, and politically, through overt and covert relations with most of the Arab states.

Only formal territorial annexation and gradual de-Palestinisation remains.

The formal annexation of the West Bank, especially the Jordan Valley, officially torpedoes the century-old Jordanian foreign and security strategy of cooperation with its imperial patrons (Britain, then the US) and the Zionist movement, which evolved into a Jordanian-Israeli peace with an expected Palestinian buffer state between the two.

Another ethnic cleansing

It also puts Jordan face-to-face with a new reality with alarming cartographic and demographic consequences.

The chances of another ethnic cleansing become a palpable prospect under the formulae of official annexation and a Jewish statehood in the entirety of Palestine, as articulated in the 2018 nation-state law meant to ensure a Jewish majority.

This is very much tied in with Jordanian fears grounded in previous (1948, 1967) and current experiences of forced migration in the Middle East.

Against this backdrop, another ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, forcing a large number of Palestinians to flee to Jordan, is a real possibility.

The transfer and elimination of Palestinians from Palestine are embedded in the settler-colonial structure of the Israeli state, which looks at Jordan as their alternative homeland.

While another population flow would be catastrophic for Palestinians, it would also adversely affect Jordan’s stability and future.

Beyond annexation, the Hashemite regime is witnessing a contestation of its custodianship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, which constitute a significant source of legitimacy for the regime.

Even on this matter, the US plan unequivocally appoints Israel as the ‚Äúcustodian of Jerusalem‚ÄĚ.

After five decades, Israel’s grip over and presence in the West Bank is ubiquitous and entrenched. Most of the West Bank is empirically annexed and Judaised, especially the Jordan Valley, Greater Jerusalem, parts of Hebron and Gush Etzion. The pretence of the peace process and negotiations has thus become superfluous.

‚ÄėConsidering all options‚Äô¬†

Only against this background may one understand the depth of the trepidations that underlie the warning of King Abdullah II that the Israeli annexation will trigger a ‚Äúmassive conflict‚ÄĚ with Jordan and that he is ‚Äúconsidering all options‚ÄĚ in response.

This warning does not reveal a strategy to respond to what constitutes a ‚Äúdirect threat to Jordan‚Äôs sovereignty and independence‚ÄĚ, as the former foreign minister of Jordan, Marwan Muasher, put it.

It displays, however, the difficult decisions that have to be taken. Indeed, King Hussein was prepared to discontinue the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty had Israel refused to supply the antidote for the poison its agents had used in an attempt to assassinate Khaled Meshaal, the former head of Hamas, in 1997.

It remains to be seen whether the termination or suspension of this treaty and the realignment of alliances are currently options for Jordan.

The Jordanian response to Covid-19 has generated a unique, popular rally around the state ‚Äď a perfect opportunity to conduct serious reforms to stamp out corruption and involve citizens in the decision-making process, in order to forge a nationally grounded response to Israel‚Äôs planned annexation of the West Bank.

Historically, the survival of the Hashemite kingdom has been at stake several times.

But today, Jordan finds itself in an unprecedented political, security, economic and health emergency.

Whatever domestic, economic and foreign-policy decisions ‚Äď or indecisions ‚Äď that Jordan takes are likely to leave a long-lasting mark on the future of Jordan and the question of Palestine.

Such existential decisions must be collective, with broader national consensus and real citizen participation.

*

Israel’s characteristic Beirut hypocrisy

Israel in general does not help anyone. When they occasionally do it’s strictly for PR purposes. Israel is strictly opportunistic, installed by world vulture Rothschild. Israel is an arm of imperialism, not a Jewish state or a safe haven for Jews. Jews were the first to be sacrificed in the creation of “Israel” and they continue to be sacrificed through false flags to blame “Israel’s” so called enemies.

Hezbollah has arms and fighters because there is a pressing and urgent need to defend Lebanon against Israel’s military invasions and incursions.

The massive explosion which devastated Beirut earlier this month was nothing short of a catastrophe.

Some 220 people lost their lives and, according to the BBC, as many as 300,000 people are now homeless as a result.

This is a devastating blow from which it will take Lebanon’s capital city a long time, probably years, to recover.

Among the most nauseating of responses to the blast was seeing representatives of the state of Israel sending ‚Äúcondolences‚ÄĚ and fake offers of humanitarian assistance.

As my colleague at The Electronic Intifada, Tamara Nasser, put it: ‚ÄúIsrael, the destroyer of Lebanon was attempting to pose as its savior.‚ÄĚ

This ghastly vision was utterly contemptible for anyone who knows the history of Israeli involvement in Lebanon.

Israel, the Imperialist military outpost is not designed to assist the world in good.

 

The Zionist state has left a long, bloody trail of dead bodies, displaced people and shattered lives, having invaded its northern neighbor many times since the settler-colonial entity established itself ‚ÄĒ upon the mass graves of Palestinians ‚ÄĒ in 1948.

In the 1950s, Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, secretly articulated plans to occupy Lebanon by force and transform it into a puppet sectarian state ruled as a Christian supremacist entity in alliance with Israel, the Jewish supremacist entity.

In order to meddle in and stoke the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990), Israel armed, trained and supplied puppet Christian Maronite militias in Lebanon, including the brutal sectarian Lebanese

Forces led by Bashir Gemayel. In 1978, Israel invaded directly in order to attack the Palestine Liberation Organization, occupying much of South Lebanon.

Israeli forces were soon forced out after stiff resistance by Palestinian fighters, but they soon headed back across their northern border.

In 1982, Israel carried out a full scale invasion of Lebanon in an attempt to crush the PLO’s military, political and cultural presence once and for all.

The Siege of Beirut 1982

More than 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinian people were killed during this brutally aggressive war, including as many as 3,000 Palestinian refugees who were butchered by Israel’s Maronite allies in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps under the watchful eye of Israeli troops, who fired flares into the night sky to light the militia’s way.

Minister of Defence, later Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, was found by an Israeli Commission of Inquiry to have ‚Äúpersonal responsibility‚ÄĚ for allowing this massacre to take place.

The Israelis reached and laid siege to Beirut, before being pushed back by stiff resistance and diplomatic pressure.

However, South Lebanon remained illegally occupied by Israel until 2000, when the Lebanese resistance led by Hezbollah drove its forces out once and for all.

Butcher of Beirut

Nevertheless, in 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon yet again, and another 2,000 people were killed in the massive offensive.

Hezbollah succeeded in driving the Israeli troops out of Lebanon once more, but the country was again devastated.

Since then, Israel has carried out almost daily border violations, including fly-overs with drones and warplanes.

Israeli politicians frequently threaten to bomb Lebanon ‚Äúback to the Stone Age‚ÄĚ, kill civilians and systematically eradicate the country‚Äôs civilian infrastructure, all of which are classed as war crimes.

On top of all of this, Israel’s spy agencies have now been planting stories in the international media pushing the dubious and unproven conspiracy theory that the explosion in Beirut this month was caused by Hezbollah.

As investigative journalist Gareth Porter explains in his most recent article: ‚ÄúIsraeli officials have exploited the massive explosion at the Port of Beirut this August to revive a dormant propaganda campaign that had accused the Lebanese militia and political party Hezbollah of storing ammonium nitrate in several countries to wage terror attacks on Israelis.‚ÄĚ

Netanyahu GIF | Gfycat

Israeli spy agencies, wrote Porter, have “planted a series of stories from 2012 to 2019 claiming Hezbollah sought out ammonium nitrate as the explosive of choice for terrorist operations.

According to the narrative, Hezbollah planned to covertly store the explosive substance in locations from Southeast Asia to Europe and the US ‚ÄĒ only to be foiled repeatedly by Mossad.‚ÄĚ

There is a slight problem with this Israeli narrative: none of it seems to be true.

‚ÄúIn each one of those cases, however, the factual record either contradicted the Israeli claims or revealed a complete dearth of evidence,‚ÄĚ insisted Porter, whose entire article is well worth reading.

In the wake of the Beirut explosion, global and regional powers ‚Äď the US and Israel first among them ‚Äď are exploiting the febrile atmosphere in the country, and the understandable anger of the Lebanese people at their politicians, in order to push for Hezbollah to disarm. This is a longstanding goal in any case.

Israel is not designed to ‘help’ or aid anyone…it is an opportunist in every given case. Israel is one of the vultures..

However, as veteran Palestinian journalist and commentator Abdel Bari Atwan wrote recently, ‚ÄúLike the Syrian regime, Hezbollah will prove impervious to pressure to disarm or exit the political scene.‚ÄĚ

Hezbollah has arms and fighters because there is a pressing and urgent need to defend Lebanon against Israel’s military invasions and incursions.

This is something that the Lebanese army simply cannot do.

Only a couple of weeks before the Beirut explosion, Israel’s highly undiplomatic Ambassador to the United Nations made a thinly veiled threat to destroy the very same port that was devastated by the blast during his country’s next war with Lebanon.

Moreover, Moshe Feiglin, the appalling former deputy speaker of Israel‚Äôs parliament, reacted with obvious joy to the deadly blast, calling it a ‚Äúspectacular pyrotechnics show‚ÄĚ and a ‚Äúwonderful celebration‚ÄĚ.

So who were the Israeli President and army trying to fool when they claimed with characteristic hypocrisy that they wanted to ‚Äúreach out‚ÄĚ and ‚Äútranscend conflict‚ÄĚ by helping Lebanon to recover from the Beirut explosion?

Whoever the intended audience was, very few people in Lebanon believed them, that’s for sure.

Why Israel (but not America) Needs Andrew Cuomo as Gov. of NYC

NEXT>>>

The story of the Church of the Nativity siege

The ordeal began on 1 April and was triggered by a young girl from a refugee camp.

A member of her family had been killed by the IDF [Israel Defence Forces ‚Äď the Israeli Wehrmacht].

Grief-stricken, she took revenge by turning herself into a suicide bomber, killing six or seven Israelis in Jerusalem.

As usual, the Israelis reacted with wide-scale collective punishment, sending tanks and hundreds of soldiers into West Bank towns like Nablus, Jenin and Bethlehem late at night.

In Bethlehem they cut the electricity supply and focused on the old town, overflying with helicopter gunships and occupying all key points around Manger Square.

Many innocent Palestinians were killed by snipers, and the market and some shops were set on fire as troops hunted down suspected ‚Äúfighters‚ÄĚ.

Civilians tried desperately to hide from the troops and someone suggested the Church of the Nativity as a sanctuary.

The door was locked, so ‚Äúone of the young men shot the door‚Ķ there was no choice‚ÄĚ.

Two hundred and forty-eight took refuge there. They included, says George, one Islamic Jihad, 28 Hamas, 50 to 60 Al-Aqsa Martyrs.

The remainder were ordinary townsfolk and included 100 uniformed Palestinian Authority workers; also 26 children and eight to 10 women and girls.

‚ÄúThe Israeli soldiers would not allow the women and children to leave‚Ķ but they left the Church the first week by the back door.‚ÄĚ

Priests and nuns ‚Äď Armenian, Greek and Catholic ‚Äď from the adjoining monasteries brought the number to over 300 at the beginning.

‚ÄúSome of them went back to the monasteries but some stayed with us every day for the 40 days.‚ÄĚ

On Day 3 of the siege a young man inside the Church was shot dead by a sniper as he popped his head through a hatch in the roof.

That same day a second was shot by snipers as he scavenged for food in the Casa Nova guest house. His last words were: “My brothers, I love you.

Zionist lobby condemns re-enactment of murderous assault on Christendom’s holiest site

I don‚Äôt want to leave you. I‚Äôm still so young and I miss my wife and I want to see my daughter and son again.‚ÄĚ

Our big problem, says George, was how to get enough food to feed so many people. “The monasteries gave us food to last about 10 days.

After that we managed to bring some food in from across the fields, but when one of us was killed we stopped.‚ÄĚ

Fifteen days into the siege and someone said, ‚ÄúLet‚Äôs call an ambulance.‚ÄĚ

They had managed to recharge their cellphones using the mains that supplied the Church towers and bells.

The Israelis had overlooked the fact that this was a separate supply coming from the Bethlehem municipality.

So, the besieged were able to phone out for help to friends in nearby Beit Sahour, who responded by sending food to the medical centre.

From there it was transported by ambulance, along with authentic casualties, and delivered to houses near the Church.

At night young girls carried the food in plastic bags from house to house until supplies reached the dwellings next door to the Church.

The bags were then thrown from roof to roof. This went on for six days until one girl dropped a bag, which the soldiers found.

The IDF, now alerted, shot and paralysed another young man. It put an end to the food operation.

Those trapped inside the Church were surprised to discover an old lady living within the complex. She had a small horde of olives and wheat, with which they made bread.

So they managed to eke out the food for 28 days. ‚ÄúWhen it finally ran out,‚ÄĚ George recalls, ‚Äúwe realised we were in big trouble‚ÄĚ.

The governor of Bethlehem and the director of the Catholic Society were among those holding out in the Church.

George held the key and was ordered to open the door only if someone died or was injured. He was watching through a peephole when he saw people approaching across the forecourt.

They were from the peace movement, 28 of them.

By now the world media were watching. Seventeen were promptly arrested but 11 took a big risk, managing to bluff their way in through the razor wire.

In their rucksacks they brought food, which lasted another fou days, and basic medicines.

The worst time was the final week ‚Äď no food and only dirty water from the well.

They resorted to boiling leaves and old chicken legs into a soup. George ate only lemons and salt for five or six days.

Many were so ill by this time that they were passing blood.

Outside some 15 civilians had been indiscriminately shot in the street or in their homes.

The IDF refused to allow the dead inside the Church to be removed for decent burial.

The corpses were therefore placed in makeshift coffins, with the holes and seams sealed with candlewax, and taken down to a cellar.

Meanwhile, the IDF set up three huge cranes on which were mounted robotic machine guns under video control.

Eight defenders were killed inside the Church, some by the robotic guns and some by snipers.

Samir, a Church caretaker and bellringer who was known to be a little disturbed, was killed in front of the Church.

‚ÄúHe eventually went outside and tried to surrender with his hands up but was shot down by a regular sniper.‚ÄĚ

From the start, says George, the IDF used psychological warfare methods ‚Äď for example, disorienting noise to deprive them of sleep, bright lights, concussion grenades.

They paraded their families in front of the Church to put pressure on them to surrender.

The IDF were also using illegal dum-dum bullets which cause horrendous wounds and trauma.

‚ÄúMost of those who were killed‚Ķ it was because of the dum-dums‚Ķ so much bleeding, and it took so long to arrange to send them to a hospital.‚ÄĚ

He says the IDF fired tracer rounds into two of the monasteries and set the ancient fabric of the buildings on fire.

Those trapped inside the Church vowed not to harm IDF soldiers unless they actually broke in. When soldiers did gain access and killed one of the resisters, four of them were shot.

“In the end, the governor decided it was better to be in jail than die.

So we opened the door and surrendered on the 40th day. One hundred and forty-eight had survived.

We were all promptly arrested and interrogated.‚ÄĚ But when given a meal by the Israelis, 13 or 14 threw the food in the trash bin.

‚ÄúThey were the ones who had been hurt the most,‚ÄĚ says George. ‚ÄúThe soldiers killed some of their families and demolished their houses‚Ķ and arrested

all their families‚Ķ and destroyed their lives‚Ķ‚ÄĚ

Because of the adverse publicity, the CIA and EU took a hand in deciding the fate of the survivors.

After four years the figures still sprang readily to George’s mind… “13 were exiled to the EU, 26 were exiled to Gaza, 26 were wounded, 26 had surrendered because they were under-age.

Eight were killed inside the Church‚Ķ and with Samir makes nine‚Ķ they shot Samir in front of the Church‚Ķ‚ÄĚ It clearly upset him to remember.

‚ÄúThe rest were allowed home.‚ÄĚ George had scavenged under sniper fire.

Luckily, he was among those sent home. ‚ÄúThe Israelis said to me: ‚ÄėDo you know why you are going home? Because America wants it‚Äô.‚ÄĚ

When the survivors apologised to the Church fathers for the damage done, they replied: “God will look after the Church.

We are much more concerned about looking after you.‚ÄĚ I put it to George that by telling me the story he might find himself in the Israelis‚Äô black books. ‚ÄúI‚Äôm already in their black book,‚ÄĚ he replied.
Imagine how the story might have ended if the world hadn’t been watching.

It deserves to be told and re-told forever. I hope the Freedom Theatre puts it out on DVD so that all can see.

I’m assuming, of course, that the play reflects George’s version of events. Judge for yourselves who the real terrorists are.

US wars for Israel

A sample of Zio-patriotic propaganda

We live under a brutal form of fascism that has no equivalent in human history.

There are no longer the rules of law and civilized norms.

It is a barbaric, lawless, rogue, terrorizing and distinctly global Anglo-Zionist fascism.

The Anglo-Zionist alliance led by the US, Israel and Britain.

They are always on the look to provoke aggression, commit war crimes, and inflict greater human misery thousands of miles away from their own borders.

Anglo-Zionist fascism is a Mafia-like criminal enterprise that targets any nation who refuses to kowtow to Anglo-Zionist alliance dictates to exploit its natural resources.

Using its monopoly power on the world’s financial system and trade it can impose a medieval siege (economic sanctions) on any prosperous nation and turn it into a miserable place.

The Gaza territory in Palestine, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Iran are good examples.

The Zionist Masquerade The Birth of the Anglo-Zionist Alliance, 1914‚Äď1918

This Anglo-Zionist alliance poses the greatest threat to world’s peace and humanity itself.

After nearly 20 years of murderous war and occupation of defenseless Afghanistan, the US regime still thirsty for more bloodshed.

But according to Donald Trump, the US is not fighting a war in Afghanistan.

He said: ‚ÄėIf we fight a war and win it, I could win that war in a week.

But I don‚Äôt want to kill 10 million people‚Äô. Then he added: ‚ÄėAfghanistan could be wiped off the face of the earth‚Äô for no meaningful reason.‚Äô

Of course, Trump can ‚Äėwin‚Äô the war without the need to kill 10 million people by withdrawing US forces form Afghanistan and stops interfering in Afghanistan‚Äôs affairs.

From Afghanistan to Syria to Iraq and to Iran, the US is at war all over the world, and the victims (in millions) of this ongoing war and terror are almost all non-white.

Former US president Jimmy Carter said recently, the US is ‚Äėthe most warlike nation in the history of the world‚Äô.

The US is currently preparing for war not only against Iran and Venezuela but also against China and Russia. US special forces deployed in more than 150 countries around the world where the US has more than 1000 military bases.

Moreover, in addition to Israel’s 400 nuclear warheads, the US has more than 150 tactical nuclear weapons stored at several locations in Europe that allow the US (and Israel) military to gain immediate control over the majority of the continent of Europe (and the Middle East), at any time.

With the largest arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the world, the US-led Anglo-Zionist alliance is holding the whole world and humanity hostage.

While it is built on the same racist ideology of German fascism, it is na√Įve and utterly misleading to compare US-led Anglo-Zionist global fascism to the regional German fascism.

In German fascism, the degree of totalitarian controls and war crimes (confined to Europe) have always been wildly exaggerated and used as a political tool ‚ÄĒ by Zionists and their pro-Israel supporters ‚ÄĒ to justify today‚Äôs more barbaric Israel‚Äôs Judeofascism in Palestine.

The exaggeration of Nazi Germany crimes is designed to demonize Germany and allows Israel to extract billions of dollars in ‚Äėreparation‚Äô.


With its human face manufactured and promoted by state-funded ‚Äėhumanitarian‚Äô NGOs and the ‚Äėlegitimacy‚Äô (rubberstamp) of the UN and its agencies, today‚Äôs Anglo-Zionist fascism is normalized and legitimized.

It is sugar-coated with Hollywood’s brainwashing (indoctrinating) propaganda and celebrity news destroying the ability of people to think critically.

It is masquerading as ‚Äėdemocracy‚Äô and is called by different names depending on the perspective of different parties, such as: ‚ÄėDemocrats‚Äô, ‚ÄėRepublicans‚Äô, ‚ÄėLabour‚Äô, ‚ÄėSocialist‚Äô, ‚ÄėConservative‚Äô, ‚ÄėLiberal‚Äô, etc.

In the 1930s and early 1940s, there were opposition and political dissidents to German fascism in Germany and in Europe at large.

Today, there is almost no (zilch) resistance and opposition to Anglo-Zionist fascism because its aggression and war crimes are committed against the non-white.

We live under Orwellian police state coupled with intrusive police power and a reign of mass surveillance.

As Hannah Arendt noted in Elements and Origins of Totalitarian Rule (1951): ‚ÄėNever has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest ‚ÄĒ forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by standards of other [more civilised] countries‚Äô.

The rise in neo-Nazi extremism ‚ÄĒ the neo-Nazi groups and parties are funded by Israel and pro-Israel Zionists ‚ÄĒ in Europe and North America has nothing to do with Nazi Germany and much to do with today‚Äôs anti-Muslim Anglo-Zionist fascism.

It is an obfuscation of reality to manipulate the public.

Unlike Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, US-led Anglo-Zionist fascism has a near monopoly on a superb global propaganda system dominated by fake news and pro-Western propaganda.

In addition to mass media corporations, including major global TV channels, and major newspapers, Zionists have a complete control over the Internet.

The ‚ÄėSocial Media‚Äô giants ‚ÄĒ Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. ‚ÄĒ have a direct control over people.

The primary aim is to keep the masses on board brainwashed with the agendas of the ruling (Anglo-Zionist) class thereby diverting people’s attention away from questioning the repressive political system under which they live and work.

And with complete control of the world’s financial and economic systems, any nation that refuses to submit to Anglo-Zionist diktats will suffer the criminal consequences of genocidal sanctions of economic terrorism.

With the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) and armed forces, the US-led Anglo-Zionist regimes exert complete monopolies on armed aggression, human rights abuses and terrorism around the world. Iran is a nation under Anglo-Zionist terror attacks.

Terrorism is no longer a covert US action. By their own admissions, the US political and media establishments have acknowledged that the ‚ÄėUS government is the world‚Äôs biggest sponsor of terrorism‚Äô.

The US regime is also the world‚Äôs biggest destabilizing force. The US ‚Äėclosest allies‚Äô, Israel and Saudi Arabia ‚ÄĒ two most brutal monsters in the Middle East ‚ÄĒ come second and third respectively.

Together, they recruit, arm, finance, advice and protect every major international terrorist group and entity, including the world’s largest terror organizations, al-Qaeda, ISIS, al-Nusra Front and their associated terrorists.

They are used around the world, from Afghanistan to Syria and to Iraq and Iran.

The US regime has publicly admitted that it sponsors terrorist groups operating within Iran, and has repeatedly threatened to topple the legitimate Iranian government by military aggression.

The US and its allies used terrorism cleverly as a political tool, a useful pretext to attack and invade other nations.

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were attacked, invaded and left in ruin by the US after the US falsely accused these three nations of supporting and ‚Äėharboring‚Äô terrorists.

All three nations were defenseless and lacked the military capacity to retaliate. In contrast, Iran is not defenseless and the US and Israel know that.

Using the racist colonialist ideology/theory of ‚Äėexceptionalism‚Äô ‚ÄĒ exceptional in racism, mass murder and inflicting endless misery ‚ÄĒ the US regime justifies interference in the affairs of every nation, regardless of political, cultural and religious practices.

‚ÄėTo be chosen is to see oneself as an exceptional creation. It entails blindness to otherness. It is a form of impunity.

To be chosen often involves a near or total lack of empathy. Such lack is often defined in terms of acute narcissism and psychopathy,’ writes British author Gilad Atzmon.

One needs only visit the US to see what an exceptional shithole it is.

Furthermore, many US ‚Äėallies‚Äô, including Israel, Britain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Ukraine, Colombia, Kuwait, Honduras, Peru, and Qatar, among others are the world‚Äôs most brutal and barbaric regimes.

In fact, every murderous dictator in the world today can count on US support.

One has to look at the recent event in Egypt to see the brutality of US vassal-state ‚Äėallies‚Äô.

The premeditated murder of Egypt’s only elected president Muhammed Mursi in a Cairo’s courtroom cage this week and the 3,185 extrajudicial killings by the current Egypt’s dictator are cases in point.

The heinous crime was welcomed with deafening silence by democracy-loving and peace-loving US and European regimes and their Zionist media.

The US presence in the region poses the greatest threat to all nations and is a destabilizing factor designed to drive a wedge between the countries of the region and protect Israel and its Zionist expansion.

Iran has consistently stated that it is prepared to enter into negotiation with the US, but only after a full lifting of US-imposes sanctions on the Iranian people.

Iran also offered conditions under which it would continue to comply with the JCPOA’s terms.

The Iranians also made it clear that they won’t negotiate with the Trump’s regime at gun point.

The onus is on the US and the European states to abide by the Deal.

Iran is prepared to negotiate a peaceful resolution and has called on the US to lift the sanctions and for all parties to respect the Deal signed in 2015 and for trade and diplomatic relations to be normalized, as mandated by the UN-endorsed accord.

Finally, the Islamic Republic of Iran has the legal rights to defend its people and its national sovereignty ‚ÄĒ including its airspace ‚ÄĒ from all forms of aggression.

The US has no legal claim of self-defense that would justify a military aggression against Iran.

The US is acting against Americans’ interests. American men and women do not have to die defending Israel’s terror and dispossession of the Palestinian people who are legally resisting Israel’s occupation of their homeland.

If Americans care about peace and humanity, they should rise up against their government’s menace to peace and humanity.

They should demand that their government abandon its ongoing aggressive wars, and instead strive to promote harmonious cooperation not hostility and peace rather than war.

The US should learn the art of peaceful coexistence in a world that is very tired of its illegal and unjustifiable wars of aggression, wanton destruction and unnecessary human suffering.

source

Israeli TV still pushing ‘Hezbollah involvement in Beirut explosion

Left-wing activists accost IDF soldiers near Gaza, call them ...

Confronting Israeli Terrorists

Israeli media still hasn’t let go of insinuating that ‘Hezbollah did it’ (i.e. is responsible, in one way or another, for blowing up half of Beirut last week). Wethinks the lady doth protesteth too much…

Hezbollah apparently planned to use the ammonium nitrate stockpile that caused a massive blast at Beirut’s port this week against Israel in a “Third Lebanon War,” according to an unsourced assessment publicized on Israel’s Channel 13 Friday night.

The report was broadcast hours after Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, gave a speech “categorically” denying that his group had stored any weapons or explosives at Beirut’s port, following the massive explosion there Tuesday that has claimed over 157 lives and wounded thousands. He said:

“I would like to absolutely, categorically rule out anything belonging to us at the port. No weapons, no missiles, or bombs or rifles or even a bullet or ammonium nitrate. No cache, no nothing. Not now, not ever.”

Israel has not formally alleged that Hezbollah was connected to the Tuesday blast. But it keeps hinting at exactly that…

Ammonium nitrate is used in the manufacture of explosives and is also an ingredient in making fertilizer. It has been blamed for massive industrial accidents in the past, and was also a main ingredient in a bomb that destroyed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Last year, reports in Israel claimed that the Mossad had tipped off European intelligence agencies about Hezbollah storing caches of ammonium nitrate for use in bombs in London, Cyprus and elsewhere.

¬†Interesting. Why would the Mossad do that, given that there’s zero history of Hezbollah being involved in Europe, while its activities in the Middle East are almost universally understood to be anti-terrorist in nature…

Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, it fights terrorism

Taking People’s Land is a Terrorist Attack

For decades, a conflict has raged on the border of Israel and Lebanon, where Israel occupies a large section of Lebanese territory.

When you fight military occupying forces, that is not terrorism

‚ÄúThe idea of resistance is not how many people you can kill. The idea is that he (Israel) is occupying your land because he thinks he can do that, so you need to let him understand that it costs him a lot to take your land. If we could do that without killing any people, that would be good. But he is killing our people. There are no limits to resistance, because it is your right to defend your land.‚ÄĚ

The Russian ambassador to Lebanon has said that Russia sees Hezbollah as not a terrorist organisation, but rather as fighting terrorism.

In an interview on OTV in Lebanon, Alexander Zasypkin said that “With regard to Hezbollah, we do not see it as a terrorist organization in any way whatsoever.

‚ÄúOn the contrary, it is an organization that fights terrorism. That’s it. There is nothing more to say about this.

Sabra and Shatila massacre | Israel-Palestine

‚ÄúTherefore, all the decisions that are made by the Americans or by the Arab League are wrong in our view, and we oppose them.‚ÄĚ

Hezbollah is a Shia Islamist political party and militant group based in Lebanon, established by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard after Israel’s war with Lebanon in 1982.

The group is designated as a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom, the United States and some Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia.

Last year the US intensified sanctions on the group, including targeting two members of the Lebanese parliament for the first time, as well as the Jammal Trust Bank, which it claimed had ties to the group. The bank, which denied the charges, was forced to close afterward.

DM Gantz has instructed the IDF to bomb Lebanese infrastructure

Add the recent Beirut nuke bombing to those israel terrorist attacks

Netanyahu said “We targeted the terrorist squad and now we also hit those who sent it,” Netanyahu said, referring to the reported airstrikes in Syria (a response to recent Israeli crimes by Resistance was imminent) on Monday night in response to the incident. “We will do what it takes to protect ourselves and I would kindly advise all those involved, including Hezbollah, to take this into account. We are not bluffing,” he continued.

State of the Nation was sent an email, August 3 2020, by a Russian investigator and Israel research historian which stated the following:

“An Israeli citizen journalist recently explained that Israel is ready to start a war with
two countries (Lebanon and Iran). 

“The Israeli military is moving soldiers, tanks, etc.¬†


” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently charged with three crimes, and he can be jailed soon if found guilty.¬†


“He wants to start a new war, and instead of going to prison he has hopes of becoming an Israeli hero messiah who would exterminate Hezbollah and other ‚Äėenemies‚Äô of Israel.”

a) this disaster completely serves current US-Israeli efforts to pressure Lebanon economically to bow down to their demands

b) the site of the explosion, Port of Beirut, was the transit through which 50-80% of Lebanon’s commodity and trade needs were met

c) the explosions struck wheat reserves stored there as well, exacerbating the dire economic situation and inflation further

d) Israeli officials a few days ago were warning the Resistance that if they struck Israeli army targets (a response to recent Israeli crimes by Resistance was imminent), Lebanon’s infrastructure will be targeted

e) one year ago exactly Israel‚Äôs ambassador to UN said at the Security Council that the Port of Beirut had become ‚ÄėHezbollah‚Äôs Port‚Äô. Lebanese ambassador said this was a direct threat to Lebanon‚Äôs civilians and security

Hezbollah Resistance Movement: We look with great interest and appreciation at the liberalization, independence and dominance rejection experiences of Latin American countries. We see vast grounds for overlap between the endeavors of these countries and the resistance movement of our region ‚Ķ our motto [is] ‚ÄėUnity of the Oppressed‚Äô.