The Emperor’s New Rules

The world is reeling in horror at the latest Israeli massacre of hundreds of men, women and children in Gaza.

Much of the world is also shocked by the role of the United States in this crisis, as it keeps providing Israel with weapons to kill Palestinian civilians, in violation of U.S. and international law, and has repeatedly blocked action by the UN Security Council to impose a ceasefire or hold Israel accountable for its war crimes.

In contrast to U.S. actions, in nearly every speech or interview, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken keeps promising to uphold and defend the “rules-based order.”

But he has never clarified whether he means the universal rules of the United Nations Charter and international law, or some other set of rules he has yet to define.

What rules could possibly legitimize the kind of destruction we just witnessed in Gaza, and who would want to live in a world ruled by them?

We have both spent many years protesting the violence and chaos the United States and its allies inflict on millions of people around the world by violating the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of military force, and we have always insisted that the U.S. government should comply with the rules-based order of international law.

But even as the United States’ illegal wars and support for allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia have reduced cities to rubble and left country after country mired in intractable violence and chaos, U.S. leaders have refused to even acknowledge that aggressive and destructive U.S. and allied military operations violate the rules-based order of the United Nations Charter and international law.

President Trump was clear that he was not interested in following any “global rules,” only supporting U.S. national interests.

His National Security Advisor John Bolton explicitly prohibited National Security Council staff attending the 2018 G20 Summit in Argentina from even uttering the words “rules-based order.”

So you might expect us to welcome Blinken’s stated commitment to the “rules-based order” as a long-overdue reversal in U.S. policy.

But when it comes to a vital principle like this, it is actions that count, and the Biden administration has yet to take any decisive action to bring U.S. foreign policy into compliance with the UN Charter or international law.

For Secretary Blinken, the concept of a “rules-based order” seems to serve mainly as a cudgel with which to attack China and Russia.

At a May 7 UN Security Council meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that instead of accepting the already existing rules of international law, the United States and its allies are trying to come up with “other rules developed in closed, non-inclusive formats, and then imposed on everyone else.”

The UN Charter and the rules of international law were developed in the 20th century precisely to codify the unwritten and endlessly contested rules of customary international law with explicit, written rules that would be binding on all nations.

The United States played a leading role in this legalist movement in international relations, from the Hague Peace Conferences at the turn of the 20th century to the signing of the United Nations Charter in San Francisco in 1945 and the revised Geneva Conventions in 1949, including the new Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians, like the countless numbers killed by American weapons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Gaza.

As President Franklin Roosevelt described the plan for the United Nations to a joint session of Congress on his return from Yalta in 1945:

“It ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed.

We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join.

I am confident that the Congress and the American people will accept the results of this conference as the beginning of a permanent structure of peace.”

But America’s post-Cold War triumphalism eroded U.S. leaders’ already half-hearted commitment to those rules.

The neocons argued that they were no longer relevant and that the United States must be ready to impose order on the world by the unilateral threat and use of military force, exactly what the UN Charter prohibits.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other Democratic leaders embraced new doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and a “responsibility to protect” to try to carve out politically persuasive exceptions to the explicit rules of the UN Charter.

America’s “endless wars,” its revived Cold War on Russia and China, its blank check for the Israeli occupation and the political obstacles to crafting a more peaceful and sustainable future are some of the fruits of these bipartisan efforts to challenge and weaken the rules-based order.

Today, far from being a leader of the international rules-based system, the United States is an outlier.

It has failed to sign or ratify about fifty important and widely accepted multilateral treaties on everything from children’s rights to arms control.

Its unilateral sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and other countries are themselves violations of international law, and the new Biden administration has shamefully failed to lift these illegal sanctions, ignoring UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ request to suspend such unilateral coercive measures during the pandemic.

So is Blinken’s “rules-based order” a recommitment to President Roosevelt’s “permanent structure of peace,” or is it in fact a renunciation of the United Nations Charter and its purpose, which is peace and security for all of humanity?

In the light of Biden’s first few months in power, it appears to be the latter.

Instead of designing a foreign policy based on the principles and rules of the UN Charter and the goal of a peaceful world, Biden’s policy seems to start from the premises of a $753 billion U.S. military budget, 800 overseas military bases, endless U.S. and allied wars and massacres, and massive weapons sales to repressive regimes.

Then it works backward to formulate a policy framework to somehow justify all that.

Once a “war on terror” that only fuels terrorism, violence and chaos was no longer politically viable, hawkish U.S. leaders—both Republicans and Democrats—seem to have concluded that a return to the Cold War was the only plausible way to perpetuate America’s militarist foreign policy and multi-trillion-dollar war machine.

But that raised a new set of contradictions.

For 40 years, the Cold War was justified by the ideological struggle between the capitalist and communist economic systems.

But the U.S.S.R. disintegrated and Russia is now a capitalist country. China is still governed by its Communist Party, but has a managed, mixed economy similar to that of Western Europe in the years after the Second World War – an efficient and dynamic economic system that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in both cases.

So how can these U.S. leaders justify their renewed Cold War? They have floated the notion of a struggle between “democracy and authoritarianism.”

But the United States supports too many horrific dictatorships around the world, especially in the Middle East, to make that a convincing pretext for a Cold War against Russia and China.

A U.S. “global war on authoritarianism” would require confronting repressive U.S. allies like Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, not arming them to the teeth and shielding them from international accountability as the United States is doing.

So, just as American and British leaders settled on non-existent “WMD”s as the pretext they could all agree on to justify their war on Iraq, the U.S. and its allies have settled on defending a vague, undefined “rules-based order” as the justification for their revived Cold War on Russia and China.

But like the emperor’s new clothes in the fable and the WMDs in Iraq, the United States’ new rules don’t really exist.

They are just its latest smokescreen for a foreign policy based on illegal threats and uses of force and a doctrine of “might makes right.”

We challenge President Biden and Secretary Blinken to prove us wrong by actually joining the rules-based order of the UN Charter and international law.

That would require a genuine commitment to a very different and more peaceful future, with appropriate contrition and accountability for the United States’ and its allies’ systematic violations of the UN Charter and international law, and the countless violent deaths, ruined societies and widespread chaos they have caused.

The New Apartheid Is Uglier Than The First

No more of the two-country peace process sham that has been ongoing for over 70 years. It’s time to end this disgrace.

By Biblicism Institute

“I have been to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of Apartheid.” – Desmond Tutu, Archbishop of Cape Town.

Israel is an apartheid country that is revved up by the anti-Christ spirit of “Hate Thy Neighbor.”

“Israel is not a democracy but an ‘apartheid regime’ that enforces Jewish supremacy over all the land it controls,” writes The Guardian.

It has repudiated the Prince of Peace’s message of neighborly love and peace, and has embraced the genocidal spirit of conquest, terror, and subjugation, which has injected into the Middle East a cesspool of conflict and hate that has begun to metastasize worldwide.

Palestinian David facing the Israeli Goliath

However, if one truly believes the Jewish-dominated media, their fake news, and their constant barrage of “Holocaust” movies, one genuinely thinks that there’s only one group of people that everyone on earth hates: Jews. That’s how effective the brainwashing has been.

But when one wakes up from the media’s induced stupor, one realizes that Jews are themselves the victimizers who camouflage themselves as victims.

APARTHEID JEWISH STYLE

“Israel is guilty of apartheid and persecution of the Palestinian people, both inside Israel and also in the Occupied Territories.” – Alice Walker, American novelist, poet, and activist.

Israeli monster and Palestinian fortitude

The new Apartheid (i.e., Segregation, Separation) by Jewish zealots in Israel is not only uglier than the first, it’s also disgustingly more barbaric.

It is taking place because Israeli Jewish leaders refuse co-existence with the Palestinians. The whole conflict is about their thirst for land. They want the whole enchilada. The whole of Palestine.

They want it without Arabs, when Palestine was 95% Arabs before non-Hebraic European Jews flooded in, stole it, kept the Arabs segregated, and renamed it Israel in 1948. Ironically, the whole country today, including the occupied territories, is 60% Christian and Muslim Arabs and 40% Jews of different origins.

Still, the Jewish goal is to turn the whole of Palestine into Greater Israel, a pipe dream that will never become reality. It’s an obsession the Ashkenazi leaders of Israel have successfully inculcated in their coreligionists. (To comprehend the Ashkenazim’s obsession with land, you must understand their origin and history by clicking here.)

That obsession has turned the majority of Israelis toward a malignant racism, which has morphed into an Apartheid system worse than the one that took shape in Apartheid South Africa.

Here’s how Miko Peled, son of an Israeli General, described the situation: “Those who cling to fear, mistrust or greed are under the false assumption that Palestinians and Israelis have a choice other than to live as equals. But it’s inevitable – the wall must come down, and the two people must be allowed to live as equal citizens in their shared homeland. Refusing this means condemning future generations of Israelis and Palestinians to ongoing mayhem and violence.”

Life in Israel and the occupied territories is extremely dire for Christian and Muslim Arabs. The whole country is openly talking about their genocide. They mistreat them, kill them, and bomb them at will in the hope they will leave the land in disgust. If you’re having difficulty grasping such hatred maybe this quote can help:

That's Apartheid“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”Menahem Begin, 6th Prime Minister of Israel’s speech to the Knesset (24 June 1982) [quoted in “Begin and the Beasts” Amnon Kapeliouk, in The New Statesman (25 June 1982)]

AMERICA SUPPORTS APARTHEID

“The U.S. is the last country that should see itself as an ally of the apartheid system.” –  Oliver Tambo, President of the African National Congress from 1967 to 1991.

Unfortunately, America, the supposed bastion of freedom and liberty, has become the de facto patron of that genocidal Apartheid state to the tunes of billions of dollars a year. Money that is plundered out of America’s coffers in order for Israel to wage war and oppress another people, while millions of Americans go hungry, jobless, and homeless.

“Evil men do not understand justice…” Proverbs 28:5

Even non-profit American Jewish and “Christian” organizations help in the fund raising efforts for Zionist “settlers”. In so doing, they’re actually helping these land thieves steal another people’s land, while empowering them to kill the original inhabitants in the process.

 Graphic2 Graphic
Strange! Where's the pro-life crowd?

These Apartheid enablers also lobby the US government to provide the criminal state of Israel with diplomatic cover in the international community, even when Israel is indiscriminately bombing innocent men, women, and children.

And when America flinches in its support, no matter how insignificant the wavering, they scream and yell and… scream and yell. So America relents, becomes an accomplice to mass murder, and sends them even more money.

As Pat Buchanan once quipped, “Congress is Israeli-occupied territory.” A nice euphemism for saying that Israel has taken over the American government, or that America has become a subservient country, an occupied nation, an Empire on a leash.

Berlin Wall - Palestine Wall

The Israeli Apartheid Wall disguised as a security wall

One would think that because of the many similarities Jews have with Muslims, such as circumcision and the like, that these Zionist Jews would concede to living in harmony. But they don’t want to.

“Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the state,” admitted Israeli Minister thief Tzipi Livni.

The reason for such barefaced thievery is because it’s not about faith. It’s not about God and the Bible or God and His promises and commandments.

It’s about land. Pure and simple. Otherwise they would put this into practice: “If a stranger lives as a foreigner with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.

The stranger who lives as a foreigner with you shall be to you as the native-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself… I am Yahweh your God.” Leviticus 19:33-34

Checkpoint for Arab

One of hundreds of checkpoints for Palestinians, but Israelis are free to roam

 

MODERN-DAY ISRAEL IS NOT THE ISRAEL OF THE BIBLE

“It is certain that there is no ethnic or racial continuum between the Biblical Israelites and the (Ashkenazic) Khazarians who lead the Jewish state.” – Gilad Atzmon, Jewish writer and musician.

Modern-day Zionist Israel is NOT the Israel of the Bible, because it is comprised of converted Jews and not of Hebrews with whom God had the Old Covenant.

It was founded in 1948 on stolen Palestinian land by Ashkenazi Zionists, who had lost their homeland Khazaria and were in search of a new country.

Chris HedgesThese land thieves forged that apartheid country by means of terrorist groups, such as the Irgun, the Stern gang, and Haganah.

They terrorized the Palestinian population, killed thousands upon thousands, and forced hundreds of thousands out of their homes and into neighboring Arab countries. Said dispossession is known as the Nakba.

“The Nakba, or ‘catastrophe’ in Arabic, need not refer only to the more than 700,000 Palestinians who were expelled or fled in terror during Israel’s founding.

It can also evoke the many expulsions that have occurred since: the about 300,000 Palestinians whom Israel displaced when it conquered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967; the roughly 250,000 Palestinians who could not return to the West Bank and Gaza after Israel revoked their residency rights between 1967 and 1994; the hundreds of Palestinians whose homes Israel demolished in 2020 alone,” wrote Peter Beinart in the New York Times.

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Exodus 20:17

In fact, those who today are known as Jews are the non-Semitic and non-Israelite Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Samaritans, who in later times joined small numbers of other races that converted to Judaism/Pharisaism: Polish, Russians, Ukrainians, Germans, etc. These latter ones form a minority known as European Jews who, when coupled with the Ashkenazim, constitute a majority against the darker-skinned Samaritan, Sephardic, and African Jews. See what became of the Hebrews.

All the above groups are converts to Judaism, and none can claim to trace their ancestry to Abraham, Jacob, or Judah. 

In other words, they’re not the chosen Hebrews of the Bible with whom God had the Old Covenant, and therefore cannot claim Palestine as their Abrahamic inheritance.

And resurrecting the dead Hebrew tongue after centuries in the dustbin of oblivion, in order to make it modern Israel’s official language, won’t change those facts, much like parking a Subaru in a Lamborghini dealership won’t turn it into a Veneno Roadster.

Jews Stole the name Israel

Besides, when was the last time you heard of a prophet whom God sent to anoint a King over modern Israel, as He used to do in the old days? What of the animal sacrifices? What of the lamb to be killed and eaten during Passover, like Jesus did when He established the new covenant with his disciples, a lamb that was killed and eaten in a private home? The sacrifice of the Passover Lamb in the Hebrew home was God’s very covenant with each individual ancient Hebrew, and that’s why Jesus repeated it with his disciples in order to introduce the new covenant.

Do Jews today kill a lamb for Passover in their own homes to keep the old covenant alive? Is modern Israel comprised of only Judea and Samaria as it was in the Old Testament, and divided into seven lots as God directed Joshua, with each tribe settling on its own parcel? Are the bloodline descendants of the Levites still around to restock a future Temple, because no other Hebrew tribe can?

The answer to all of these questions is resoundingly negative. And ironically, Judea and Samaria of the Bible (i.e., the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel) are today mostly inside the West Bank of Palestine (aptly named Judea and Samaria even by thieving Zionists, map on your right) and not inside Modern-Day Israel.

Palestine New Testament Times West Bank

In other words, Zionist Jews, who claim that Palestine belongs to them, are simply barefaced impostors and liars pretending to be Hebrews in order to steal the land. They can’t possibly contend that Palestine, which they have stolen under biblical pretense, is their Abrahamic inheritance.

“The LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight… And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight.” 2 Kings 17:18,20

CONCLUSION

DeNiro“Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the Lord swore unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.” Deuteronomy 1:8

Those who today are known as Jews are not of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and therefore have no right to the land of Palestine. See How the Ashkenazi Jews conquered the West

But, for the sake of peace and the end of Apartheid, a just and equitable one-country solution needs to be worked out. One where Palestinians – including the refugees who were kicked out of their homes by Zionist terrorists – can have equal rights in the same land.

One that would lead to One Country, One Person, One Vote.

No more Apartheid.

No more of the two-country peace process sham that has been ongoing for over 50 years. It’s time to end this disgrace.

“In you they have treated father and mother with contempt; in you they have oppressed the foreigner and mistreated the fatherless and the widow.” Ezekiel 22:7

Ex-Israeli pilot: ‘Our army is a terrorist organization run by war criminals’

military train | Tumblr

A former Israeli Air Force pilot, Yonatan Shapira, has described the Israeli government and army as “terrorist organisations” run by “war criminals.”

Captain Shapira who had resigned from the Israeli army in 2003 at the height of the Palestinian Second Intifada explained in an exclusive interview with Anadolu News Agency why he realized after joining the army that he was “part of a terrorist organisation”.

I realised during the Second Intifada what the Israeli Air Force and Israeli military are doing are war crimes, terrorising a population of millions of Palestinians. When I realised that, I decided to not just leave but to organise other pilots that will publicly refuse to take part in these crimes,

he said.

“As a child in Israel, you are being brought up in very strong Zionist militaristic education. You don’t know almost anything about Palestine, you don’t know about the 1948 Nakba, you don’t know about ongoing oppression,” Shapira said.

Ever since leaving the Israeli army, Shapira has launched a campaign that encouraged other military members to disobey orders to attack Palestinians.

The campaign has led 27 other army pilots to be discharged from their posts in the Israeli Air Force since 2003.

In the last week, Israeli warplanes have waged hundreds of airstrikes against the Palestinian civilians in the besieged Gaza Strip, killing at least 188 Palestinians including 55 children and 33 women and wounding 1,230 people.

Another attack on Gaza: Israel squeezing the life of Gaza - Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

Another attack on Gaza: Israel squeezing the life of Gaza – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

Israel fakes another video of “Hamas rockets” next to Gaza homes

Screenshot of tweet

The Israeli military tweeted a video containing footage it falsely claimed showed Hamas rockets near civilian homes in Gaza.

The tweet was later deleted.

Israel always claims to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties when it is bombing Gaza, as it has been doing with savage intensity for more than a week.
Yet day after day, Israel has slaughtered men, women and children in their homes, regularly wiping out whole families.The 200 people killed in Gaza since the Israeli attack began more than a week ago include 59 children and 35 women.So the dilemma for Israel is how to square this horrific reality with its propaganda about protecting civilians.

The solution is to lie and blame the victims.

Israel’s habitual claim is that Hamas and other Palestinian resistance organizations use Palestinian civilians as “human shields,” by routinely firing rockets from residential areas, or even the rooftops of homes.

Israel got caught lying again after it posted a video on Twitter on Saturday titled “Hamas’ Use of Human Shields, Explained.”

The tweet also says: “Israel fights to protect its civilians. Hamas uses civilians to protect itself.”

Old video, fake rockets

But as Raphael Satter, a Reuters journalist observed, the video included “footage of a 2018 Israeli training exercise presented as if it had been shot recently in Gaza.”

The footage appears to show a truck carrying missiles near homes through a narrow residential street. 

But as Aric Toler, a researcher with Western-government funded think tank Bellingcat observed, the truck with the missiles appears to have been a decoy being used as part of an Israeli training exercise.

And it was not filmed in Gaza.

The image is taken from a video filmed more than two years ago in the village of Abu Snan in the Galilee – about as far as you can get from Gaza within Israel.

Cropped footage of the trucks from the 2018 video was used in the now-deleted Israeli army video posted on Saturday. 

The Electronic Intifada was able to view the video in an archived copy in the WayBack Machine.

The 2018 video was posted on an Israeli Facebook page on 25 November 2018.

A caption in Hebrew says, “Trucks with ‘missiles’ took a wrong turn and entered the village of Abu Snan in the north.”

A voice on the video, that of the Arabic-speaking child who apparently filmed it, calls out, “Look guys, the rockets are here.” He sounds excited by the unusual scene.

The visibility of yellow Israeli license plates on parked cars is another clear giveaway that the video was not shot in Gaza.

Israel’s Mako news website reported on 24 November 2018 how Israeli motorists had been surprised to see a truck apparently carrying missiles on a highway near the central Israeli town of Kiryat Gat, heading towards the north.

The report includes a video apparently filmed by an Israeli motorist showing the same sort of decoy truck visible in the Facebook video.

With its lie busted, the Israeli army deleted its tweet, though an archived copy remains online.

Although the video may not play in the archived version for some readers, it had apparently garnered 146,000 views before the Israeli army deleted it.

 

Lies and fabrications

This latest fabrication is not Israel’s first during its current attack on Gaza.

Last week, Ofir Gendelman, a spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, posted a video on Twitter claiming to show Hamas firing rockets from next to an apartment building in Gaza.

But Gendelman deleted the tweet after Twitter labeled it “manipulated media.” It had in fact been a video filmed in Syria and first posted on YouTube in 2018.

Also last week on CGTN television, I debunked the lie told by a member of Israel’s far-right Yamina party that Hamas was firing rockets from the roofs of residential buildings:

In Just 10 Days, Israel Kills 220 Palestinians, Injures 6039

The Nazis had a policy of killing 10 locals for every soldier killed by local people in occupied lands.
Israel’s kill ratio of Palestinians to Jews is many times more than the Nazis ever did.

WARNING turn your computer volume down before watching. It’s horribly loud!

The Palestinian Health Ministry announced on Monday that the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli attacks targeting Gaza and the West Bank in the past 10 days has reached 220 dead and 6039 Injured.

In the Gaza Strip, Israeli air, sea, and ground bombardment has left 198 dead, including 58 children, 35 women and has left at least 1300 injured.

Meanwhile in the West Bank, Israeli forces killed 21 Palestinians, including one child, and injured 3728 people. Among those injured were 220 children and 22 women, the Health Ministry added.

In Jerusalem, Israeli troops killed one Palestinian man, and injured 1011. 487 were moved to medical centers for treatment, 60 of them in critical conditions and 204 moderate.

The ministry report showed that in the West Bank, 441 people were injured by live gunfire, 172 by rubber-coated steel bullets, and 93 suffered effects of tear gas inhalation.

More Details provided in The Palestinian Health Ministry report:

Ramallah: 113 were injured 14 of them are in serious condition, 41 in moderate condition, and 52 in minor conditions
Hebron: 199 were injured, including 19 in a serious condition, 124 in a moderate condition, and 55 in a minor condition.
Bethlehem: 25 were injured, including two serious injuries, 13 in a moderate condition, and 10 lightly
Nablus: 135 injuries, including 20 in a serious condition, 57 in a moderate condition, and 58 in a minor condition.
Jenin: 70 injuries, including 6 in a serious condition, 13 in a moderate condition, and 51 in a minor condition
Tulkarm: 75 injuries, including 6 serious, 22 moderate and 47 minor
Salfit: 20 injuries, including 4 in a serious condition, 10 in a moderate condition, and 6 in a minor one
Tubas: 12 injuries, including 2 serious, 4 moderate and 6 minor injuries
Qalqilya: 59 injuries, including 3 in serious condition, 7 in moderate condition, and 41 minor in light
Jericho: 22 injuries, including 2 serious, 5 moderate and 15 minor injuries

Rockets are not the issue – Israel is.

The Palestinian case at the ICC is legal, not political, Ashkenazi Jews are not even a Semitic people – it is the Arabs and minority, Sephardic Jewish people who are the Semites. Not that it should matter what they are, the human body is just a container for the infinite consciousness to which we all belong, but such labels are used by these people to suppress debate and so we need to counteract the propaganda.

United Nations resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982, “reaffirms 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.”

If Biden wanted to pit himself as an alternative to the Trump administration’s policies, he would have called out the current attempts at displacing the Palestinian families of Sheikh Jarrah as part of Israel’s de facto annexation of Palestinian territory. Instead, Biden gave the green light for Israel to terrorize Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Rockets are not the issue – Israel is.

Unless Israel’s colonial violence is addressed and permanently stopped, Palestinians need the minimum of diplomatic support – that they have the right to defend themselves against decades of forced displacement.

Pro-Israel propaganda is not only extraordinarily well funded and organized, but also meticulously scientific. For instance, Israeli researchers discovered that replacing nouns with verbs reduced levels of anger or tension in those they were speaking to – whether it’s the Palestinian people living under the heel of its brutal occupation, or the broader international community.

They discovered that employing nouns instead of verbs had a “calming effect,” which, in turn, improved levels of support for Israel’s often draconian and controversial policies.

For example, the statement, “I am in favor of the removal of settlers” (noun) invoked far less anger from Jewish Israelis who were exposed to the use of the verb, “I am in favor of removing settlers.”

“The one is more like a statement of an abstract belief,” observes The Economist. “The other is more like a prescription of a course of action and is thus, the researchers hypothesized, more likely to arouse emotions.”

As the international community, albeit with the notable exception of the United States, condemned Israel’s savage, indiscriminate, and illegitimate use of deadly force against Palestinian protesters in Gaza, which culminated in the deaths of more than 120 and the injuries of thousands more since the Great Return March protests began, Israel has turned the hasbara machine onto overdrive.

Turn on any US cable news network, and you’ll see one pro-Israeli pundit or representative blame Palestinians for their own deaths, or Hamas, or a combination of both.

“Israel has a right to defend itself” is the well trodden out trope, which is typically followed with the question, “What would you do if Hamas were firing rockets into your neighborhood?”

All of which is taking place in the media while US ambassador Nikki Haley praises Israel at the United Nations for “showing restraint.”

Yes, you read that right. While nearly every single member nation at the UN calls for an enquiry into Israel’s massacre of unarmed Palestinian protesters—many of whom were in the back and hundreds of meters from the perimeter fence—the United States government is lauding praise on unthreatened Israeli snipers.

The battle for legitimacy

When Israel says it has a “right to defend itself,” the correct response is to ask from what or whom? 

Not a single Israeli citizen or soldier has been harmed or killed by Palestinians since the protests began.

In short, Israel is shooting and killing human beings who pose absolutely zero threat to either the state of Israel or its citizens.

Moreover, never once have you ever heard an American journalist ask an Israeli war crimes apologist, “Well, don’t Palestinians have a right do defend themselves, too?”

It’s such a self-evidently obvious and simple question, but no one dare asks it. I mean, why not? 

When Palestinians support non-violent forms of resistance, such as the boycott Israel movement, they’re smeared by Israel as “anti-Semites.”

When they protest against their injustices angrily, they’re smeared as violent Arabs, and when they resort to violence, out of sheer desperation, they’re labeled “radical Islamic terrorists.”

So, I’ll ask again. Do Palestinians have a right to defend themselves?

The answer to that question is a resounding yes.

In fact, international law is unambiguous in its endorsement of “armed struggle” for peoples who seek self-determination under “colonial and foreign domination.”

United Nations resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982, “reaffirms 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.”

Moreover, the resolution’s preamble makes clear that it refers not to a hypothetical in the abstract, but rather specifically to the rights of Palestinians, stating, “Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security.”

Lynda Burstein Brayer is an Israeli-trained human rights lawyer, and she affirms the legal and moral right Palestinians have to armed struggle against Israel’s occupation, noting, “This document [UN resolution 37/43] legitimises all national liberation struggles, including, at this time in history, most particularly, the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom.

It is this right which legitimises all Palestinian attempts to lift the yoke of Israeli oppression from Palestine, including all the actions taken by the Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead [Israel’s 2008/09 siege of Gaza].”

Now we have completely flipped pro-Israel propaganda on its head. 

Under international law, Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal, and Palestinians have a right to “armed struggle” against their illegal occupier – Israel – thus ipso facto Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against Israel, but Israel’s right to defend itself against Palestinian resistance is not guaranteed in the same manner.

This reality should be chanted far and loud for it undercuts every Israeli attempt to couch its violence against the Palestinian people in claims of self-defense.

What solidarity looks like

In particular, the “anti-war” left, who’ve long led the charge for Palestinian liberation in Western media have a responsibility to now defend all forms of Palestinian resistance, including violence. 

To support only non-violent forms of Palestinian resistance is to be not only a weak ally of Palestinian aspirations, but also an unwitting party to Israel’s efforts to obscure the reality of international law.

“For those who have never felt the constant yoke of oppression, or seen it up close, it is a vision beyond comprehension,” observes Stanley Cohen, a Jewish American lawyer. “Occupation sits heavy on the occupied, every day in every way, limiting who you are and what you may dare to become.”

For 70 years, Palestinians have been resisting the brutal realities of Israel’s colonial project and what has become the world’s longest military occupation in modern times.

Seemingly, it matters not whether Palestinians choose violent or peaceful resistance.

They’re sniped and gunned down while protesting; they’re bombed and strafed periodically; and they’re denied basic human rights, including freedom of movement and freedom from want or fear.

“When we take the diplomatic road, our people are dragged in a debate over our humanity,” tweeted Mariam Barghouti, a Palestinian journalist.

“When we resist with arms, we are terrorists and killed, when we resist through non-violence, like BDS, we are targeted and vilified, when we protest with our tongues or slaps, we are put in prison.”

International law, however, sides with the struggle for Palestinian liberation, and is vehemently opposed to Israel’s transgressions, and thus the international community must stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people, because in conflict between occupier and the occupied, only the occupied have a lawful and moral right to defend themselves.

Global Zionist Troll Uprising


“It is harder for them to say Human Rights Watch is anti-Semitic, but they’re trying it anyway.”

MintPress News, May 7 2021

NEW YORK — A recently released bombshell Human Rights Watch (HRW) report has made waves around the world.

For the first time, the New York-based non-governmental organization has categorized Israel as an apartheid state guilty of “crimes against humanity.”

The 213-page study goes into detail about a range of racist laws and policies carried out by successive administrations, concluding that there is an “overarching Israeli government policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians and grave abuses committed against Palestinians living in the occupied territory, including East Jerusalem.”

The report accuses the state of Israel of widespread “institutional discrimination” and of “denying millions of Palestinians their fundamental rights … solely because they are Palestinian and not Jewish.”

It further notes that, across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, it has “sought to maximize the land available for Jewish communities and to concentrate most Palestinians in dense population centers.”

The organization’s executive director, Kenneth Roth said:

Prominent voices have warned for years that apartheid lurks just around the corner if the trajectory of Israel’s rule over Palestinians does not change.

This detailed study shows that Israeli authorities have already turned that corner and today are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.

Perhaps most importantly, HRW is now openly calling for global action to end the repression.

The report asks the ICC to investigate and prosecute those involved in Palestinian persecution. While not explicitly endorsing the BDS movement, HRW directly advocates:

States should impose individual sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against officials and individuals responsible for the continued commission of these serious crimes. Businesses should cease business activities that directly contribute to the crimes of apartheid and persecution.

The report was widely covered across the world and has been heralded by Palestine solidarity activists, with experts seeing it as a potential turning point in the struggle for Palestinian sovereignty. Asa Winstanley of Electronic Intifada told MintPress:

It was inevitable that Human Rights Watch would have to declare Israel an Apartheid state and, from what I hear, Amnesty International is going to be next to say it.

It puts Israel’s backers in a difficult spot, because Human Rights Watch is really part of the establishment, so they cannot just dismiss it and it makes it impossible to ignore … It is harder for them to say Human Rights Watch is anti-Semitic, but they’re trying it anyway.

Trying indeed. Michigan Congresswoman Lisa McClain tweeted that “Human Rights Watch has shown again how they have an anti-Israel agenda,” suggesting they instead focus their attention on China or Iran’s repressive governments.

Below video, have to watch it on youtube bottom left corner

“Hostility and hypocrisy are HRW’s hallmarks when it comes to Israel,” wrote the AJC.

The JPost’s editorial board was equally condemnatory, denouncing what they saw as the “cynical appropriation of the suffering of the victims of the actual apartheid regime.”

Other Israeli journalists described the report as “a disgrace to the memory of the millions who suffered under that policy in South Africa.”

The news even made enough waves to force a response from the White House. Press Secretary Jen Psaki replied:

As to the question of whether Israel’s actions constitute apartheid, that is not the view of this administration.

Yet much of the online anger at the report was actually manufactured by an Israeli government-sponsored app, Act.IL, which organized supporters of the Jewish state to act in sync to create an artificial groundswell of opposition to it.

The app, which reportedly has a budget of over $1m/yr, instructed users to leave combative comments on Facebook, Twitter, and popular news outlets, and to like and promote others who did the same.

Human Rights Watch’s Facebook post announcing the report’s release has received over 1.4k comments, hundreds of them written in a similar, scathingly negative tone.

One that the app directly told users to signal boost, for instance, described Palestinians as a people “indoctrinated with hate for Israel and Jews for over 100 years,” and claimed they were paid salaries to murder Israelis.

It also presented the 1967 war and occupation as a humanitarian effort to bring electricity and other infrastructure to Arabs.

 

Another “mission” Act.IL gave its users was to promote a Facebook comment attacking the report as “nothing more than hate speech” and calling its lead author a “rabid anti-Zionist and Israel hater.”

One of the many images provided to Act.IL users for their astroturfing campaign against HRW

Act.IL is one of the chief tools in Israel’s online public relations enterprise. The app debuted in 2017 and is part of what Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Gilad Erdan called an “Iron Dome of Truth.” Noting that public opinion in the US was beginning to turn against them, he explained:

Our cell phones are the number one weapon against us.

While most of the app’s nearly 20k users are volunteers, a core of them are paid operatives, with many students receiving scholarships as a reward for their work.

The app has been designed to feel like a game, with points assigned for completing “missions” such as sharing pro-Israel videos, reporting anti-Israel content, signing petitions, or attending online seminars.

Users can track their progress on leaderboards, earn badges and prizes, and chat with other members of the community.

While it might feel like Animal Crossing or World of Warcraft for some, its creators see this very much as a new front in the war against Palestine.

Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked categorizes BDS as “another branch of terrorism in the modern age,” and has been an important voice in taking the fight to a new front.

An Act.IL mission encouraging astroturfing of online discussions. Source @AntiBDSApp

There is also an online toolkit full of folders of responses to typical questions and issues that arise.

Users can, for instance, go to the BDS folder to find stock replies to their arguments.

Or they can go to a specific folder to find articles, images and videos they can use to demonize Hamas.

The missions are organized by outlet, so that for instance users can target solely Facebook, Telegram or other platforms they are most familiar with.

At the time of writing, there are 10 missions each to complete on Facebook and YouTube, 30 on Instagram, 25 on Twitter.

One current challenge is to upvote an answer to a question on Quora that asks about the validity and purpose of checkpoints in the West Bank.

The answer claims they are purely about protection from terror attacks, and claims that Red Crescent ambulances are used to ferry bombs around the area.

Other missions include pressuring an online store to remove a bag with a message stating “Make Israel Palestine Again.”

An Act.IL “mission” encouraging users to demand the removal of products with pro-Palestinian messaging

Winstanley said:

It is quite astounding how openly they do it. But, of course, when you see a comment online, you wouldn’t necessarily think that it was coming from the Israeli government, but this is essentially what is happening. Israel is not the only state to do this, but they do it fairly successfully.

For all this, however, it is clear that Act.IL has a serious problem with user retention and lacks the volunteer numbers for it to be truly game-changing.

In a time of heightened awareness about foreign government interference online, it is particularly surprising that these operations can be openly carried out across virtually every major platform.

Big tech companies like Twitter, YouTube and Facebook are constantly deleting tens of thousands of Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Cuban accounts belonging to what they claim are organized, state-sponsored disinformation campaigns.

In an effort to gauge the legality of its operations, MintPress reached out to Facebook, YouTube, Quora, and other big platforms used by Act.IL.

We received no response from any of them.

While this is particularly noteworthy, as these companies have teams of public relations representatives and are extremely forthright and timely with responses on other issues, it is perhaps not surprising.

Facebook especially has long been working closely with the Israeli government in deciding which voices to censor.

As far back as 2016, Ayelet Shaked boasted that Facebook removed 95% of the posts her office asked them to.

Yet when Shaked herself called for a genocidal war against Palestine and its women, who give birth to “little snakes,” not only did the post remain online, it received thousands of likes and was widely circulated.

Nadim Nashif, co-founder of 7amleh, the Arab Centre for the Advancement of Social Media, said:

The concern is that Facebook is adopting Israeli policy and terminology when it comes to defining what incitement is.

7amleh was therefore dismayed when last year, Facebook appointed former Israeli Minister of Justice Emi Palmor to its Oversight Board, the council having the final say in the moderation of content on the platform used by 2.6b people worldwide.

In her role as justice minister, Palmor was directly implicated in the persecution and subjugation of Palestinians.

Earlier this year, an IOF soldier attempted to sue a Palestinian-American activist living in California over an allegedly slanderous Facebook post condemning her for participating in ethnic cleansing.

Remarkably, the plaintiff attempted to convince a California judge to apply Israeli law to the incident, despite the fact that both she and the defendant are American citizens.

Inside the world of academia, professors critical of Israel have found themselves pushed out of the profession.

In 2007, prominent critic of Israel Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul University for political reasons.

Seven years later, the University of Illinois “unhired” Steven Sailata for his comments denouncing Operation Protective Edge, the 2014 Israeli attack on Gaza.

Emails showed that wealthy donors put significant pressure on the university to pull the plug on him.

More recently, Cornel West was blocked from a tenured job at Harvard this year, despite having previously held tenure at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

West told Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinski:

Being the faculty advisor for the Palestinian student group was the one that probably went outside of the line for many Harvard staff.

It’s a joke. It’s ridiculous. It’s ludicrous. It’s preposterous that it wouldn’t have something to do with politics.

Top media figures have also paid the price for their support of BDS. CNN fired commentator Marc Lamont Hill after he made a speech at the UN calling for a free Palestine.

Abby Martin was blocked from speaking at a conference at Georgia Southern University last year after she refused to sign a contract promising to renounce BDS.

Georgia is one of dozens of US states to have anti-BDS legislation, essentially forcing any would-be recipient of public contracts or funds, including government employees, to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel.

Martin is currently suing the state of Georgia.

Perhaps the greatest PR victory for the Israel lobby in recent years was its defamation campaign against British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The lifelong pacifist and anti-racist campaigner was transformed into a raging anti-Semite in the minds of many, thanks to a massive propaganda onslaught.

In the three months before the 2019 election, there were 1,450 articles in national British newspapers linking Corbyn with anti-Semitism, chiefly because of his support for Palestinian liberation.

Much of this was orchestrated by Israel and its lobby, which worked closely with journalists and politicians keen to see the socialist politician’s demise.

The media blitz succeeded. When media researchers asked the public what percentage of Labour members faced official complaints over anti-Semitism, the average guess was 34%.

The actual answer was less than 0.1%, and more than half of those complaints were made by one person.

Corbyn lost the election and the UK chose Boris Johnson. Winstanley, whose documentary “How they brought down Corbyn” premiered last week, told MintPress:

The most effective propaganda strategy against him was the fabrication that he was an anti-Semite on the basis of his past criticisms of Israel and his Palestinian solidarity.

In my view, the maliciously fabricated anti-Semitism crisis against the Labour Party was the main factor in his demise as Labour Party leader.

Without this factor, he would have made it to Number 10 Downing Street and become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

While HRW’s report is new, the charge of apartheid is not. In 2017, a UN report “clearly and frankly concludes” that Israel is “a racist state that has established an apartheid system that persecutes the Palestinian people.”

Earlier this year, Israeli human rights organization B’TSelem also used the word “apartheid,” claiming that Israel had established “a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”

In the wake of WW2 and the Holocaust, Israel was created by the UN in 1947, cutting a section of territory from the British mandate of Palestine to form a new state.

While it was immediately recognized by the international powers, Arabs who lived in the region were dead against it, leading to a war in 1948.

David Ben Gurion and the founding fathers of Israel immediately began a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the local population, razing their villages and forcing them to flee.

Today there are more than 5m Palestinians registered as refugees.

While many defenders of Israel today balk at the comparison to apartheid South Africa, the two countries were close friends for much of the late 20th century, seeing themselves as similar settler colonial projects surrounded by hostile nations.

Furthermore, leaders of the African liberation movement saw themselves as part of the same struggle as those in Palestine. Nelson Mandela said in 1997:

We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu said in a statement endorsing BDS:

I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces.

Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government.

The HRW report is the latest reference point showing Western public sympathies swaying towards Palestine.

During the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination race, a number of top-tier candidates very publicly shunned AIPAC, refusing to attend tits annual conference.

Last week, the Pilsbury family called for a global boycott of the food company that bears its name. Denouncing the building of a factory on illegal settlement land, they stated:

As long as General Mills [which owns the Pilsbury brand] continues to profit from the dispossession and suffering of the Palestinian people, we will not buy any Pillsbury products.

Advocates for Palestine hailed HRW’s study. Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies wrote:

There can be little doubt that much of HRW’s decision to issue this report now was based on the recognition that not only is it no longer political suicide to call Israeli apartheid what it is, but that we are now at a tipping point whereby failing to call out apartheid risks losing credibility for a human rights organization.

It’s a huge victory for our movement.

The battle, however, is far from won, and it is clear that the Israel lobby will continue to fight to hold back the tide until it is insurmountable.

The history of the Shin Bet’s use of torture, and what it says about Israel today

Israel outlawed torture more than two decades ago, yet years later evidence of the state’s security services exerting rampant physical and psychological abuse continue to surface.

Human rights groups representing Palestinians who have filed more than one thousand suits alleging torture by the Shin Bet, also known as the Shabak or General Security Service, claim the practice is still endemic and continues in a system with little oversight.

How can torture be both banned and common practice? The answer lies in the organization’s longitudinal development, where secrecy has prevailed.

It is governed by policies that are classified and have never been examined by an independent or external body, shielding it from media and public scrutiny.

On 8 February 1949, the Shin Bet was officially formed but it was not until 1957 that the general public became aware of its creation.

Its inception fell upon a period where many “threats” were looming overhead for the newly formed state, in the wake of the 1948 war against five neighboring Arab countries and the Palestinian Nakba, the start of the Palestinian refugee crisis where 700,000 vacated their homeland and were either forcibly driven out or left due to fear.

Another 156,000 Palestinians remained within Israel – the new government took this as a potential threat.

Initially, the Shin Bet constricted its focus towards half a million Palestinians who had become Israeli citizens in the aftermath of the 1948 war.

Today, its mandate covers ensuring state security, dismantling terrorist groups, and counter-espionage.

In this turbulent context, the existence, operations, and tactics of the Shin Bet were kept in the shadows.

The organization became the embodiment of its motto – “The defender that shall not be seen.”

The early years


In 1948, Ezra Danin – head of the Haganah’s “Arab Section” – was in charge of “destroying Arab villages.” The Hagana, a Zionist paramilitary force, was the forerunner to the Shin Bet as the former’s forces were drawn from to create the latter after Israeli independence.

In his quest to maintain state control, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, sustained the British Mandate appointed The (Emergency) Defense Regulations, 1945.

These regulations gave Israel, like the British before them, an inordinate degree of powers relating to detention, intelligence, and other law-related matters.

In essence, a military government system was present in Israel following independence.

This added with the fact that Israel has been in a perpetual state of emergency since independence has legitimized many insidious actions against the Palestinian minority that includes a range of surveillance-based methods adopted by the Shin Bet and police.

The objective was to constrain the Palestinian refugees from re-entering Israel.

To achieve this, the Shin Bet, the army, and other agencies used intelligence received from their collaborators which allowed security agencies to drive the refugees back to their camps.

In the 1950s, the government of Mapai (The Workers Party) used the Shin Bet to coerce people into voting for the Mapai’s Arab satellite parties.

The Mapai used their satellites politically to keep their Arab allies contented and also to use their Arab puppets in the Knesset (parliament) for propaganda purposes.

Although the Shin Bet achieved its goals on various occasions, it was unregulated, during this period, by any law.

The Shin Bet was not only considered untouchable but for many years since its formation, remained a secret organization – hidden from the public’s eye.

Its clandestine behavior was and still is abetted by Israel’s Military Censor, which aims to restrict the media from revealing sensitive information.

In this period, the organization was only answerable to the prime minister; and the masses were not supposed to know the name of the organization’s head and the death of an agent remained unreported.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the Shin Bet would also monitor if the Palestinians celebrated Independence Day with enthusiasm or distaste, and would take action accordingly.

In this same period, Palestinians had to get permission from the Regional Arab Committees of Arab Affairs to do rudimentary tasks such as receiving loans, obtaining jobs in the public sector, shifting their residence etcetera – this committee comprised of a Shin Bet officer, military governor, government representative, and a police officer.

The Shin Bet was also invasive in suppressing anti-Israel or anti-government insinuations.

The agency was active in the vetting of teachers and principals in the Palestinian school system. 

Furthermore, the Shin Bet monitored teachers who were seen as being too nationalistic, and if these tendencies proliferated, the agency would intervene and threaten their dismissal.

The Shin Bet also used to monitor various aspects of education which included teachers speaking against security agencies; discourses that had anti-Semitic implications; and criticisms of the military government.

Concerning Palestinian politics in Israel, Israel and its agencies used to monitor local elections and education.

In local elections, the Jewish government supported the Palestinian clans who were loyal to them by allowing the heads of clans to run the local councils.

Furthermore, local authorities, which comprised elected Palestinians, were initiated to provide educated Palestinians with jobs and impede them from adopting undesirable political behaviors.

In fact, professor of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University, Ahmed Sa’di, contends that the plan was to include the Palestinians on the fringes of the economy so that their financial survival becomes more valued than their political or moral beliefs.

From 1958-1969 and beyond, the government used ploys such as incentivizing Palestinian youth to study abroad then making their return home challenging; implementing harsher laws; and reducing the Palestinian numbers in integral economic zones etcetera.

The government entrusted the Shin Bet and others to gather intelligence to execute said plans.

The military government that was in effect since 1948 was finally discontinued in 1966. In 1967, the Six-Day War erupted between Israel and Jordan, Syria and Egypt.

It changed the socio, political, and geographic landscape of the Middle East. Israel took control of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

In 1976, Israel announced that they would be confiscating Palestinian land for settlement and security reasons – the tragedy that ensued would be remembered as Land Day.

This decision was met with massive protests by the Palestinians which caused the IDF and police to be deployed.

In the subsequent clashes between the Palestinians and the security forces, six unarmed Palestinian citizens of Israel were killed and around 100 were injured.

Hillel Cohen, an Israeli scholar, mentions a specific instance leading up to the protests in his book on informants “Good Arabs: The Israeli Security Agencies and the Israeli Arabs, 1948-1967.”

He states that Tareq ‘Abd al-Hayy, then the mayor of the Arab village of Tira in northern Israel, called the police on the Land Day protesters after he attempted to disband the marchers, but was thwarted by local shop owners.

Cohen called this “the swan song of his close relationship with the security forces.”

Following instances like this, the Shin Bet would either intimidate to incentivize working for them as informants, locally referred to as “collaborators.”

Possible benefits for informants include a government job or a permit to open a business.

This point is reinforced in the documentary, “Inside the Shin Bet,” by Hussein Abu Hussein, a lawyer, who highlights that due to the poverty-stricken conditions of the Palestinians.

He said they become perfect candidates for conscription and Avigdor Feldman, a human rights lawyer, claimed that Arab spies are present in all Palestinian towns.

In 1984, an event unfolded that had grave repercussions for the Shin Bet.

The Bus 300 affair shocked the Israeli public and demonized the Shin Bet in the mainstream’s eye.

A bus departing from Tel Aviv to the town of Ashkelon was hijacked by four Palestinians who demanded the freedom of 500 Palestinian inmates.

The military was involved and in the ensuing operation, two of the four Palestinians were killed, while the other two were captured alive and handed over to the Shin Bet.

A military spokesperson lied to the public however that all four perpetrators had been killed in the operation.

It was only later that Hadashot, an Israeli newspaper, published a photograph that showed one of the terrorists being taken alive by security agents.

Outraged by this, the public demanded an investigation into this issue. The Zorea Committee, and following it, the Blatman Committee, was appointed to find out the truth, but both failed.

It was not until two years later that high-ranking Shin Bet officials revealed agents had lied to the Committee and erroneously faulted a high-ranking IDF official for the murder of two terrorists.

The director of the Shin Bet at the time, Avraham Shalom, was heavily involved in the cover-up, as was later disclosed in 1986 when it was discovered that the pair were killed under interrogation.

In May 1986, details were made public regarding the involvement of Shalom in the murder of the two terrorists and his authorization to Shin Bet officials to lie under oath but despite this, the President shockingly pardoned him.

Commenting on this incident, Yossi Beilin, the former Israeli Justice Minister, remarked that the general public comprehended that the Shin Bet could be liars and killers.

The event brought the elusive agency and its approaches into the public eye for the first time.

The 1980s also witnessed the Nafsu Affair in which IDF officer, Izat Nafsu, confessed to his crimes of improper interrogation methods such as insulting, beating, sleep-depriving, shaking, etcetera.

The Nafsu Affair coupled with The Bus 300 affair forced the Israeli government’s hand and it moved towards the regulation of the Shin Bet.

Shin Bet and the legal framework, the 1980s to today
In 1987, the Landau Commission was established by the Knesset to deliberate on Shin Bet’s interrogation methods.

The Landau Commission concluded that: the Shin Bet did use violent interrogation techniques, which it must refrain from, but a “moderate level of physical pressure” could be applied in some cases.

Israeli forces, including soldiers disguised as Palestinians, violently arrest a Palestinian child in occupied Jerusalem on October 24, 2014.

Initially, the results were looked at in a positive light, although the Commission was and is still criticized for numerous reasons.

Firstly, the report has a secret annex, which contains rules for permitted interrogation techniques  – this annex has never been made public.

Furthermore, Dr. Ishai Menuchin – Public Committee Against Torture in Israel – comments that this “moderate physical pressure” exemption was eventually subjected to all Palestinians.

The “moderate physical pressure” rule was too ambiguous and the Ben-Porat Report exposed that the Shin Bet frequently broke this rule.

Moreover, the allowance of “moderate physical pressure” in Shin Bet interrogations was the essence of the problem and made effective supervision useless.

In hindsight, the Landau Commission was counterproductive as the jargon of the regulations allowed the Shin Bet to manipulate it to its desired outcome.

In 1999, the Israeli High Court of Justice intervened and stated unequivocally that “physical pressure” is forbidden except in “ticking time bomb” scenarios.

In the documentary “The Gatekeepers,” six former Shin Bet directors – Avraham Shalom, Yuval Diskin, Avi Dichter, Yakkov Peri, Ami Avalon, and Carmi Gillon – were interviewed for the first time. In the film, Gillon explains the ticking time bomb justification: the scenario involves a possible terrorist attack and the person the agency is interrogating has information that can foil said attack.

This is the only exception to using “physical pressure” according to the court.

What was astonishing is that all of the former heads of the spy agency concluded that violence will beget more violence and that dialogue is the solution for long-term peace.

Even Shalom – the infamous director of the Shin Bet during the Bus 300 affair – claims that there is no substitute for “talking.”

Dichter says that peace must be built on a system of trust and cannot be obtained militarily while Gillon mentions that Israel would be remiss if they do not engage in peace talks.

If former Shin Bet directors believe that force is not the solution then there must be some credence to their thoughts.

In 2002, new legislation was finally approved by the Knesset which was the first law that centered on the intelligence community.

The legislation called the “Shin Bet Law,” took many years to finally approve.

After the law, the Shin Bet and other agencies were no longer shrouded in secrecy and under the aegis of this law, Shin Bet’s internal and external supervisions became regulated.

Yet tragically, the most controversial aspect of interrogation methods was surprisingly untouched by the law.

The Knesset was content with the ruling made by the Israeli High Court of Justice and that this was to remain the ruling on Shin Bet’s interrogation techniques.

The Shin Bet still works under the Prime Minister but its actions have become regulated than in the past – at least on paper.

The Knesset Foreign and Security Committee is the body that makes sure if the agency is functioning within the framework of the law.

B’Tselem reports that Palestinians who have undergone Shin Bet interrogations state that “they are held in inhuman conditions, including narrow, windowless cells…” – others “reported exposure to extremes of heat and cold, as well as sleep deprivation.”

Tal Steiner wrote in Haaretz the case of murder suspect Palestinian Samer Arbid who was hospitalized in September 2019 due to multiple broken ribs and kidney failure.

She states that he was tortured by the Shin Bet and when an investigation was conducted, it was, like hundreds before it, found that there was no wrongdoing by the agency.

She writes that “This sends a resounding message to every Shin Bet interrogator: It doesn’t matter what you do during the interrogation, how much violence you use against the interrogee or what the results are, the system will defend you.”

Since 2001 around 1,200 complaints of allegations of agents using violence during Shin Bet interrogations have been filed, yet there have been no indictments, according to the Israeli Committee Against Torture.

The group estimates that it takes around 39 months for each claim to be processed, which is done by an evaluation of statements from the complainant and the interrogator. The Shin Bet does not record or keep records of tactics used during interrogation.

The volume of complaints quadrupled between 2012 and 2015, according to information supplied by the Israeli government to its high court.

The influx came after the court allowed for allegations of torture to be perused in criminal proceedings.

Even so, a group of human rights organizations representing Palestinians in torture cases, logged over  850 torture complaints that were sent to the attorney general between 2001 and 2014, of which were not investigated.

Unfortunately, the Shin Bet did not heed the advice of these ex-heads, and human rights abuses continued.

Philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s eminent 1968 prediction of Israel’s occupation careening the country towards authoritarianism resonates today.

He prophesied, “A state ruling over a hostile population of 1 million foreigners will necessarily become a Shin Bet state.”


Source URL

Has Israel Effectively Colonized the United States?

British Colonial War Crimes: Unpunished, Unaccounted and awaiting Apology - Sri Lanka Guardian

We normally think of colonizers as large countries, and the colonized as smaller and weaker nations.

But this is not always the case. Colonization does not require occupation.

It merely requires the subjugation of the colonized.

With ambition, superior information and calculation, and the right mindset, smaller nations can (and have in the past) colonized and dominated larger and nominally more powerful countries.

India was successfully colonized by tiny Britain in the 18th century. The vehicle for colonization was the East India Company.

It was only after the Indian mutiny that Britain acted directly and sent in troops to establish the British Raj.

For the next 200 years India was drained of its wealth, its economy was restructured to support England’s needs and global ambitions, and its people militarized to fight and die on behalf of the British crown.

The Indian leaders who remained were willing participants in this venture; those who felt otherwise were destroyed or marginalized.

In a similar vein, Israel today is in the process of colonizing the United States, which is vital to its global projection and exercise of power.

The steps Israel is taking are visible to all (as was the case with British designs on India) and yet it is remarkably difficult to connect the dots while such a takeover is in process. Or, to do anything about it.

Colonization does not mean total control of everything

It means total control of what matters.

The British were interested in Indian wealth, and a standing army of Indians willing to die for their wars.

They couldn’t care less about India’s internal petty politics that did not directly or indirectly impact their mission.

An effective “divide and conquer” strategy pit Indians against each other and discouraged any kind of coordinated response, or sedition.

The British leveraged their “outsider advantage” to objectively collect data with which to calculate and coordinate which Indian princes to support in battles, and which to connive with.

Like pieces on a chessboard, Indian leaders exhausted themselves through internal battles, and were prevailed to seek cover provided by the British.

Small amounts of leverage can change outcomes (as the Israeli lobby AIPAC has shown, in its path to dominating Congress and regional/local US politics), and over the years the British were able control and align India to the British crown.

Less than 10,000 English controlled colonial India, which at that time had a population of 300 million.

It is instructive to note that while there were relatively few white Englishmen, a class of local “brown sahibs” was developed, to actually run things.

This elite class was educated in English ways, and rewarded monetarily and through social stature.

Britain was too small a country to ultimately matter by itself, but by leveraging India the English could pursue their global ambitions. India was the “Jewel in the (British) Crown”.

Today, Israel has effective control of US policy in the Mideast, and similar goals.

Much has already been written about Israel’s control of Congress.

Israel is now edging towards control over the US Executive Branch, with both presidential candidates supported by billionaires whose #1 agenda is Israel (Saban and Adelson).

The Supreme Court will be one-third Jewish, and justices have community ties and families.

As Israel demonstrated through its successful intimidation of Judge Goldstone, jurists are human and everyone has their price.

Goldstone claims that the theoretical two-state solution to come provides the legal justification not to consider the Israeli regime as practicing apartheid. Yet the state of Israel created and continues to develop the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for 500,000 Jews, and only for Jews, while not building for the Palestinians from the refugee camps and elsewhere. This is sufficient to call this Israeli practice a form of apartheid.

Israel’s “occupation force” in the US has long included AIPAC as well as the dense network of community organizations at the State and local levels.

Through relationships that have been developed over years and with unlimited funds at their disposal, the “Israel Lobby” ensures that votes go the right way, and that opponents are squashed when Israel demands unity.

In 2003 at the onset of George Bush’s Iraq war this occupation force was multiplied through the inclusion of Christian Zionists.

Critics of the Israel Lobby are marginalized by whatever means available, including being called anti-Semitic.

The Lobby has been effective in securing massive aid packages for Israel even though Israel’s per-capita GDP exceeds that of several European nations.

Israeli insiders permeate the US government, and it is US policy that there be “no light” between the countries so that where Israel is concerned there is no debate.

Israel’s top priorities are the top priorities of the US. There are of course instances where this does not happen (such as, Iran) but the direction points to a tighter colonial noose in the years ahead.

The media matters: establishing beliefs and narratives

The colonizer must be a “Sacred Object” above criticism or objective review, and dangerous critics must be either destroyed or marginalized.

No Englishman in India spoke of the mother country and its ways with anything other than reverence, even though during periods of the British Raj England was in turmoil.

Within England there was a free press and active debate; but this was not permitted in India, about Britain. The only acceptable posture was that of reverence.

Today Israel has a free press, and it is easy to read translations of the Hebrew language press.

Israeli commentators compare Netanyahu to Hitler, Israel is called a racist apartheid state based on evidence, and the extreme violence against and ongoing abuse of Palestinians is well documented.

But, these same conversations are forbidden in the US.

No newspaper would report them, nor are they permitted in polite company. Transgressors are labeled anti-Semitic, whether Jewish or not.

In the US today, boycotts are seen as a permitted non-violent form of free speech. Citizens have the right to boycott whatever they want from wherever they want without risk of penalty. The sole exception is Israel.

Exceptionalism

The British conquests were “for God and country”, and therefore justified. The British were superior, the natives inferior.

This setup the moral justification for the mayhem wrought by the British as they colonized Asia and the Mideast.

At that time, all men were not born equal, and it took the US Constitution to establish that self-evident fact.

Israel is seeking to revert to those days, by acting as though Arab lives are inferior, and (more recently) promoting Islamophobia to serve their Christian Zionism wing.

In 2003, uber Zionist Bernard Lewis posed as “Arab expert” and advised president Bush that the only language Arabs understood was force.

In the decades to come, Islamists launched movement after movement, terrorist act after terrorist act; Bernard published essay after essay, bestseller after bestseller. In 1990, his cover essay on “The Roots of Muslim Rage” in the Atlantic relaunched the “clash of civilizations” with, now, special reference to the United States. The hatred emanating from the Islamic world, Bernard repeated, “goes beyond hostility to specific interests or actions or policies or even countries and becomes a rejection of Western civilization as such, not only what it does but what it is, and the principles and values that it practices and professes.”

This helped to justify the attack on Iraq, as part of a neocon plan to “creatively destroy” the sovereign Arab states in Israel’s neighborhood, to facilitate Israel’s dominance.

The Nazis at Nuremberg were shown greater respect than Saddam and his Ba’at leadership, and the contempt for Arabs was in full display.

Today, Israeli Jews are in the process of destroying Palestinian society and erasing Palestinian culture, with impunity.

Churches and mosques are both being destroyed, though Israel would prefer to keep the spotlight on mosques, to fan a religious war between Islam on one side, and Christians and Jews on the other.

While the Israeli press records and debates Israel’s bad behavior, Americans are forbidden to publicly debate Israeli behavior critically.

Three Recent Examples:

Schumer and Macron equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism so as to target BDS - Mondoweiss

Senator Chuck Schumer 5th column Jew

1/ During the Congressional debate around the Iran deal president Obama had negotiated, Senator Chuck Schumer said he would vote “against”…not because of any independent analysis, but because this is what Netanyahu wanted.

In other words, he publically said that he would follow the Israeli prime ministers’ direction, over that of his own president.

Because, as he said, he was “guardian of Israel”.

A sitting US senator proclaimed allegiance to a foreign country, and nobody asked him to resign!

2/ The Israeli Prime Minister addresses the full US Congress to lobby against the Iran nuclear deal.

When the deal does go through, Israel demands more US aid! And, is likely to get it.

One can try various definitions of “blackmail” to see which one fits.

The US president is impotent in dealing with Israel.

The so-called “pro Israel lobby” effectively functions like an agent of Israel.

The Israel lobby is playing the role of the East India Company, in Britain’s colonization of India.

3/ The Israel Lobby interferes massively in US foreign policy in the region.

The “mainstream” media such as NYT spins events to reflect Israel’s views (bureau chiefs are typically Jewish and resident in Israel).

The Iraq war cost $1 trillion+ and cost thousands of US lives, created ISIS, and was pushed by the Lobby. Israel benefits from the distraction.

The colonization of the US by Israel is becoming increasingly explicit.

It is now increasingly seen as “normal” to have a double standard: one for Israel, another for the rest of the world.

The boycott-Israel movement is an example of that: you can boycott anything or anyone, but not Israel. This is true power, and the face of colonization.

The ‘tongue’ of the Jew sticks it to you

Great Reset In Jewish Time

The “Great Reset” is just the beginning of our woes.

It sounds globalist but its members are cliquish.

It sounds bland but its stamp is a Jewish brand.

The gasbag of the “Reset” is Klaus Schwab, born of a Jewish mother, which rabbinically makes him a Jew.

As head of the World Economic Forum, Schwab uses ‘pandemics’ to beget his sinister polemic. [Clip]

[”The COVID 19 pandemics just has accelerated certain trends which we had seen before and which were actually discussed in DAVOS this year like the lack of inclusion and lack of paying sufficient attention to the environment. So what we will see now is acceleration of those trends…”]

The ‘tongue’ of the Jew sticks it to you… [Clip]

[”…And of course a unique opportunity to reset our global agenda.”]

The “reset” of that “global agenda” is to turn corporations into social overlords. [Clip]

[”Finally, what is the role of companies in this new post-COVID era. I think we are moving from short term to long term, from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism.”]

This Jewish gibberish of “Stakeholder Capitalism” is simply the Soviet wish of the few to rule over the many.

For with its deceptive notion that corporations should not just benefit their shareholders but “society at large” through “public policy” is a draconian social engineering scheme.

America’s “Business Roundtable”—comprised of CEO’s of the nation’s top companies like Coca Cola, Delta, 3M, PayPal, and Johnson & Johnson—have already signed on to Schwab’s “Stakeholder Capitalism.”

That’s because ALL corporations and their CEOs are dependent on Wall Street Jews and international Jewish banking to finance and underwrite their stocks.

Following the Jewish script, these CEOs want us to swallow that “stakeholders” are “customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders.”

This is Jewish hokum.

You see, the meaning of a “stakeholder” is one who owns controlling shares of a company with decision-making authority.

Do “communities” have the same corporate decision making authority as Schwab and his synagogue buddies?

Believe that and I own a Coca-Cola plant in Thailand.

The real “stakeholders” of this deceptive new brand of “capitalism” are a transnational cabal of Jews brandishing control over the goyim by crushing all independent thinking and behavior.

It’s “communism” with a Jewish ‘capitalist’ twist.

Fat cat Jews like David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, Charles Scharf of Wells Fargo, Laurence Fink of BlackRock, and Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase—are your new corporate Jewish overlords.

And you’re not invited to the Bar Mitzvah.

Alex Gorsky, Jewish CEO of Johnson & Johnson, is.

That’s why his company sponsors lewd gay parades that celebrates homosexuality, and lesbianism, and every form of sexual deviancy.

Whether it’s killing off the population with Gorksky’s Johnson & Johnson’s blood-clotting ‘vaccine’…

…Or wiping out the White Christian race with his sexually deviant parades, Gorsky’s got a huge “stake” in socially-engineering America’s obliteration.

Robert Iger, Jew head of ABC/Disney is also invited to the Bar Mitzvah.

That’s why Iger threatened to ban filming in Georgia over Governor Kemp’s “heartbeat” anti-abortion law. [Clip]

[”Just before Disney CEO Bob Iger unveiled a new Star Wars attraction at Disneyland, he stepped foot into the abortion wars.

He told Reuters Disney may stop shooting in Georgia if a new anti-abortion law takes effect.” “Well, I think if it becomes law, it will be very difficult to produce there. I rather doubt we will.”]

Irene Rosenfeld and Dirk Van de Put, Jewish heads of the parent company of Chips Ahoy, got invited to that Bar Mitzvah.

That’s why they featured a drag queen to sell their cookies. [Clip]

[”Y’all know what we’re celebrating today? Mothers’ Day. And I am so thankful for a mother, like mine, who supports me through all my craziness and loves on me, and buys me Chips Ahoy! cookies — chewy, the original — and everything under the sun. My mom knows I love my cookies. So get those cookies. And what do we suggest for you do to your mama? You’re real mama, your drag mama, whichever mama, somebody, whoever take care of you, whoever you feel or consider your mama, it’s their day today. Get them a cookie.”]

Marc Benioff of Salesforce is invited.

That’s why his company supports Black Lives Matter, a social front for a Marxist strategy.

And the CIA*—that receives secret money from the Jew-owned Federal Reserve for its criminal operations abroad in collusion with the Israeli Mossad—is a featured guest at the Bar Mitzvah.

That’s why the CIA—to keep the pipeline of Jewish money coming in—celebrates “Pride Month” throughout the entire month of June.

We’re now at an historical moment in Jewish time.

All to the tune of international organized crime. [Clip]

[”It’s now an historical moment, a crucial moment to rebuild the future, to reset our policies.

And we have certainly, we have to take certain lessons from the pandemic which we had to fight, and still have to fight, and we have to build a world which is more resilient, more inclusive, and also more sustainable.”]

“Resilience” for Schwab means being resistant to religious mores.

“Inclusion” for Schwab means bringing in a swarm of sinful men and women into every component of society so as to corrupt the entire lump.

“Sustainability” for Schwab means getting Jews into power and making sure they stay in power.

Any time there’s a culture that passes down a stable heritage and tradition you’ll find Jews amassing there in droves.

Once they prosper in and by that culture they set out to debase and replace it with degeneracy and dung.

Jews barf and vomit it all out of the devil’s own tongue.

Like a squalid spout, that’s what the “Great Reset” is really all about.

Gantz Zionist regime would mean annexation, war on Gaza

Foreign Zionist occupation and Palestinian refugee issue is at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

gifs politics History gifset Israel Gaza Palestine palestinian intifada faris odeh second ...

Gantz said on Saturday that if the quiet will not be kept on the Gaza border, the Strip will be “severely hit – in its economy, security, and from the civilian perspective.”

On Saturday afternoon, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kohavi held a security assessment meeting with senior officers, as well as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Benny Gantz, Public Security Minister Amir Ohana, Mossad Chief Yossi Cohen, National Security Council Chief Meir Ben-Shabbat, and Israel Police Chief Kobi Shabtai, among others, at IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv.

Gantz said on Saturday that if the quiet will not be kept on the Gaza border, the Strip will be “severely hit – in its economy, security, and from the civilian perspective.”
Gaza War may refer to: Gaza War (2008-09) or Operation Cast Lead; Gaza War (2012) or Operation Pillar of Defense; Gaza War (2014) or Operation Protective Edge
War on Gaza
Gaza Genocide Victims in pictures Gaza Genocide Victims in pictures
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza (Dec 27, 2008- Jan 18, 2009):

Children, Women, Civilian People, Buildings/Houses, Gaza Under Fire, White Phosphorus, Medical Services, Mosques/Religious, Schools/Education, Animals/Birds, Trees/Farms
Day 23 - Jan 18, 2009
Day 23 – Jan 18, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 1310 Palestinians killed and 5600 wounded.Family members die in Israeli house demolition.
Day 22 - Jan 17, 2009
Day 22 – Jan 17, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 1100 Palestinians killed and 5100 wounded.Gaza doctor’s (Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish) tragedy caught on Israeli TV.
Day 21 - Jan 16, 2009
Day 21 – Jan 16, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 1100 Palestinians killed and 5100 wounded.Aftermath of attacks on Tal El Hawa district.
Day 20 - Jan 15, 2009
Day 20 – Jan 15, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 1100 Palestinians killed and 5100 wounded.Hamas leader Said Siyam was killed today in an Israeli air raid along with one of his sons and a brother.
Day 19 - Jan 14, 2009
Day 19 – Jan 14, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 1015 Palestinians killed and 4800 wounded.UN issues warning on Gaza children.
Day 18 - Jan 13, 2009
Day 18 – Jan 13, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 980 Palestinians killed and 4400 wounded.The humanitarian crisis continues in Gaza.
Day 17 - Jan 12, 2009
Day 17 – Jan 12, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 920 Palestinians killed and 4200 wounded.
Intense clashes erupt in Gaza City.
Day 16 - Jan 11, 2009
Day 16 – Jan 11, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 880 Palestinians killed and 3620 wounded.
Israel accused of using white phosphorus in Gaza.
Day 15 - Jan 10, 2009
Day 15 – Jan 10, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 821 Palestinians killed and 3500 wounded.
George Galloway MP, Stop the Gaza massacre Demonstration London 10 January 2009
Day 14 - Jan 09, 2009
Day 14 – Jan 09, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 810 Palestinians killed and 3400 wounded.
Protests against Gaza war held around the world.
Day 13 - Jan 08, 2009
Day 13 – Jan 08, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 770 Palestinians killed and 3200 wounded.
Israeli war on Gaza continues after second lull.
Day 12 - Jan 07, 2009
Day 12 – Jan 07, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 710 Palestinians killed and 3100 wounded.
Israel’s attack on UN-run school in Gaza.
Day 11 - Jan 06, 2009
Day 11 – Jan 06, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 620 Palestinians killed and 3000 wounded.
Israeli strikes hit UN schools.
Day 10 - Jan 05, 2009
Day 10 – Jan 05, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 600 Palestinians killed and 2800 wounded.
Gazans flee homes and seek refuge in UN schools.
Day 09 - Jan 04, 2009
Day 09 – Jan 04, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 473 Palestinians killed and 2600 wounded.
Israel launches ground offensive in Gaza.
Day 08 - Jan 03, 2009
Day 08 – Jan 03, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 450 Palestinians killed and 2350 wounded.
Israeli bombardment of Gaza enters second week.
Day 07 - Jan 02, 2009
Day 07 – Jan 02, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 435 Palestinians killed and 2300 wounded.
A week of Israel’s war on Gaza.
Day 06 - Jan 01, 2009
Day 06 – Jan 01, 2009
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 415 Palestinians killed and 2100 wounded.
Israel kills senior Hamas figure Nizar Rayyan in air attack.
Day 05 - Dec 31, 2008
Day 05 – Dec 31, 2008
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 393 Palestinians killed and 2000 wounded.
Gazans live in fear of further attacks.
Day 04 - Dec 30, 2008
Day 04 – Dec 30, 2008
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 360 Palestinians killed and 1800 wounded.
More civilian casualties in Gaza amid raids.
Day 03 - Dec 29, 2008
Day 03 – Dec 29, 2008
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 345 Palestinians killed and 1650 wounded.
Israel pounds Gaza for a third consecutive day.
Day 02 - Dec 28, 2008
Day 02 – Dec 28, 2008
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 300 Palestinians killed and 1000 wounded.
Gaza’s hospitals struggle with casualties.
Day 01 - Dec 27, 2008
Day 01 – Dec 27, 2008
Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 230 Palestinians killed and 700 wounded.
Israel launches missile attacks on Gaza today.

Saudi crown prince backed Israel plan to overthrow Jordan king

It’s not enough the fake Muslim Saudis are guardians of the Kaba…go there and see their evil faces plastered on the walls all over the place. Now they want Jerusalem holy sites.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is said to have supported an Israeli plot to overthrow the Jordanian King Abdullah II in exchange for guardianship of the holy sites in the occupied city of Jerusalem, Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper reported.

The paper quoted a Jordanian security official as saying that the attempt to overthrow King Abdullah II was a “scheme” involving Israel, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

According to the unnamed official, “the large and complicated” coup involved many parties, but the king succeeded in thwarting it calmly while preserving the internal and regional balances.

READ: Events in Jordan were planned by Trump, one of region’s countries, says Ex-Qatar PM

“The king’s vigilance and the rapid movement of the military and security forces have thwarted the coup’s attempt to remove him and replace him with his brother Prince Hamzah Bin Al-Hussein,” the source said.

Israel, the source continued, planned to overthrow King Abdullah II due to Jordan’s opposition to the US’ peace deal for the Middle East dubbed the ‘deal of the century’, which Amman viewed as a plan to “find an alternative homeland for the Palestinians and annex the Jordan Valley to Israel”.

The paper added that the Saudi crown prince agreed to support Israel’s scheme in return for the transfer of the guardianship over the holy sites in occupied Jerusalem from Jordan to Saudi Arabia.

With US approval, it continued, Bin Salman authorised the former chief of the royal court, Basem Awadallah, to make the necessary preparations for the transfer of power at the family level, while ousted Fatah chief Muhammad Dahlan was assigned with mobilising Palestinians in Jordan and local tribes.

According to the report, Saudi Arabia armed some southern tribes, issuing them citizenship in return for carrying out military actions if necessary.

READ: Saudi backs Jordan on arrest of former head of Royal Court

Mecca belongs to all Muslims, and Saudi Arabia shouldn’t be allowed to run it

Petroleum and the pilgrimage. The two combined give Saudi Arabia the chance to punch well above its weight, affording one of the world’s most regressive regimes the chance to exercise an outrageous influence on Islam. It’s time to think of alternative arrangements.

It might seem obvious to you why Saudi Arabia is bad for Islam.

Because the House of Saud controls Mecca, the direction of Muslim prayer and location of the hajj pilgrimage, and Medina, where the Prophet Mohammed built the first Muslim society, died and is buried, the Kingdom is linked to Islam.

And vice versa. Though there is only one Muslim-majority country in the world where women can’t drive, because it is the country that rules over Islam’s holy land, it is assumed that Islam does not want women to drive.

Because it is one of the few Muslim-majority countries that suffers an absolute monarchy, it is presumed Islam prefers unaccountable government too.

In so many ways, Saudi Arabia stains the reputation of Islam. But Saudi Arabia has another kind of influence on Islam.

Every year, millions of pilgrims descend on Mecca to circumambulate the Ka’ba, the cubical shrine we believe was built by Abraham to honor God, and restored by Mohammed to His worship.

Many are from poor countries, and are visibly bedazzled by Saudi conspicuous consumption, the magnificence of the wealth on display, the awesomeness and indescribable hugeness of the great mosques that have been constructed to accommodate their numbers.

God has given the Saudis money beyond measure, and power over His holy land; this must mean God approves of their Islam.

I know how many feel. God has given the Saudis money beyond measure, and power over His holy land; this must mean God approves of their Islam.

And what an Islam it is. The official Saudi interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, was born in violent revolt not only against Shi’a Islam, and the strong traditions of spirituality embedded in Shi’a and Sunni Islam, but even against the Sunni Ottoman caliph.

Far from being the world’s leading Sunni power, Saudi Arabia has usurped the mantle of Sunni Islam, helped in its power projection by its small population, great wealth, and the collapse of its erstwhile rivals.

(The Ottomans, after all, are long gone.) Saudi Arabia uses oil money to push its Wahhabism onto the Muslim world, and to change Mecca and Medina too.

In recent decades, the Saudis have rebuilt much of Mecca and Medina. Some of this has been necessary.

Some of this has been very good. But some of it has come at a great cost to Islam’s dearest relics, monuments and oldest mosques, which have been bulldozed without the least concern.

In recent decades, the Saudis have rebuilt much of Mecca and Medina. Some of this has been necessary. Some of it has come at a great cost.

To be fair, some of the criticism levelled at Saudi Arabia for these urban transformations is unreasonable.

Think about it this way: Thanks to modern technology, and rising standards of living, millions of people not only want to go to Mecca, but can afford to.

It’s no longer a journey of months, but of days, even hours.

They speak different languages, represent different customs, and all want to not only worship in the same mosque, but get to the Ka’ba at the center of it.

While it is nice to imagine Mecca and Medina could retain the features and architecture of old cities, it is also fanciful.

When you are dealing with traffic flow in the hundreds of thousands, slippery stones and narrow alleys aren’t just problematic.

They can be deadly.

Too, skyscrapers might ruin the alleged vibe of an ancient city, but as every modern urbanist knows, building up is often the only realistic option.

So it’s not surprising, or terrible, that Saudi Arabia has built the world’s third-tallest skyscraper right outside the Great Mosque of Mecca.

But the bigger question is: Why is it the first-ugliest building in the world? In an age of cell phones and, God help us, a religion that features a regular call to prayer, what is the purpose of attaching a gaudy clock to the top?

The biggest question: These high towers are part of the progressive income stratification of a city dedicated to a leveling religion.

We’re all equal on the pilgrimage, wearing the same robes, praying side-by-side, but then when we get to our hotels, the stratification resumes.

There’s far too much money in Mecca, squeezing out the average pilgrim, and even worse, this money has been introduced even while sacred history is wiped away

So while, yes, the needs of modern religious life might mean old mosques, shrines and historical sites are in the way, that doesn’t demand destroying them.

Flush with ample funds, the Saudis could have easily rebuilt Islam’s sacred heritage elsewhere.

They haven’t even tried. They appear to be going to war with Islamic history, probably so that nothing is left that might challenge the idea that Wahhabism is an intrusion into Islamic history, and not faithful to it.

There’s far too much money in Mecca, squeezing out the average pilgrim.
This money has been introduced as sacred history is wiped away.

If you think the Islamic State’s war on antiquities is horrifying, you are right. But it is not exceptional.

It has its roots in a perverse and excessive iconoclasm, which has seen Saudi Wahhabist mandates literally crush, demolish, smash, erase, and break down the very sites and landscapes that Muslims worldwide know so well.

If you think I am exaggerating, don’t. Several years ago, I helped lead a small group of American Muslims on a pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina.

We had a Saudi guide with us who, during our bus tour around Mecca and Medina, refused to let our driver stop at mosques of historical significance, because he thought we might cross the line and worship in a manner unbecoming of an austere and hardheaded Wahhabist. He treated us like children.

Which, of course, none of us were: Wahhabists, or children. (In revenge, I spent the ride back happily pointing out sites of Ottoman significance, while describing the House of Saud’s unseemly alliance with non-Muslim powers against their fellow Muslims.)

My fellow pilgrims were incensed. They had paid, scrounged up and saved, and here they were, in their holy city, and they weren’t allowed to stop at, for example, the mosque where Mohammed was commanded by God to turn away from the first direction of prayer, Jerusalem, to the current direction of prayer, Mecca.

(It matters if you’re Muslim.) They felt outraged. They felt they were denied the chance to experience their Islam because someone else had decided their interpretation of Islam mattered more.

And that is precisely the point. Mecca and Medina are ruled by Saudi Arabia, but they belong to the Muslim world.

They are our collective sacredness. They shouldn’t be an individual possession. Islam is a very egalitarian religion.

(As some Muslims joke, people who dislike organized religion should join Islam, because we’ve mastered disorganization.) Islam has few hierarchies, and those that exist are not widely shared.

Why then does a regime which represents a sliver of Muslims, exports and enforces an ideology that is historically antithetical to Islam’s rich traditions of pluralism, spirituality and cosmopolitanism, allowed to control our holy cities?

Why don’t everyday Muslims get a say?

Mecca and Medina are ruled by Saudi Arabia, but they belong to the Muslim world.

This is, for the moment, a matter of conjecture.

The European Union includes some of the world’s wealthiest, most progressive and secure societies.

Yet before the refugee crisis, they are hopelessly divided, and their cooperation pushed backwards.

If Europe now can’t do it, how can the present Muslim world manage to come to any kind of alternative arrangement, some more inclusive shared administration of its common properties? T

The Muslim world is deeply and badly divided; it is hard to imagine how any kind of cooperative agreement could ever be reached, and also, depressingly, not difficult to conceive of other Muslim-majority governments who would make a different kind of mess out of Mecca and Medina.

As it is, Saudi Arabia has the wealth to pour into subsidizing the pilgrimage, and Muslim piety in the Holy Land, in a way few other countries can.

But for how long? Years back, pilgrimage was the preserve of the lucky few.

It was too far, too risky, too expensive. My own great-great-grandfather began a travelogue describing his own journey from northern India to Mecca, but he died on the return trip.

Today, we have Snapchat hajj channels. Aircraft make the world much smaller. News travels fast. Muslims live all over the world.

What I mean to say is, in the past, the idea that Mecca and Medina belonged to all of us was deeply felt, but at best an abstraction.

In the years to come, it will be harder for Saudi Arabia to deny the desire of the world’s Muslims to see their holy cities reflect their pieties, and to cease the imposition of a view of Islam which is not only deeply alienating to the rest of the world, but deeply unpopular within the Muslim world.

How that happens is anyone’s guess. But it will happen. I’d say hell or high water, but in the case of a sacred desert, neither seems quite right.

But not as wrong as what is happening to the center of my sacred universe.