Monopoly contest stirs up Jerusalem conflict

The company also pulled all country names from other cities on the site when even more people complained, including the Israeli government, because Jerusalem was listed as the only city without a country.

Hasbro Inc. issued an apology Thursday after an employee, responding to complaints from pro-Palestinian groups, eliminated the word “Israel” after the city in an online contest to select names for a new Monopoly board game: Monopoly Here and Now: The World Edition.

Monopoly, the iconic game of capitalism, has been drawn into the dispute over Jerusalem.

Hasbro Inc. issued an apology Thursday after an employee, responding to complaints from pro-Palestinian groups, eliminated the word “Israel” after the city in an online contest to select names for a new Monopoly board game: Monopoly Here and Now: The World Edition.

The company also pulled all country names from other cities on the site when even more people complained, including the Israeli government, because Jerusalem was listed as the only city without a country.

The Pawtucket-based company is asking people to vote at the Monopoly Web site on which cities will be included in the new edition. Until Tuesday, every city on the site listed a country, including Paris, France; Cairo, Egypt and Jerusalem, Israel.

But an employee based in London decided on her own without consulting senior management to pull “Israel” from Jerusalem after hearing complaints from pro-Palestinian groups and bloggers who argue that the city is not a part of Israel, Hasbro spokesman Wayne Charness said Thursday.

The issue has been a sensitive one for decades: Israel captured the eastern part of Jerusalem — home to Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites — in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed it.

The Palestinians want east Jerusalem to be the capital of a future independent state.

David Saranga, consul for media and public affairs at the Israeli consulate in New York, said Monopoly has a lot of fans in Israel, especially this year with Jerusalem a candidate for a spot on the Monopoly board.

But after Israel was removed, he said the consulate started getting calls, first from Israeli fans, then fans elsewhere. He sent Hasbro a letter asking why Jerusalem had been singled out, he said.

“All the other cities had the country attached to their names,” Saranga said. “We felt very upset.”

Hasbro management was alerted to the change Wednesday when its London office saw a spike in traffic on the site and figured out what happened, Charness said.

The company then pulled every country name, so Paris and Cairo also are now listed alone, he said.

“It was a bad decision, one that we rectified relatively quickly,” he said.

“This is a game. We never wanted to enter into any political debate.

We apologize to our Monopoly fans.”

Saranga said Hasbro responded quickly and professionally.

While he wondered whether it was necessary to remove all the country names, he said he was satisfied with Hasbro’s response.

Charness added that the game, due out in the fall, was never meant to include countries.

The countries were added to the Web site to make it easier to vote.

Voting in the contest ends Feb. 2

May 2 is anniversary of Israel’s killing of documentary maker James Miller

Dispatches Killing Zone, Gaza Palestine. Click on ‘Watch on YouTube’ to avoid being misdirected.

14 years ago today, Israeli bulldozers killed ISM activist Rachel Corrie in Gaza | PNN

On May 2, 2003 Israeli forces “consciously and deliberately targeted” James Miller and his crew while they were in Gaza making a documentary for HBO.

See this British TV report from the time: “Dispatches: The Killing Zone.” The gripping report covers the IDF’s killing of Rachel Corey, Tom Hurndall, James Miller, and numerous Gazan men, women, and children.

Foreigners and outsiders are normally warmly welcomed in Palestinian communities, who regard them as allies against Israel.

Previously the greatest risk for foreigners was seen to be from the Israeli army.

Rachel Corrie from the US and Tom Hurndall from London were killed by Israeli forces in Gaza in 2003 and 2004 while volunteering for the ISM.


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.

New York mayor candidate calls Israel an ‘apartheid’ state

“No one has the right to do that at the expense of someone else, someone else’s freedom in particular. And that’s problematic to me,” she added.

New York mayoral candidate Dianne Morales has deemed Israel an “apartheid state”, marking the latest instance of a leftist Democrat using the controversial term to condemn the occupation of Palestinian territories, The Forward reported on Saturday.

Morales, a former non-profit CEO, said Israel was an “apartheid state” in a conversation with Jewish high school students in December, the recording of which was obtained by The Forward.

“I cannot advocate for equity and justice in New York City and turn a blind eye to the challenges around those issues in Israel and with the folks living in Gaza and in Palestine,” Morales was heard saying.

“I think everybody has a right to live in dignity, everybody has a right to a home, everybody has a right to their land.

ATNISEMITIC | Apartheid, Palestine, Oppression

New laws make Israeli apartheid official - Redress Information & Analysis

No one has the right to do that at the expense of someone else, someone else’s freedom in particular. And that’s problematic to me,” she added.

Morales, who is currently polling at around 3 percent, also spoke out against sponsored trips to Israel for elected politicians and business leaders.She described as a “propaganda trip” a tour she went on in 2015 that was arranged by the  Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.

The former public school teacher said she would not rule out future trips to Israel or Palestine but implied she would not participate in such “propaganda trips”.

Morales’ remarks contrast with those made by fellow Democratic candidate Andrew Yang, who previously ran for president in 2020.

Yang has criticised Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), describing the Palestinian-led movement as “rooted in anti-Semitic thought and history”.

Morales joins several other progressive Democrats who have in recent years expressed fierce condemnation of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Florida Democrat William Byatt, Georgia politician Raphael Warnock and Palestinian-American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib have also referred to Israel as an apartheid state.

Tlaib was among a dozen Democratic lawmakers to sign a letter last month slamming Israel’s refusal to vaccinate Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The letter described the occupation as “settler colonialism”.

Foreign Occupiers must stop imprisoning Palestinians

Khalid Amayreh

Zionism is a virulent philosophy and venomous ideology that has transformed Jews into tormentors, persecutors and oppressors as well as occupiers, liars and land thieves.

For many years now, Israel has been dumping Palestinians behind bars, or sending them to agonize in open-ended detainment in desert detention camps, purely for political reasons.

In hundreds of cases, there are absolutely no legal grounds, nor even according to the Israeli military laws, for the incarceration of indisputably innocent Palestinians.

Israel often doesn’t even try to justify this flagrant, vindictive and oppressive policy.

It just contents itself with invoking the security mantra, utterly ignoring the most elementary considerations of equity and justice.

In countries around the world, let alone countries that consider themselves civilized and democratic, a person is arrested, charged and prosecuted.

If found innocent, he is released, if not he is sentenced to jail terms or receives other forms of punishment.

In the Occupied Palestinian territories, however, detaining Palestinians at will is the backbone of the occupier’s policy toward the occupied, the Palestinians.

Palestinians are arrested and kept away from their families for years without justifiable reasons.

An individual’s ideological preference is often a sufficient ground for administrative detention that may linger for many years.

The fact that the wronged individual has done absolutely nothing wrong, has violated no laws, and committed no crimes has very little weight in the calculations of the Israeli occupation authorities.

For the Israeli political-military establishment, security whims and vagaries justify anything, including inflicting gross injustice on innocent people.

This shows that the ultimate purpose behind this brazen injustice is to torment individuals and activists Israel views as non-conformist. In other words, the motivation is pure sadism on Israel’s part.

The injustice meted out to the victims of Israeli detention policy is especially conspicuous with the so-called administrative detainees.

These people are effectively abducted from their homes and families and dumped into crowded concentration camps in the Negev desert.

One detainee, Mustafa Shawar, from Hebron in the southern West Bank , told this writer that he was imprisoned for more than 8 years without knowing the reason.

“I appealed to the Israeli military Judge to let me know the reason or reasons behind my incarceration at the Ktza’aout detention camp.

But the judge would never let me know of these reasons.

“I asked the judge how I could not repeat the crime or felony I had presumably committed if I don’t know what it is.

The judge simply told me he wouldn’t allow me the privilege of knowing why I was in jail.”

Shawar is just one example of thousands of Palestinians who are made to languish in Israeli dungeons, solitary cells and concentration camps for years without knowing the reason for their detention.

Israel Edges Closer to Imprisoning East Jerusalem Children | News | teleSUR English

Ismael Awawdeh, 46, is a civil engineer from the small town of Dura near Hebron.

He, too, had been victimized by frequent detainments, each lasting for 6 months to two years.

All in all, Awawdeh has spent more than 70 months in administrative detention.

He is still languishing in jail without knowing the reason.

One of his relatives told this writer that “it seems that the only democratic state in the Middle East decided to keep him in jail for at least six months per year.”

Many of the detainees are actually prominent figures in their respective communities.

They are University professors, medical doctors and outstanding religious leaders and many of them are active in charitable works and helping the poor.

In general, one exaggerates little by saying that the detainees constitute the crème de le crème of the Palestinian society.

In many instances, Israel behaves and acts very much like a criminal gang rather than a real state where the rule of the law is upheld.

The Israeli treatment of elected Palestinian lawmakers perfectly fits this description.

Indeed, ever since the Palestinian general elections in 2006 which the Islamic liberation movement Hamas won to Israel’s and America’s chagrin (both states had okayed the organization of the elections), Israel has been ganging up on as many as 50 of these lawmakers, accusing them of supporting a terrorist organization.

Needless to say, Israel is probably the last entity under the sun which is qualified to accuse others of being terrorists.

Israel, after all is probably one of the ugliest embodiment of terrorism in the whole world.

Besides, resisting a Nazi-like foreign occupier is anything but terror. In fact, one would be fornicating with language if one called those who fight for their freedom terrorists.

In the final analysis, however, a person should never ever be imprisoned for years for his emotions, sentiments and opinions.

In Israel, rabbis and others routinely publish books and deliver lectures and give homilies stating that the lives of Muslims and Christians and all other non-Jews have no sanctity and that they can be murdered without the slightest compunctions.

And when arrests are made, the Jewish inciter in question is questioned for five minutes in a chummy-chat style before allowing him to return home with all his dignity intact.

It is a stigma of shame on the forehead of Judaism to inflict this pornographic injustice on non-Jews just because these unfortunate people happen to be weak, vulnerable and defenseless.

But Zionism is also a cancer upon the conscience of Judaism; it is a virulent philosophy and venomous ideology that has transformed Jews into tormentors, persecutors and oppressors as well as occupiers, liars and land thieves.

I have no doubt that the dehumanizing oppression meted out to the Palestinians and others by Israel will speed up the corrosion and dissolution of the Zionist entity.

I am sure that the wise among Jews realize this eventuality very well.

Russia’s Role in Preventing the Genocide of the Syrian Christians

Christians faced outward and joined hands in a circle to protect a Muslim group of protesters as they prayed in Egypt. Christians and Muslims in the M.E. are NOT the enemies the western media would have us believe.

journal-neo.org/2021/04/03

Until very recently, the policies of a number of Western states have practically done nothing to put an end to the genocide of Christians in Syria.

It was clear from the onset of the conflict that the fall of the regime of Bashar al-Assad would have inevitably resulted in the complete extermination of Christian and Alawite communities, as disparate groups of the so-called “moderate opposition” were in no position to create a strong government to protect religious minorities.

Western leaders were fully aware of the fact that if their demand about Assad stepping down was fulfilled, this would trigger a new wave of genocide against Christians.

And they were quite willing to see it through and witness the carnage firsthand.

The fact that the problem of Christians was of little concern to Washington is evidenced by the reports published in the American media.

Those demonstrate the reluctance of the United States to let Christian refugees in.

Thus, according to the annual report of the US Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration that was issued in 2015, 97% of all Syrian refugees allowed to enter the US were Muslims, while only 53 Syrian refugees who professed Christianity were allowed to cross the border.

Mind you, by that year a third of the entire Syrian Christian population had already left the country.

The war in Syria has led to a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions.

According to UNHCR, nearly half a million people have perished, and more than a half of the entire population – some 12 million people was forcefully misplaced.

The better part of those people have taken refuge in neighboring countries-Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.

About a million people tried to reach Europe, starting the largest exodus since the Second World War! A whole generation of children was born in exile.

Therefore, it is not surprising that one of the principal goals of Russia’s military support to Syria was the liberation from radical Islamists of the territories that were traditionally occupied by Christian communities.

Due to the active steps undertaken by the Russian military attempts at perpetuating genocide against Christians were brought to a screeching halt.

Moreover, conditions were created for refugees to return home and considerable support was provided to enable restoration of peace that Christian communities used to enjoy in Syria.

It was Russia that played a key role in preventing new acts of genocide against the Christian population of northeastern Syria.

Since the very first day of the Syrian conflict, Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church have consistently called on the international community to consolidate its efforts in a bid to provide assistance to the people of Syria.

When it became obvious that one of the most important tasks on the way to peaceful life was the restoration of the destroyed infrastructure, the Russian Orthodox Church managed to rally both Christians and Muslims all across Russia to facilitate this goal.

Thus in August 2013, it sent 1,320,407 dollars to the Patriarch of Antioch that were collected with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill across the churches of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In 2017, on the basis of the Council for Cooperation with Religious Associations under the President of Russia, an Inter-religious working group was established to provide humanitarian assistance to the population of Syria, where both Christian and Muslim communities of Russia were represented.

With the assistance of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, the Russian center for reconciliation of the warring parties delivered humanitarian aid to Christian settlements in the Homs governorate, and at the request of the Antiochian Orthodox Church – to Christian villages in the governorates of Hama and Idlib. 

With the participation of Russian specialists the monastery of Holy Thecla was brought back to peaceful life in the governorate of Damascus.

In a short period of time, the working group has successfully concluded a number of other humanitarian projects.

The significant role that Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church played in the protection of Christians in Syria is admitted by a number of prominent Western media sources, including The Washington Post.

Reverend Franklin Graham, an influential figure in the West and a son of the popular American preacher Billy Graham, would repeatedly stress the role that Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church played in saving Christians in Syria in his interviews.

However, Moscow would carry on taking consistent diplomatic steps to protect the interests of Christian communities in other parts of the world.

In particular, in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, that is controlled by Azerbaijan these days.

With the active participation of the Russian Orthodox Church, efforts are being made to draw the attention of the international community to the problems of Christian communities in Africa.

Today, it can be safely stated that the painstaking efforts that were undertaken to preserve Syria as one of the founding stones of the Muslim world were not in vain, although initially this country was, as you already know, the cradle of Christian civilization.

And Russia played a major role in saving this example of interreligious harmony from disintegration and subsequent self-destruction, which would trigger similar processes in a number of other states across the Middle East.

US denounces ICC probe in Palestinian territories. Why?

Sure US denounces ICC probe…US is just as guilty!

“ICC member countries should stand ready to fiercely protect the court’s work from any political pressure.”

The United States on Wednesday criticized the International Criminal Court for opening an investigation into alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories and voiced support for Israel.

“We firmly oppose and are disappointed by the ICC prosecutor’s announcement of an investigation into the Palestinian situation,” State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters.

“We will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly,” he said, noting that Israel does not accept the court’s jurisdiction.

Despite strong opposition from Israel and the United States, the outgoing ICC chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, announced that she was going ahead with a probe into the situation in the blockaded Gaza Strip as well as the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

No one is safe anywhere in Palestine, that means anyone including human rights groups, activists and tourists. ANY non Jew.

Zionist Occupation forces have a ‘shoot anything that moves policy in Palestine’ in and outside of epic attacks every few years, meaning streets, playgrounds, beeches etc

The website Walla! published talkback comments on an article about the four children killed on the Gaza beach.

Shani Moyal: “I couldn’t care less that Arab children were killed, too bad it wasn’t more. Well done to the IDF.”

Stav Sabah: “Really, these are great pictures. They make me so happy, I want to look at them again and again.”

Sharon Avishi: “Only four? Too bad. We hoped for more.”

Daniela Turgeman: “Great. We need to kill all the children.”

Chaya Hatnovich: “There isn’t a more beautiful picture than those of dead Arab children.”

Orna Peretz: “Why only four?”

Rachel Cohen: “I’m not for children dying in Gaza. I’m for everyone burning.”

Tami Mashan: “As many children as possible should die.”

Under previous president Donald Trump, the United States imposed sanctions on Bensouda after she separately decided to investigate alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan.

President Joe Biden has indicated a more cooperative approach with the court, seeing its value, but has yet to end the sanctions.

“We are committed to promoting accountability, respect for human rights and justice for victims of atrocities,” Price said.

“As much as we disagree with the ICC’s actions relating to the Palestinian situation and of course to Afghanistan,” Price said, “we are thoroughly reviewing sanctions.”

The US is just as guilty for aiding and abetting war criminals.

No amount of political propaganda from a weakened secretary of state, or tweeting by an outgoing, lame duck American president, will prevent the ICC from pursuing its duty to investigate the most heinous of crimes against humanity.

So what did Israel do in Gaza in 2014? During a seven-week military invasion, Israel’s military rampaged through the poverty-stricken civilian population, responding to provocations from Hamas.

More than 2,300 Palestinians were killed and nearly 11,000 were injured. The vast majority of the dead and injured were civilians.

Israel defended its actions by arguing that Hamas militants had used the civilians as “human shields.”

Israel justified its invasion by asserting that Hamas extremists were responsible for the murder of three Israeli teenagers, despite a lack of evidence.

Israel blamed all violence on Hamas and the Palestinians generally, rarely acknowledging its own violence or crimes.

With the backing of a biased mainstream news media, and millions of dollars set aside for public relations propaganda, Israel enforced its argument despite the reality of videos, photographs and eyewitness testimony that claimed Israeli soldiers intentionally killed civilians.

But the ICC isn’t swayed by Israel or by the rhetoric of politicians.

Its prosecutor’s report stated: “The Office found there was a reasonable basis to believe that members of the Israel Defense Forces committed the war crimes of: Intentionally launching disproportionate attacks in relation to at least three incidents which the Office has focused on; willful killing and willfully causing serious injury to body or health; and intentionally directing an attack against objects or persons using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions.”

The report added: “In addition, Office found there was a reasonable basis to believe that members of Hamas and Palestinian armed groups committed the war crimes of: Intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects; using protected persons as shields; willfully depriving protected persons of the rights of fair and regular trial; and willful killing and torture or inhuman treatment and/or outrages upon personal dignity.”

Each accusation is backed up by an article of the Rome Statute, which is the legal basis of the ICC’s existence and mandate.

Israel can bury its head in the sand, but it won’t be able to avoid prosecution, regardless of who sits in the White House.

No children’s playground in Palestine is safe

“Abandoned” Arab Orange Groves in Occupied Palestine

A central slogan of Zionist propaganda was “a land without people for a people without land”. Before the European Zionist invasion, the Palestinian Muslims, Christians and Jews lived harmoniously together and worked together. Contrary to the myth propagated by Israel of an arid, backward and under populated Palestine3, Palestinians had a dynamic agricultural sector before the arrival of European Jews.
Even if their proprietors had remained in Jaffa, the orange groves were considered “abandoned assets” and were seized by the State of Israel.

What is the story behind the cultivation of Jaffa oranges?

Prior to 1948, the modern city of Jaffa was the cultural and economic heart of Palestine. From the late 19th century until 1970, it was also one of the largest ports of orange export in the world.

Oranges and other citrus fruit were brought to Europe from the Middle East. Jaffa oranges, in particular, are a variety developed by Arab Palestinian farmers in the 19th century.1

These oranges were the pride of Palestinians because they are sweet and almost seedless.

Their tough skin made them perfect for export. Moreover, the cultivation of oranges developed simultaneously with the rise of the steam engine and the increase of European exports in the mid 19th century.

During the early 20th century and until 1939, oranges were the largest Palestinian export, surpassing even cotton. In 1939, a total of 30 000 hectares were cultivated and 15 million crates were exported. 2

Thus, contrary to the myth propagated by Israel of an arid, backward and under populated Palestine3, Palestinians had a dynamic agricultural sector before the arrival of European Jews.

Under the British Mandate, the cultivation of products such as olives, melon, tobacco, grapevines and oranges to name a few, mostly belonged to the Arab Palestinians.4

Towards the end of the Mandate, the cultivation of oranges by Jewish Palestinians who were either native or established for several generations had significantly increased.

Despite this, the production from Arab Palestinians remained superior both in terms of quantity and quality.5

What were the relationships between the different communities cultivating oranges at the beginning of the 20th century?

A time of social peace: At the beginning of the century, orange groves were common to all natives of Jaffa and the surrounding regions, regardless of their religious affiliation.

A certain rivalry existed between the different communities, however the relationships were peaceful.

Arab orange groves employed Jews and vice versa. During these years, an intricate network of economic, social and cultural relationships was developed between Arab – Muslim or Christian – and Jewish communities from the city.6 Subsequent conflicts have obscured this degree of interdependence and cooperation.

The outbreak of tensions: In the years prior to 1948, tensions arose between Arab and Jewish Palestinians with the establishment of kibbutz, which recruited exclusively Jewish labour.

From the start of the 20th century, it became increasingly frequent for Zionist agencies to acquire land from absent landlords while dismissing sharecropping tenants in favour of Jewish immigrants.7

These sharecroppers8 were particularly at the mercy of such evictions. Furthermore, Jewish immigrants would often put pressure on former Jewish landlords so that they would dismiss their Arab employees.

An agreement on non-aggression and its breach: Despite growing tensions, the orange growers signed an agreement on non-aggression in 1948 concerning the orange groves between Jaffa – a predominantly Arab city – and Tel Aviv – a predominantly Jewish city – in the midst of the war.

These plantations were not to be attacked in order for harvest and exports to continue.

This delicate balance was broken when members of the Haganah Jewish armed militia started conducting random attacks on the area despite Tel Aviv municipal authorities’ and Jaffa’s efforts to establish a modus Vivendi.9

What happened to the Palestinians’ orange groves after the Nakba?

The forced exodus of Jaffa Palestinians: According to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the city of Jaffa should have been part of a future Arab state.

However in April and May 1948, Jaffa was besieged and pounded by the soon to be Israeli army.

To escape the bombardments, thousands of Palestinians had to flee the city by boat.

On May 14th, only 4 -5 000 of the 70 000 Palestinians who lived in Jaffa, remained.10 The orange groves that belonged to Palestinians were then illegally confiscated and became the property of the State of Israel.

Even if their proprietors had remained in Jaffa, the orange groves were considered “abandoned assets” and were seized by the State of Israel.

After 1948: Following the eviction of the Arab Palestinians, the State of Israel continued to gain profits from the export of oranges.

Even today, Israel exports the Jaffa brand of citrus fruit although there are no more orange trees around the city.

Most of the orange groves were either destroyed or abandoned when the oranges lost their value on the global market in the 1980s.

It was at this time that the export of citrus fruit from Israel dropped from one million tonnes to only 300 000 tonnes because of European competition.11

What do Jaffa oranges symbolize?

A strong symbol of Palestinian national identity: For Palestinians, Jaffa oranges were a very strong symbol of their land.

With its internationally renowned quality, the orange represented the Palestinian people’s ingenuity.

Palestinian historian Mustafa Khaba recounts that in the late 1920’s, the Palestinian press conducted a survey to determine what flag the Palestinians wanted to adopt following their independence.

An attachment to the fruit was clearly highlighted in the survey as the majority of the respondents felt that the green and orange colourings of citrus fruit represented Palestine best.

It seems that this opinion prevailed until the 1948 adoption of the Pan-Arabic coloured flag.12 After 1948 however, orange began to represent the lost ancestral homeland.

The appropriation of the orange symbol by the State of Israel: Around the same time, Jewish immigrants appropriated Jaffa oranges as a symbol of the State of Israel.

Historian Amnon Raz-Krakotzin explains how the Zionist movement made the modernization and the cultivation of the citrus fruit symbolic even though this predated the arrival of the settlers.13

When examining propaganda from this era through posters and photographs, it is obvious that the orange iconography helped convey the false myth of a backward Palestinian society.

These are Palestinian Jewish leaders in Jerusalem 1947. They reject imposing  a Jewish state on Palestine consisting of foreign so called Jews. .. They were kicked out of “Israel” the new European Jewish state.

Furthermore from the 1950s on, Jaffa oranges represented Israel internationally as the new state’s main export.14

Jaffa became a registered trademark in 1948. Israel’s citrus fruit marketing board, which was created under the British Mandate, then controlled all production and exportation of Israeli citrus fruit under that name.

In 1976, among the signs best known to the public, Jaffa was ranked just after Coca-Cola.15 As for the Palestinian city of Jaffa, it was annexed by Tel-Aviv in 1950 and its name gradually fell into oblivion.

Should Canadians boycott Jaffa oranges?

Yes. CJPME encourages the boycott of Israeli products for several reasons.

In 2005, over 170 organizations from Palestinian civil society appealed to the world to impose a strategy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) on Israeli institutions in an attempt to move the Israeli government to respect international law and fundamental Palestinian rights.16

The boycott of Israeli products and companies operating in the OccupiedTerritories aims to denounce the military occupation of PalestinianTerritories by Israel, its colonization policies and the blockade it has imposed on the people of Gaza.

Jaffa oranges should especially be boycotted for the following reasons.

Firstly, for a long time theseJaffa brand oranges were partly cultivated on illegally acquired lands.

According to international law there is a despoliation of goods when they are confiscated by the state in an arbitrary manner without compensation or for discriminatory purposes.

This was the case in 1948 for the Arab landlords of theJaffa orange groves.

BoycottingJaffa oranges allows Canadians to express their opposition to this despoliation performed by the State of Israel. Furthermore, buyingJaffa oranges or other Israeli products reinforces the Israeli economy.

This facilitates Israel’s ongoing violation of international law and helps normalize these violations.

Who Started the Six Day War of June 1967?

UNEF was established after Israel conspired with Britain and France to wage a war of aggression against Egypt in 1956, following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal.

UNEF’s purpose was not only to secure the cessation of hostilities and serve as a buffer to prevent future aggression, but also to supervise the required withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the occupied Sinai.

As Israel/US install a puppet government in Egypt as as currant, there are no more problems between Egypt and “Israel” as it occupies Palestine.

UN Emergency Force (UNEF) Middle East

by Jun 5, 2017Foreign Policy

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens defends Israel’s occupation of Palestine by regurgitating Zionist propaganda about who started the 1967 Six Day War.

“In June 1967,” Bret Stephens writes in the New York Times for the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War, “Arab leaders declared their intention to annihilate the Jewish state and the Jews decided they wouldn’t sit still for it. For the crime of self-preservation, Israel remains a nation unforgiven.

“Unforgiven, Israel’s milder critics say, because the Six-Day War, even if justified at the time, does not justify 50 years of occupation.”

Stephens disagrees, asserting that the view that Israel’s ongoing occupation is unjustified “is ahistoric nonsense.”

In fact, it is Bret Stephens who is demonstrably guilty of that charge, as his article, titled “Six Days and 50 Years of War”, does nothing more than regurgitate standard Zionist propaganda.

Distorting the 1967 War

Stephens proceeds to blame the “Six Day War” of June 1967 on the Arabs by noting that a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai Peninsula was withdrawn at Egypt’s insistence and referring to an “Egyptian blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat.”

Then Stephens writes, “On June 5, the first day of the war, the Israeli government used three separate diplomatic channels to warn Jordan—then occupying the West Bank—not to initiate hostilities.

The Jordanians ignored the warning and opened fire with planes and artillery.”

By this means, Stephens disgracefully deceives his readers into believing that Jordan fired the first shots of the war.

In truth, the Six Day War was begun by Israel on the morning of June 5 with a surprise attack on Jordan’s ally Egypt that obliterated its air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.

It is true that Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had instructed the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) to evacuate Egyptian territory. The conclusion readers are evidently supposed to draw is that Egypt, in partnership with Jordan, was preparing to invade Israel.

The UN peacekeeping force was “intended as a buffer with Egypt”, Stephens states. This is true, but the implication, given his provided context, is that its purpose was to protect Israel from Egyptian aggression—which is a distortion of history.

What Stephens declines to inform readers is that UNEF was established after Israel conspired with Britain and France to wage a war of aggression against Egypt in 1956, following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. UNEF’s purpose was not only to secure the cessation of hostilities and serve as a buffer to prevent future aggression, but also to supervise the required withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the occupied Sinai.

To lead readers to the desired conclusion, Stephens omits additional relevant context, such as how Nasser had been accused by its allies Syria and Jordan of hiding behind UNEF—such as failing to come to Jordan’s assistance when Israel on November 13, 1966, invaded the West Bank to collectively punish the civilian population of the village of Samu for the killing of three Israeli soldiers by the Palestinian group al-Fatah two days earlier.

Israel’s assumption was that by terrorizing the villagers, they would appeal to King Hussein of Jordan—which administered the West Bank in the wake of the 1948 war and ethnic cleansing of Palestine—to clamp down on Fatah.

After rounding up villages in the town square, Israeli forces proceeded to engage in wanton destruction that included the razing, according to UN investigators, of 125 homes, a village clinic, and a school. Three civilians were killed and ninety-six wounded, and the UN Security Council condemned Israel for its “violation of the UN Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan”.

By omitting the context of Nasser’s humiliation in the face of such Israeli aggression, Stephens leaves his readers with the impression that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel—rather than Nasser ejecting UNEF to save face in the wake of accusations that he was hiding cowardly behind the UN peacekeepers.

In fact, UN Secretary-General U Thant, after Nasser requested its evacuation from Egyptian soil, proposed repositioning UNEF on the Israeli side of the border, but this proposal was rejected by Israel.

It’s also true that Egypt had announced the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. In Egypt’s view, the straits were its territorial waters.

Israel considered this announcement a casus belli—a justification for war—but was repeatedly warned by the US government that its grievance with Egypt over the use of the straits would need to be resolved through diplomacy, not military force.

Stephens’ reference to Egypt’s closing of the straits occurs in the context of his characterization of France and the US as having abandoned Israel in its time of need: “France, hitherto Israel’s ally, had imposed an arms embargo on it; and … Lyndon Johnson had failed to deliver on previous American assurances to break any Egyptian blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat.”

While Stephens offers no explanation for France’s refusal to supply Israel with addition arms (it was already recognized as the most formidable military power in the region), it is relevant that France had been censured along with Israel by the international community—including the US—for their joint aggression against Egypt in 1956.

Presumably an oversight, Stephens does not mention the movement of Egyptian armed forces into the Sinai Peninsula prior to the June war—a fact usually cited in such Zionist propaganda accounts as proof of Nasser’s intent to invade Israel.

In fact, Israel’s own intelligence had assessed, following the Egyptian movement of troops, that Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel (they judged him not to be insane), which was an assessment shared by the US intelligence community.

The CIA observed that Egypt’s forces had taken up defensive positions after having received an intelligence report from the Soviet Union that Israel was amassing forces on the border with Egypt’s ally, Syria.

(“The Soviet advice to the Syrians [sic] that the Israelis were planning an attack was not far off,” State Department Middle East analyst Harold Saunders subsequently assessed, “although they seem to have exaggerated the magnitude. The Israelis probably were planning an attack—but not an invasion.”)

The CIA also accurately predicted and warned President Lyndon Johnson that the war was coming, and that it would be Israel who would start it. The documentary record of diplomatic cables during this time (i.e., the State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States collection) is replete with warnings to Israel that it would not be politically feasible for the US to intervene on Israel’s side—as Israel was pushing the Johnson administration to do—if it was the party responsible for firing the first shot of the war.

“As your friend,” President Johnson wrote in a letter delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol on May 28, for example, “I repeat even more strongly what I said yesterday to Mr. [Abba] Eban [Israel’s ambassador to the US]. Israel just must not take any preemptive military action and thereby make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities.” (Emphasis added.)

Having omitted all of this relevant context and deceiving readers into believing that the first shot of the war was fired by Jordan, Stephens proceeds to characterize Israel as the party seeking peace, while the recalcitrant Arabs rejected its reasonable overtures.

His evidence for this is the decision by the Israeli cabinet on June 19, nine days after the end of the war, to “offer the return of territories conquered from Egypt and Syria in exchange for peace, security and recognition.”

Had Israel wanted peace with its Arab neighbors, however, it could have simply chosen not to launch the six-day war in the first place and instead heeded the Johnson administration’s advice to seek a resolution to the escalating tensions through diplomatic means in accordance with Israel’s obligations under the UN Charter.

Cautioning his readers to not “fall prey to the lazy trope of ’50 years of occupation,’ inevitably used to indict Israel”, Stephens argues that “There would have been no occupation, and no settlements, if Egypt and its allies hadn’t recklessly provoked a war.”

Needless to say, there would be no ongoing occupation after 50 years, and no illegal Israeli colonization of the occupied West Bank, if Israel hadn’t started the 1967 war with its act of aggression against Egypt and used the opportunity to engage in land-grabbing in pursuit of the Zionist dream of establishing Jewish control over all of the territory of historic Palestine.

“In 1967”, Stephens concludes, “Israel was forced into a war against enemies who then begrudged it the peace.”

In 1967, rather, Israel chose to wage war against its neighbors and then attempted to use occupied territory as a bargaining chip to draw concessions from Egypt and Syria, such as acquiescence to Israel’s rejection of the right of Palestinians who were made refugees by the Zionists’ ethnic cleansing of Palestine to return to their homeland.

In the words of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, just as in 1956, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Defending Israel’s Occupation Regime

Stephens rounds out his retelling of how the 1967 war was begun by summarizing the history since then with repetition of additional standard talking points of Zionist propaganda.

“In 1973 Egypt and Syria unleashed a devastating surprise attack on Israel,” he writes—by which he means that Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli forces occupying, respectively, the Egyptian territory of the Sinai Peninsula and of the Syrian territory of the Golan Heights.

He then rolls out the lazy trope (to borrow his phrase) that the Palestinians have nobody to blame but themselves for Israel’s ongoing occupation because they have rejected repeated Israeli offers of statehood under what is euphemistically dubbed the “peace process”.

Stephens characterizes “the Oslo Accords of 1993”—(the second Oslo Accord was signed in 1995, actually, not the same year as the first)—as a “serious” effort to reach a peace agreement. 

In reality, as I document in my book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the US-led so-called “peace process” is the means by which Israel and its superpower benefactor have long blocked implementation of the two-state solution, in favor of which there is otherwise a consensus in the international community.

To illustrate, Stephens writes that, “In 2000, at Camp David, Israel offered [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat a state. He rejected it.”

In fact, what Israel “offered” the Palestinians at Camp David fell far short of sovereignty and Israeli respect for their right to self-determination.

Within the proper framework of what each party has a right to under international law—as opposed to the framework adopted under the “peace process” of rejecting the applicability of international law and replacing it with what Israel wants—Israel made precisely zero concessions at Camp David.

Every single concession demanded and made rather came from the Palestinian side, which had already conceded to Israel the 78 percent of the former territory of Palestine on the Israeli side of the 1949 armistice lines (also known as the pre-June 1967 lines or the “Green Line” for the color with which it was drawn on the map).

What Arafat was seeking at Camp David was an agreement that would allow the Palestinians to establish their state in the remaining 22 percent of the territory comprising the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

(Israel’s moves to annex East Jerusalem have been repeatedly recognized by the UN Security Council as illegal, null and void; and it remains under international law “occupied Palestinian territory”, to quote the International Court of Justice on the matter.)

Israel’s “offer” at Camp David included the demand that the Palestinians give up even more of their land by acquiescing to Israel’s annexation of about 9 percent of the occupied West Bank—including East Jerusalem and some of the best land where Israel had established settlements in violation of international law.

Another non-starter for the Palestinians was Israel’s demand that they surrender the right of refugees from the Zionists’ 1948 ethnic cleansing to return to their homeland.

“Our people will not accept less than their rights as stated by international resolutions and international legality”, a frustrated Arafat told US President Bill Clinton.

Contrary to Stephen’s characterization, Israel’s supposedly generous offer at Camp David fell far short of Israeli compliance with international law and respect for Palestinians’ rights.

In the same vein, Stephens writes that, “In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a Palestinian state in Gaza and 93 percent of the West Bank. The Palestinians rejected the proposal out of hand.”

He doesn’t bother to explain to readers why the Palestinians should have agreed to accept Israeli annexation of 7 percent of the occupied West Bank, including of course East Jerusalem, as well as the surrender of Palestinian refugees’ internationally recognized right to return to their homeland.

(Olmert’s “offer” also consisted of the demand that the Palestinian Authority—the administrative body established under the Oslo Accords to effectively serve as Israel’s collaborator in enforcing the occupation regime—oust Hamas and regain control of Gaza.

Limited in the extent of his own collaboration with Israel by the will of the people he claimed to represent, Mahmoud Abbas justifiably dismissed the series of ultimatums dubbed an “offer” as a “waste of time”.)

“In 2005,” Stephens continues, “another right-wing Israeli government removed its soldiers, settlers and settlements from the Gaza Strip. Two years later Hamas seized control of the territory and used it to start three wars in seven years.”

In reality, Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, masterminded by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was simply a means of gaining the political leverage required to expand and further entrench its illegal settlement regime, including the illegal construction of an annexation wall within the occupied West Bank.

It’s true that Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007, but what Stephens declines to inform Times readers is that this was a consequence of a joint effort by the US and Israel to overthrow the Hamas-led government after it legitimately gained power through democratic elections the previous year.

To punish the civilian population of Gaza for having voted the wrong way, Israel then implemented a siege of the territory, severely restricting the movement of goods and people into and out of Gaza.

The purpose of Israel’s illegal blockade of Gaza was summed up by Sharon’s senior advisor Dov Weissglass thus: “It’s like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won’t die.”

The US government was well aware of Israel’s intent to collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza.

A cable from the US embassy in Tel Aviv to senior Bush administration officials including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice relayed that “Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis”—with “humanitarian crisis” being used euphemistically to mean the point at which Gazans would begin to drop dead from outright starvation.

As for the three “wars” Stephens refers to, this is his euphemistic description for Israel’s military assaults intended to inflict further punishment on the defenseless civilian population of Gaza: Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, and Operation Protective Edge in 2014.

In fact, prior to each of these attacks on Gaza, it was Israel that violated ceasefire agreements with Hamas.

In 2008, for example, while Hamas strictly observed a ceasefire that had gone into effect that June, Israel routinely violated it with its continuation of the blockade, cross-border shootings, and a November 4 incursion that killed six Hamas members.

Its 2012 assault was launched the day after Hamas had again persuaded other military factions to abide by a ceasefire agreement, which Israel used to draw a senior Hamas official out of hiding in order to assassinate him at the start of its planned operation.

And in 2014, by the time the Hamas launched its first rocket attack against Israel, on July 6, Israel had already been bombing Gaza for a week (and rejected Hamas’s efforts through Egyptian mediators to reestablish a ceasefire).

In each of these military assaults on the defenseless Gaza Strip, Israel effectively implemented what its military establishment has dubbed the “Dahiya doctrine”—a reference to the leveling of the Dahiya district of Beirut to collectively punish its civilian population during Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon.

Conclusion

It requires a great deal of chutzpah for Brett Stephens to accuse others of “ahistoric nonsense” while himself doing nothing more than regurgitating standard Zionist propaganda and deliberately misleading readers of his New York Times column into believing that it was not Israel that started the June 1967 war.

He reinforces this deception by falsely characterizing Israel as also not having been the party responsible for violating ceasefire agreements with Hamas prior to its operations in Gaza in 2008-09, 2012, and 2014.

And while Stephens tries to defend Israel’s ongoing occupation by characterizing the Palestinians as unreasonably rejecting its supposed offers of peace, the reality is that the Palestinian leadership has long accepted the two-state solution, which has since its inception been rejected by Israel and its superpower benefactor, the government of the United States of America.

 

If Israel Practiced Democracy, It’d Be Called Palestine

“While Zionist propagandists like Elan Journo in his new hoax book What Justice Demands are fond of claiming that it was the Arabs who rejected Jewish self-determination in Palestine, the truth is that the Mandate itself constituted a rejection of this right of the land’s Arab inhabitants.”

Israel’s Jewish Nation State Law can’t be a departure from the democratic principles it was founded on for the simple reason that it wasn’t founded on any.

By Jeremy Hammond

On July 19, the Israeli legislature, the Knesset, passed a law defining Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, prompting criticism in the US mainstream media that it represents a departure from the democratic principles Israel was founded upon.

The reality is that the Jewish Nation State Law can’t represent a departure from democratic principles for the simple reason that Israel owes its very existence to a fundamental rejection of democracy.

The “Jewish State” of Israel was established through two profound manifestations of that rejectionism: the League of Nations’ Palestine Mandate and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

A brief review of the historical record shows how, if Israel practiced democracy, it would be called Palestine. Hence the necessity for the Jewish Nation State Law.

The Zionist Mandate for Palestine

During the First World War, Great Britain came to militarily occupy Palestine and promised the Arabs their independence in exchange for a commitment to join in the war effort against the Ottoman Empire.

Although they did not rise up en masse against their Ottoman rulers, Arabs from Palestine were among the first to volunteer to fight with the British in order to gain their freedom from Turkish rule.

However, the British government never had any intention of honoring its promise to support independence for the Arab inhabitants of Palestine.

Instead, their aim was to prevent the Palestinians from exercising their right to self-determination in service to the Zionist leadership in Europe, a quid pro quo for Jewish support for the war effort.

The infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917, delivered in the form of a private letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, a representative of the Zionist movement and member of the renowned banking family, was a propaganda document designed for the purpose of acquiring Jewish support for the war.

It promised British support “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” while paying meaningless lip service to “the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” in order to ensure that the Declaration did not undermine the government’s need to also acquire support from Arab rulers.

Established in the wake of the war, the League of Nations issued its “Mandate” for Palestine, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration and was drafted by organized Zionists to further the aim of reconstituting Arab Palestine into a “Jewish state”.

The purpose of the Mandate, enforced by British guns, was to deny democratic self-governance to the inhabitants of Palestine until the Jews had through mass immigration managed to establish a numerical majority.

However, by the end of the Mandate, Jews still remained a minority, comprising about a third of the population.

Moreover, despite the best efforts of the Zionist leadership, the Jewish community had only managed to purchase about 7 percent of the land in Palestine.

Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine, including Jaffa, which included the main Jewish population center of Tel Aviv.

The reality of demographics and land ownership posed a problem for the Zionist leadership. The Arabs rejected the Mandate and were giving the British trouble.

They recognized that the Zionists envisioned their political disenfranchisement and eventual displacement from the land.

Initially, the means by which Arabs were displaced was through land purchases exploiting feudalistic Ottoman land laws that deprived Arab peasants of their property rights.

But the failure to acquire more than 7 percent of the land meant that other means would need to be employed to gain control over the area envisioned for the “Jewish state”.

The Arabs naturally rejected the Mandate, and they also understood that the implementation of the Zionist project meant their subjugation to foreign powers. (Indeed, the British acknowledged that the Arabs of Palestine exercised a greater measure of self-governance under Ottoman rule!)

While Zionist propagandists like Elan Journo in his new hoax book What Justice Demands are fond of claiming that it was the Arabs who rejected Jewish self-determination in Palestine, the truth is that the Mandate itself constituted a rejection of this right of the land’s Arab inhabitants.

Moreover, the Arab leadership was insistent in their demand that the independence of Palestine be recognized under a constitution guaranteeing representative democracy and minority rights.

The Zionist leadership tellingly rejected the democratic solution, as did the British (who described Arabs demanding that their right to self-determination be respected as “extremists”, whereas those who were willing to collaborate with the Zionist occupation regime were dubbed “moderate”).

Democracy simply was not a solution for the Zionists—it was rather an obstacle to be overcome to achieve their aims. In the view of the Zionists, the Palestinians had to be prevented from being able to exercise their right to self-determination, and so British guns were employed to that end.

But British guns only took the Zionists so far. They’d have to get the rest of the way toward establishment of their “Jewish state” on their own.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

The solution favored by Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first prime minister and is known as the father of the country, was the “compulsory transfer” of Arabs outside of the area of the envisioned “Jewish state”.

Ben-Gurion was borrowing the term from the British, who proposed the idea of a forcible transfer of populations in order to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states in the 1937 Peel Commission Report.

And while Ben-Gurion initially felt the ethnic cleansing would have to be undertaken by the British, the Zionists eventually built their own formidable military force, the Haganah, enabling them to implement the “compulsory transfer” on their own.

When the UN, which replaced the defunct League of Nations following World War II, resurrected the stillborn partition plan, the Zionists recognized it as their opportunity to forcibly implement the “compulsory transfer” and land-grabbing necessary for their “Jewish state” to be established.

On May 14, 1948, the Zionist leadership unilaterally declared the existence of the state of Israel, citing as legal authority the UN “partition plan” resolution, General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947. However, this resolution neither partitioned Palestine nor conferred any legal authority to the Zionists for their unilateral declaration.

Furthermore, the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), the body appointed by the General Assembly to come up with a solution and whose majority members recommended partition, explicitly acknowledged in its report that the goal of the Mandate to establish a “Jewish state” constituted a rejection of the right of the Arab Palestinians to self-determination.

This explains the grossly inequitable nature of the partition plan. Jews comprised about a third of the population and owned less than 7 percent of the land, whereas UNSCOP acknowledged that the Arabs were in “in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land”.

Yet it nevertheless proposed that the Arabs should remain in possession of about 45 percent of the land for their state, whereas Jews should have about 55 percent of the land for theirs (with Jerusalem placed under international trusteeship).

Furthermore, when the Bedouin population was counted, Arabs constituted a majority even in the area of the proposed Jewish state, where Arabs also owned more land than Jews.

The majority recommendation, premised as it was on the rejection of self-determination as it applied to the Arab majority, constituted a violation of the very Charter under which the the General Assembly purported to be operating.

The minority recommendation of the UNSCOP report, by contrast, joined with the Arabs in favoring the democratic solution, proposing that the independence of Palestine be recognized, the same as had happened with every other Mandated territory, and a democratic government established respecting the rights of minorities.

Contrary to the popular myth that the UN created Israel, the partition plan was forwarded by the General Assembly to the Security Council, where it died. The US representative rightly pointed out that the only way to implement the plan was through force and that the UN had no authority to forcibly partition Palestine against the will of the majority of its inhabitants.

But the UN had provided political cover enough for the Zionists to implement the plan on their own.

Already by the time they announced Israel’s existence and the neighboring Arab states responded by sending their armed forces into Palestine, a quarter of a million Arabs had been ethnically cleansed from their homes, and hundreds of Arab villages had been destroyed.

By the time it was over and armistice treaties were signed, more than 700,000 Arabs had fled or been expelled, never allowed to return, despite the recognition under international law that refugees of war have a right to return to their homeland.

The Jewish Nation State Law

These British people do not belong in the Arab world

The US mainstream media serve to manufacture consent for the US policy of supporting Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.

The nature of the coverage about Israel’s new “Nation State” law is no different.

While the media may not be trying to defend such a blatantly racist law, the criticisms of the law fall within a very narrow spectrum and serves to propagandize the public with the false belief that Israel was established on democratic principles.

The Jewish Nation State Law was enacted as a “Basic Law”, which body of laws essentially serves as the supreme law of the land in the absence of an Israeli constitution.

It states that Israel “is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.”

Moreover, it states that “The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared after the law’s enactment that it represented “a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and the annals of the state of Israel”.

Meaninglessly and falsely adding that Israel “respects the rights of all its citizens”, Netanyahu described it as having “determined in law the founding principle of our existence” that “Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people”.

Indeed, the law does represent a manifestation of the founding principle of Israel’s existence; namely, the rejection of the right of the land’s Arab inhabitants to self-determination.

In its coverage of the law’s passage, the New York Times commented that critics are calling it “a betrayal of Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence, which ensured ‘complete equality of social and political rights’ for ‘all its inhabitants’ no matter their religion, race or sex.”

Of course, this lofty rhetoric in the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of Israel’s existence on May 14, 1948—euphemistically referred to by the thought-controlling Times as a “Declaration of Independence”—was belied by the actual means by which the “Jewish state” came into being, which was not through any kind of legitimate political process, but by ethnically cleansing most of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine from their homes and systematically wiping hundreds of Palestinian villages off the map.

Time magazine similarly reported on the Jewish Nation State Law under the headline “A New Law Shifts Israel Away from Democracy”, describing it contradicting the equal rights for all inhabitants promised in the “Declaration of Independence”—thus likewise maintaining the delusion that Israel was established on democratic principles.

Time also commented that the law should be understood within the context of the so-called “peace process” that the Trump administration has been vainly trying to revive.

Indeed, the law is simply a reiteration of the propaganda talking point that Israel has a “right to exist” as a “Jewish state”, a well as Israel’s longstanding demand that the Palestinians recognize it as such.

In other words, Israel has long maintained as a prerequisite for any kind of peace agreement that the Palestinians must surrender their rights.

They must surrender their property rights, their right to self-determination, and their right to return to their homeland by acceding that the means by which Israel came into being was legitimate.

The use of force, however, to prevent a people from achieving their freedom is anathema to the lofty rhetoric about Arabs’ rights contained in propaganda instruments like Britain’s Balfour Declaration and the Zionists’ legally null declaration of Israel’s existence, which was not a declaration of independence, but was announced while ethnic cleansing operations were underway in order to deny independence to the lands’ majority inhabitants.

The very idea of a state having a “right to exist” is nonsensical propaganda. No state has a “right to exist”. Abstract political entities don’t have rights; individuals do. The proper framework for approaching the issue is rather the universal right to self-determination, which is a right not being denied to Israelis by the Palestinians, but vice versa.

The Palestinians’ right to self-governance has always been rejected by the Zionist leadership. This rejection of both Arabs’ rights and democratic principles was manifest in the actual means by which the “Jewish state” came into being, from the rejectionist Mandate to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine that the British helped facilitate with the Balfour policy.

The Jewish Nation State Law doesn’t move Israel further away from democratic principles. It can’t. This isn’t logically possible when the very existence of the “Jewish state” is dependent upon ensuring that millions of rightful inhabitants are prevented from exercising their right to self-determination.

ICC Approves Investigation into Zionist War Crimes in Occupied Palestine

Justice

The last hurdle in the way of an international investigation into war crimes committed in occupied Palestine has been removed, as the International Criminal Court in the Hague has finally approved the Prosecutor’s request to open legal proceedings regarding war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories, including Gaza.

In December 2019, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda had concluded that the Court’s initial findings are a sufficient basis for an investigation into war crimes committed by Israel and Palestinian groups in the occupied territories and that the Court does have jurisdiction to look into the matter.

The decision, then, has angered Israel and its Western allies, who insisted that the ICC has no jurisdiction since Palestine, they alleged, is not an independent state.

Consequently, Bensouda referred the matter to the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber, requesting a “ruling on the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in the State of Palestine”.

“Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court .. decided, by majority, that the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine, a State party to the ICC Rome Statute, extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem,” the ICC said in a press release that was made available to international media, including The Palestine Chronicle.

“The Chamber found that, regardless of its status under general international law, Palestine’s accession to the Statute followed the correct and ordinary procedure and that the Chamber has no authority to challenge and review the outcome of the accession procedure conducted by the Assembly of States Parties.

Palestine has thus agreed to subject itself to the terms of the ICC Rome Statute and has the right to be treated as any other State Party for the matters related to the implementation of the Statute.”

The State of Palestine became a signatory of the Rome Statute in January 2015.

In essence, the latest decision opens the door to a full investigation into war crimes in Palestine without further internal legal discussions within the ICC itself, as the Court’s Prosecutor and Pre-Trial Chamber are now in agreement.

In recent months, The Palestine Chronicle has conducted a series of interviews with international experts regarding this matter, including one with Professor Richard Falk, Former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, and Dr. Triestino Mariniello, member of the legal team for Gaza victims at the ICC.

Both specialists agreed that the ICC does, in fact, have jurisdiction, and that, despite the intense political pressure and US sanctions on the ICC, the war crimes investigation is likely to move forward.

(The Palestine Chronicle)