Israeli ‘sex tourism’ is the fruit of normalization with the UAE

Nobody enjoys Israeli tourists. They think they can do whatever they want…because Israelis are not properly raised in occupied Palestine. They are a menace everywhere and defile everything and everybody. Like a disease.

Israel yesterday officially opened its embassy in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), its Foreign Ministry announced.

The controversial move comes after the UAE and Israel agreed to establish full diplomatic, cultural and commercial relations following the signing of the Abraham Accords on 15 September at the White House.

Since then Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco have all agreed to establish ties with Israel in deals brokered by the administration of former US President Donald Trump.

The Palestinians condemned the agreements as a “stab in the back”.

Israel tourist behaviour in UAE ‘shameful’—
A new development is that the tourist advertisements and posters about Dubai conceal a dark reality, represented by gangs of Israeli men who set out for the new holiday destination with prostitution in mind. They fill their pockets with thousands of dollars and with little or no conscience spend their time in the UAE moving from one woman to another.

The newspaper quoted sources stating that some Israeli visitors were: “Cooking inside their hotel rooms in violation of the laws of administration, stealing towels and other items from their rooms and holding inappropriate parties.”

“The UAE is very accessible to the Israeli visitors now,” the travel expert noted, urging that Arabic-speaking Israelis must “respect the hotel workers.” She warned: “Things would end badly if this behaviour continued.”

Over 50,000 Israelis were reported to have visited the UAE since the joint normalisation pact between the two countries, signed on 15 September.—

The Israeli Foreign Ministry claimed the new embassy “will advance the range of relations between the countries in all areas and expand ties with the Emirati government, economic bodies and the private sector, academia, media and more.”

Israel’s government regards Jerusalem as its capital, although that is not recognized by most of the international community. Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Most countries have their embassies in Tel Aviv.

The Israeli embassy in Abu Dhabi will be operating from “temporary offices” until locating a permanent facility, the statement said.

READ: Israel tourist behaviour in UAE ‘shameful’

The mission will “expand the ties with the Emirati government, financial bodies and the private sector, universities, the media and more,” it added.

Israel and the UAE have already signed treaties on direct flights and visa-free travel, along with accords on investment protection, science and technology.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi welcomed the move, saying the embassy would “enable the expansion of bilateral relations between Israel and the Emirates for a swift and maximal implementation of the potential in these ties.”

Ashkenazi also thanked the UAE “heir to the throne, His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, and my colleague and friend, Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, for their leadership and hospitality towards our representatives.”

House bill seeks to give “Israel” veto authority over US arms sales to M.E.

The legislation seeks to guarantee Israel’s military advantage by requiring the president to first gain approval from the Israeli government before striking regional arms deals

This is why it is so important that we support Israel and help to preserve its Qualitative Military Edge (QME), to ensure the safety of the Israeli people and maintain stability in the region,” Fitzpatrick was quoting as saying in Friday’s statement, echoing language used in the bill.

middleeasteye.net

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a prominent Israel lobby in the US, supports the new measure, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives last week by Brad Schneider, a Democrat, aims to guarantee Israel’s qualitative military edge in the Middle East.

The issue has been highlighted in recent months, as the Trump administration has vowed to move forward with a sale of F-35 jets to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) despite Israel’s objections.

The bill “would require the President to consult with the Israeli government to ensure [qualitative military edge] concerns are settled”, a statement released by Schneider’s office said on Friday

The United States already has legislation on the books that guarantees Israel’s edge in the Middle East, but Congress has the authority to make the distinction, not Israel, as this recently introduced legislation would require.

Specifically, the bill states that the US President would need to “consult with appropriate officials of the Government of Israel for information regarding Israel’s qualitative military edge before making a determination” on Middle East weapons sales.

Most of the bill’s co-sponsors are Democrats, including Middle East Subcommittee Chairman Ted Deutch; Brad Sherman; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Josh Gottheimer; Ami Bera; Ted Lieu; Stephanie Murphy; David Trone; Jimmy Panetta; Tom Suozzi; Elaine Luria; Max Rose; Gil Cisneros; and Xochitl Torres Small.

Republican lawmakers Brian Fitzpatrick, John Katko and Tom Reed also co-sponsored the bill.

“The United States is committed to ensuring Israel’s security, and Congress will continue to uphold our commitments in US law to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge.

As well, the recently established ties between Israel and Arab partners create new opportunities that can contribute to the security and stability in the region,” said Congressman Deutch in Friday’s statement.

“As these developments take shape, Congress will exercise all appropriate authority and oversight over any future security arrangements.”

While not the only arms sale of concern, in September US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said that even if the US-UAE F-35 deal is finalised in the coming months, it may be another six to seven years before deliveries are made. He also pointed out that ensuring Israel’s military advantage in the region was a “matter of law, not a matter of policy”.

For his part, Congressman Fitzpatrick highlighted the recent normalisation deal between the UAE, Bahrain and Israel as “a historic step towards a lasting peace in the Middle East”, but stressed the need for Israel to retain its advantage in the region.

“Despite the incredible steps towards peace that have been made, there are still plenty of entities that wish to harm Israel.

This is why it is so important that we support Israel and help to preserve its Qualitative Military Edge (QME), to ensure the safety of the Israeli people and maintain stability in the region,” Fitzpatrick was quoting as saying in Friday’s statement, echoing language used in the bill.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a prominent Israel lobby in the US, supports the new measure, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Washington’s UN votes show who truly is a rogue state

Dec 14, 2019 | Defense and Military, Middle East, North America

The United States and Israel were the only countries that voted against UN General Assembly draft resolutions calling for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, measures to stop an arms race in outer space, and an end to the blockade of Cuba.

Important breakthroughs have arrived at the United Nations seeking to prevent an arms race in outer space and create a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East.

There are just two main obstacles: the United States and Israel.

While Washington and corporate media outlets portray China and Russia as aggressive warmongering rogue states, their votes at the UN show which nations are actually expanding dangerous militarism into new frontiers.

China and Russia joined dozens of other countries in sponsoring resolutions at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) that sought to prevent armed conflict in space.

Most of the international community supported these historic peace measures. The only consistent outliers were the US and Israel.

Israel is one of only five nations in the world that refuse to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, an international treaty aimed at ending the proliferation of nuclear weapons and achieving global nuclear disarmament.

Beijing and Moscow have been leading global efforts to stop the use of weapons in space. Meanwhile, Washington has unilaterally blocked the international consensus on preventing the deadly space race.

Moreover, as nearly all UN member states have united in calling for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, the US and Israel have singlehandedly undermined their peace efforts.

This roguish behavior predates the election of President Donald Trump.

In 2006, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Germany’s Sat. 1 channel: “Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?” Later he denied what viewers clearly heard him say. Calls for him to step down followed. So did accusations of ineptitude for acknowledging Israeli nuclear weapons publicly.

At the UNGA on November 7, almost every country in the world also voted to end the US embargo against Cuba.

This was the 28th year in row that the international community united in calling for the American noose to be taken off the neck of the Cuban people.

While 187 member states supported the resolution demanding an end to the blockade, the US, Israel, and Brazil’s far-right government were the lone nations to oppose it.

American allies Colombia and Ukraine abstained.

Washington’s UN votes show who truly is a rogue state . . .

Power Unseen

Charles Frith - Punk Planning: JFK Blocked Nuclear Israel Before His Murder

“Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.”

Here the Jew admits who has the power

Enough power to overthrow the world in 1920


On the 10th of October, 2007, at Hotel Hilton in Tel-Aviv, Israeli President Shimon Peres stated the following:
“From such a small country like ours [Israel], this is almost amazing. I see that we [the Jewish people] are buying up Manhattan, Hungary, Romania, and Poland. And the way I see it, we have no problems. Thanks to our talent, our contacts and our dynamism, we get almost everywhere.”

***

How many Jews are there in the United States? No Gentile knows.

The figures are the exclusive property of the Jewish authorities.

The government of the United States can provide statistics on almost every matter pertaining to the population of the country, but whenever it has attempted in a systematic way to get information about the Jews who are constantly entering the country and the number now resident here, the Jewish lobby at Washington steps in and stops it.

The American people would be vastly surprised if they could see a
line-up of some of the “American business men” who hold up our
commercial prestige overseas.

They are mostly Jews.

They have a keen
sense of the value of the American name, and when in a foreign port you
stroll up to the office which bears the sign, “American Importing
Company,” or “American Commercial Company,” or other similarly
non-committal names, hoping to find a countryman, an American, you
usually find a Jew whose sojourn in America appears to have been all too
brief.

This may throw a sidelight on the regard in which “American
business methods” are held in some parts of the world.

When 30 or 40
different races of people can carry on business under the name
“American,” and do it legally, too, it is not surprising that Americans
do not recognize some of the descriptions of American methods which
appear in the foreign press.

The Germans long ago complained that the
rest of the world was judging them by the German-speaking Jewish
commercial traveler.

 The International Jew, by Henry Ford

Reversing the Zionist agenda

One may safely assume that Zionist organizations and agents in the U.S. are already hard at work with the Biden people to assure that no such reversal takes place.

As the U.S. and the world wait with anticipation for the Biden administration to take office, people with progressive agendas are feeling optimistic.

Teams working on immigration, health care, and the environment, to name just a few, are already at work preparing to move the United States in a new direction.

The one progressive issue where there is little optimism though is Palestine.

This is mostly because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are both self-declared Zionists and because there is a history of total U.S. support for Israel.

But even though most American politicians are Zionists, Trump moving out of the White House presents a sense of a new beginning and should be used as an opportunity to change the paradigm on Palestine.

It can easily be demonstrated that Israel is a dangerous, even reckless state and that continued support for it only promises instability.

Israel is an apartheid state that is already on the verge of collapse. With over two million men women and children locked up in the uninhabitable Gaza Strip, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel in the Naqab living without access to water or electricity, crime on the rise, and political instability growing, Israel is likely to become even more dangerous than it is today.

Furthermore, the Netanyahu government is tightly connected to Trump. In fact, one could argue that Trump’s entire foreign policy regarding the Middle East and Iran were dictated by Netanyahu.

Israel will, of course, vehemently oppose any reversal of the actions taken by the Trump-Kushner-Freedman trio.

One may safely assume that Zionist organizations and agents in the U.S. are already hard at work with the Biden people to assure that no such reversal takes place.

Still, Joe Biden will have to show that he stands by some, if not all, of the foreign policy agreements that were reached during the Obama years and later abandoned by Donald Trump.

He will likely have to do this even if it means Israel will be displeased. First and foremost would be a return to the Iran nuclear deal, also known as The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The agreement with Iran was central to the Obama legacy, and Trump dropping out of the agreement pleased Israel to no end.

A return to the agreement will cause friction between Biden and Israel but since the entire spectrum of Israeli politicians – the one exception being the Joint Arab List – made no secret of their support for Trump, one would hope that some political payback is forthcoming.

Biden’s foreign policy team will also have to deal with the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel and the consequent moving of the U.S. embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, as well as the U.S. recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights.

Both were gifts to the Netanyahu government, both were diplomatic blunders that aided Netanyahu, and both will be difficult to reverse.

 
There are a few things that the Biden team will be able to reverse, though not without serious objections from Israel.

These include a return to funding UNRWA, the UN agency charged with caring for over five million Palestinian refugees.

Those refugees languish in camps throughout Palestine and the surrounding countries because Israel violently expelled them, stole their land and property, and then banned them from returning.

Trump stopped funding for UNRWA in order to satisfy his Zionist-laden foreign policy team.

The reopening of the Palestinian mission in Washington D.C. is another act Israel will not like but one might expect will happen under the Biden administration.

It was on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Oslo Accords that the Trump administration closed down the mission and did so in a manner that could not be less diplomatic, practically throwing out the head of mission, Dr. Husam Zumlot. Needless to say, Zionists were thrilled to see that there was no longer Palestinian representation in the U.S. capital.

Even if a new Biden administration ended up reversing Trump’s implementation of the above-mentioned policies, it would only mean that things had returned to where they were before, which was total support for Israel with a symbolic hint that some small measure of regard is given to the rights of Palestinians.

Progress will only come when it is made clear in Washington that no one can claim to support democracy and human rights while supporting Israel.

Support in congress

Support for Palestine is growing in the U.S. House of Representatives and with it the understanding that Zionist foreign policy, which dominates U.S. foreign policy, is flawed. Furthermore, there is a growing understanding that supporting human rights includes supporting Palestinian rights.

People are growing weary of the U.S. arming and financing Zionist ambitions, and it is not hard to see that Israel does not violate international law and human rights, but rather Israel is itself a violation of international law and human rights.

Every day that Palestinian refugees languish in camps is a violation of human decency as well as international law and the basic human rights of over five million people.

The fact that the homes, land, and property of these refugees were stolen by Israel after they were forced to flee by armed Zionist terror squads – that is an ongoing violation of international law.

Each day that Palestinians in Gaza remain locked up in the world’s largest open-air prison is a violation of international law and the human rights of the over two million people who live in the Gaza Strip.

These are just a small sample of the many examples that demonstrate why no one can be progressive while supporting Israel.

Moving past Anti-Semitism

Israel has armed itself with the weapon of “anti-semitism” and it is wielding it with great mastery.

The use of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism and its acceptance by countless governments and non-governmental organizations has created a shield that protects Israel from criticism.

 

This shield also holds prisoner any organization that has adopted the definition.

Having adopted the definition prevents the possibility of ever expressing legitimate criticism of Israel without being accused of anti-semitism.

In the U.S., this definition has been adopted across the board, even the United States Department of State has adopted it.

Still, when the facts are laid out clearly, even the weaponization of anti-semitism cannot protect Israel.

There is a change in the air in the United States and although the Biden-Harris duo has declared themselves Zionists, there is an opportunity to push forward an aggressive pro-Palestine, pro-justice agenda.

A long time ago it seemed that U.S. support for a country by the name of South Vietnam (yes, there was a country by that name once) was unwavering and would never end.

There was also a racist, apartheid regime that ruled over most of Southern Africa, and the U.S. government as well as American corporations fought hard against any attempts to boycott and bring it down.

Yet, South Vietnam fell, as did the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Biden and Harris may be supporters of Zionism today, but that can change.

It is the duty of those who care for Palestine to make their voices heard now louder than ever before, to organize better and push as hard as possible. Millions of lives are at stake.

Feature photo | Joe Biden, projected on screens, is applauded by the audience as he addresses the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) 2013 Policy Conference at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, March 4, 2013. Susan Walsh | AP

Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of “The General’s Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” and “Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land

 

Are You Feeling Safer? ‘War of the Worlds’ Pits U.S. and “israel” Against Everyone Else

 

Estimates of how many civilians have been killed directly or indirectly as a consequence of the so-called Global War on Terror initiated by George W. Bush are in the millions, with roughly 4 million being frequently cited. Nearly all of the dead have been Muslims.

Philip Giraldi

The media being focused on an upcoming election, coronavirus, fires on the West Coast and burgeoning BLM and Antifa unrest, it is perhaps no surprise that some stories are not exactly making it through to the evening news.

Last week an important vote in the United Nations General Assembly went heavily against the United States.

It was regarding a non-binding resolution that sought to suspend all economic sanctions worldwide while the coronavirus cases continue to increase.

It called for “intensified international cooperation and solidarity to contain, mitigate and overcome the pandemic and its consequences.”

It was a humanitarian gesture to help overwhelmed governments and health care systems cope with the pandemic by having a free hand to import food and medicines.

The final tally was 169 to 2, with only Israel and the United States voting against.

Both governments apparently viewed the U.N. resolution as problematical because they fully support the unilateral economic warfare that they have been waging to bring about regime change in countries like Iran, Syria and Venezuela.

Sanctions imposed on those countries are designed to punish the people more than the governments in the expectation that there will be an uprising to bring about regime change.

This, of course, has never actually happened as a consequence of sanctions and all that is really delivered is suffering.

When they cast their ballots, some delegates at the U.N. might even have been recalling former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s claim that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. imposed sanctions had been “worth it.”

Clearly, a huge majority of the world’s governments, to include the closest U.S. allies, no longer buy the American big lie when it claims to be the leader of the free world, a promoter of liberal democracy and a force for good. 

The vote prompted one observer, John Whitbeck, a former international lawyer based in Paris, to comment how “On almost every significant issue facing mankind and the planet, it is Israel and the United States against mankind and the planet.”

The United Nations was not the only venue where the U.S. was able to demonstrate what kind of nation it has become.

In an Emmy Award-winning 1996 interview on CBS program “60 Minutes,” the Clinton-era secretary of state was asked whether the deaths of half a million Iraqi children was worth it. “The price is worth it,” Albright bluntly replied.

Estimates of how many civilians have been killed directly or indirectly as a consequence of the so-called Global War on Terror initiated by George W. Bush are in the millions, with roughly 4 million being frequently cited. Nearly all of the dead have been Muslims.

Now there is a new estimate of the number of civilians that have fled their homes as a result of the worldwide conflict initiated by Washington and its dwindling number of allies since 2001.

The estimate comes from Brown University’s “Costs of War Project,” which has issued a report Creating Refugees: Displacement Caused by the United States Post-9/11 Wars that seeks to quantify those who have “fled their homes in the eight most violent wars the U.S. military has launched or participated in since 2001.”

The project tracks the number of refugees, asylum seekers applying for refugee status, and internally displaced people or persons (IDPs) in the countries that America and its allies have most targeted since 9/11: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya and Syria.

All are predominantly Muslim countries with the sole exception of the Philippines, which has a large Muslim minority.

The estimate suggests that between 37 and 59 million civilians have become displaced, with an extremely sharp increase occurring in the past year when the total was calculated to be 21 million.

The largest number of those displaced were from Iraq, where fighting against Islamic State has been intermittent, estimated at 9.2 million. Syria, which has seen fighting between the government and various foreign supported insurgencies, had the second-highest number of displacements at 7.1 million.

Afghanistan, which has seen a resurgent Taliban, was third having an estimated 5.3 million people displaced.

The authors of the report observe that even the lower figure of 37 million is “almost as large as the population of Canada” and “more than those displaced by any other war or disaster since at least the start of the 20th century with the sole exception of World War II.”

And it is also important to note what is not included in the study. The report has excluded sub-Saharan Africa as well as several Arab nations generally considered to be U.S. allies.

These constitute “the millions more who have been displaced by other post-9/11 conflicts where U.S. forces have been involved in ‘counterterror’ activities in more limited yet significant ways, including in: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Niger, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia.”

Yemen should be added to that list given U.S. military materiel assistance that has enabled the Saudi Arabian bombing attacks on that country, also producing a wave of refugees.

There are also reports that the White House is becoming concerned over the situation in Yemen as pressure is growing to initiate an international investigation of the Saudi war crimes in that civilian infrastructure targets to include hospitals and schools are being deliberately targeted.

And even the United States Congress has begun to notice that something bad is taking place as there is growing concern that both the Saudi and U.S. governments might be charged with war crimes over the civilian deaths.

Reports are now suggesting that as early as 2016, when Barack Obama was still president, the State Department’s legal office concluded that “top American officials could be charged with war crimes for approving bomb sales to the Saudis and their partners” that have killed more than 125,000 including at least 13,400 targeted civilians.

That conclusion preceded the steps undertaken by the Donald Trump White House to make arms sales to the Saudis and their allies in the United Arab Emirates central to his foreign policy, a program that has become an integral part of the promotion of the “Deal of the Century” Israeli-Palestinian peace plan.

Given that, current senior State Department officials have repressed the assessment made in 2016 and have also “gone to great lengths” to conceal the legal office finding.

A State Department inspector general investigation earlier this year considered the Department’s failure to address the legal risks of selling offensive weapons to the Saudis, but the details were hidden by placing them in a classified part of the public report released in August, heavily redacted so that even Congressmen with high level access could not see them.

Democrats in Congress, which had previously blocked some arms sales in the conflict, are looking into the Saudi connection because it can do damage to Trump, but it would be far better if they were to look at what the United States and Israel have been up to more generally speaking.

The U.S. benefits from the fact that even though international judges and tribunals are increasingly embracing the concept of holding Americans accountable for war crimes since the start of the GWOT, U.S. refusal to cooperate has been daunting.

Last March, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague authorized its chief prosecutor to open an investigation into U.S. crimes in Afghanistan the White House reacted by imposing sanctions on the chief prosecutor and his staff lawyer.

And Washington has also warned that any tribunal going after Israel will face the wrath of the United States.

Nevertheless, when you are on the losing side on a vote in a respected international body by 169 to 2 someone in Washington should at least be smart enough to discern that something is very, very wrong. But I wouldn’t count on anyone named Trump or Biden to work that out.

The Collaborator’s Reward

September 05 ,2020 BY Tim Anderson

What do Panama’s Manuel Noriega, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and the UAE’s Mohamad Bin Zayed (MBZ) all have in common?

They dreamed that their collaboration with the imperial power would allow them the freedom to pursue their own ambitions.

Very wrong. Once Noriega was employed by the CIA to betray compatriot nationalists and to be used as a tool against independent Cuba and Nicaragua, imperialism owned him.

Once Saddam was armed (including with poison gas) by NATO countries to attack Revolutionary Iran and slaughter dissident Iraqis, imperialism owned him

. And once MBZ collaborated with Mossad against the Palestinian resistance and armed terrorist groups against Syria, imperialism owned him.

After Noriega sought to play a more independent role in Central America the US, under Bush the First, invaded Panama killing thousands (see ‘The Panama Deception’), just to kidnap Noriega and jail him on drug trafficking charges.

Saddam was not allowed to pursue his own interests in Kuwait. Instead his ambitions were used as a pretext to starve and then destroy Iraq.

Saddam himself was eventually lynched, under US military occupation.

Qaddafi Warns Chuckling Arab Leaders in 2008 That Their End Is Near - The Atlantic

The  Libyan leader said America’s Arab allies could end up like Saddam Hussein….before  US and western allies murdered him and destroyed his country.

MBZ, for his supposed crime of resuming relations with Syria in 2018, was forced to recognise Israel, thus becoming the new disgrace of the Arab and Muslim world. Once a collaborator is owned he is owned.

The UAE gained nothing by openly recognising the zionist regime. There was no political or economic benefit.

The UAE was already collaborating deeply with Israel, as evidenced by the open access enjoyed by the Mossad team which murdered Palestinian militant Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in February 2010 (Lewis, Borger and McCarthy 2010), and later kidnapped Australian-Israeli whistle-blower Ben Zygier, after he had provided Dubai authorities with “names and pictures and accurate details” of the team, supposedly in exchange for UAE protection. However Israel kidnapped Zygier in the UAE and he later died from ‘suicide’ in an Israeli jail (Rudoran 2013).

There was no independent motive behind the disgraceful UAE move, other than fear and obedience.

The Trump regime pressured and threatened MBZ into recognising Israel, just to help with its 2020 election campaign.

How do we know this? Two months before the UAE officially recognised Israel, Trump envoy James Jeffrey threatened the UAE regime for its renewed relations with Syria, which went against Trump’s subsequent ‘Caesar Act’ (MEMO 2020), a piece of legislation primarily aimed at imposing discipline on third party ‘allies’ which sought to normalise relations with Damascus.

Washington’s ‘Caesar’ law (part of an omnibus NDAA Act) pretends to authorise the US President to impose fines and confiscate the assets of those, anywhere in the world, who “support or engage in a significant transaction” with the Syrian government (SJAC 2020).

It aimed at Persian Gulf allies, principally the UAE, and perhaps some Europeans who were considering renewed relations with Damascus (Anderson 2020)

As it happened, in late December 2018, the UAE resumed relations with the Syrian Government and resumed investment in the besieged country.

This was despite the anti-Syrian role of the UAE in the early days of the conflict and, in particular, their backing of ISIS terrorism.

That role was acknowledged by senior US officials in late 2014.

Head of the US Army General Martin Dempsey in September 2014 admitted that “major Arab allies” of the US funded ISIS (Rothman 2014).

The following month US Vice President Joe Biden specified that US allies “Turkey, Qatar and the UAE had extended “billions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” to all manner of fanatical Islamist fighters, including ISIS, in efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad (Maskanian 2014).

Biden later offered a hollow apology to the UAE for his remarks (Al Jazeera 2014). A sanitised Atlantic Council version of this history was that the UAE had backed “armed opposition groups – such as the Free Syrian Army” (Santucci 2020).

In any case, with Washington’s regime change war lost – certainly after the expanded role of Russia in Syria from September 2015 onwards – the UAE began to change tack.

In November 2015 UAE Foreign Affairs Minister Anwar Gargash expressed cautious support for Russia’s role and in April 2018 he characterised the conflict as one between the Syrian Government and Islamic extremism.

On 27 December the UAE reopened its embassy in Damascus (Ramani 2020). Bahrain followed suit the next day.

The MBZ regime claims to have provided over $530 million “to alleviate the suffering” of Syria since 2012 (Santucci 2020), though how much of this went into armed Islamist groups is unclear.

But there certainly have been some UAE-funded construction projects in Syria in recent times.

No doubt wealthy UAE investors saw some opportunities in post-war reconstruction.

The Emirates hosted a Syrian trade delegation in January 2019 and in August 2019 some private Emirati companies participated in the Damascus International Trade Fair (Cafiero 2020).

But in early 2020 the Trump regime passed its Caesar law, aimed at reining in its wandering ‘allies’.

In June envoy James Jeffrey pointed his finger at the UAE, saying: “the UAE knows that we absolutely refuse that countries take such steps [in Syria] … we have clearly stressed that we consider this a bad idea … anyone who engages in economic activities … may be targeted by these sanctions” (MEMO 2020).

That could mean big trouble for the UAE.

The Obama regime (through the US Treasury’s ‘Office of Foreign Assets Control’) had already ‘fined’ European banks more than 12 billion dollars for their business with Iran and Cuba, in breach of Washington’s unilateral coercive measures (Anderson 2019: 42).

Two months later in August the UAE’s open recognition of Israel presented the semblance of some sort of change in the region.

An Atlantic Council paper hoped that might be to derail the UAE’s ‘normalization policy with Syria’ (Santucci 2020).

That indeed was one part of the project: tighten the siege on the independent region: from Palestine through Lebanon, Syria and Iraq to Iran.

In the process 80% of the besieged Syrian population was living in poverty, and on the brink of starvation (Cafiero 2020).

This was a determined if failing strategy, set in place by Bush the Second and carried through faithfully by Obama and Trump, despite the latter’s pragmatic misgivings.

The other part of the project was to strong-arm the little petro-monarchy into boosting the Trump election campaign.

The UAE’s recognition of Israel did nothing to help MBZ, but was well received in Tel Aviv (though it did not change the constellation of Resistance forces) and was skilfully presented in the USA as some sort of concession to Palestine.

Yet Trump’s flimsy pretext (a ‘freeze’ on further annexations) was quickly discredited. Israeli Finance Minister Yisrael Katz said that a ‘freeze’ was in place before the UAE deal (Khalil 2020).

Netanyahu maintained that further annexations were still ‘on the table’ (Al Jazeera 2020). Indeed he had announced such ‘freezes’ before (Ravid 2009).

In any case, Trump was clearly no advocate for Palestinian or Arab rights.

He had broken with previous US regimes by giving his blessing to Tel Aviv’s annexation of both East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, disregarding international law (BBC 2019).

Disgraced in the region, the UAE was simply acting as Washington’s puppet. That is the collaborator’s reward.

What Does the US Have to Hide From the ICC?


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

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


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

Al-Haq recalls that the US has previously revoked the visas of staff members of the Office of the Prosecutor, including the Prosecutor, threatened the Court’s Judges, and, along with its ally Israel, has, without justification, sought to smear the Court as “corrupt” and in the Situation in the State of Palestine specifically, “anti-Semitic”.

“I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child that will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child are more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child’s existence infers that generations will go on…” — Ariel Sharon in an interview by Ouze Merham – Verified by journalist Chris Hedges in 2001 article “Gaza Diary” – Sport-shootings of children that Hedges witnessed are official Israeli policy + British Medical Journal confirmed more than 600 sniper murders of Palestinian children by the Israeli military.

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

“We will not cooperate with the ICC,” Bolton said. “We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bizarre US-Russia Mad Max Road Warrior Games: Syria

One official said the incident happened deep inside the eastern Syria deconfliction zone, where Russian troops generally should not be present. [As determined by Americans who are in Syria illegally to begin with.]


In the most violent skirmish in months between U.S. and Russian forces in Syria, a vehicle collision in the eastern part of the war-torn country left American troops with concussions, two U.S. officials said Wednesday.

One official said Russian vehicles sideswiped a light-armored U.S. military vehicle, injuring four Americans. The official said two Russian helicopters flew above the Americans, and one of the aircraft was within about 70 feet the vehicle.

While there have been several other recent incidents between the American and Russian troops who all patrol in eastern Syria, officials described this one as the most serious. U.S. troops are usually accompanied by members of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details of the incident that were not yet made public. One official said the incident happened deep inside the eastern Syria deconfliction zone, where Russian troops generally should not be present. [As determined by Americans who are in Syria illegally to begin with.]

The officials said the incident is being discussed by senior officials from both countries who routinely work to prevent conflicts between troops in that area. U.S. and Russian commanders have frequent conversations to try and avoid contact between their troops there.

Two US fighter jets terrorize Iranian passenger airliner over Syria

Bibi Wants Big War Before US Elections

Could War With Iran Be an October Surprise? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/could-war-with-iran-be-an-october-surprise.html

In this July 23, 2006 file photo, an Israeli F-16 warplane takes off for a mission in Lebanon from an air force base in southern Israel. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit, File)

Two U.S. fighter jets came close to an Iranian passenger plane over Syrian airspace causing the pilot to change altitude quickly to avoid collision, which injured several passengers, the official IRIB news agency reported on Thursday.

The agency initially reported a single Israeli jet had come near the plane but later quoted the pilot as saying there were two jets which identified themselves as American.

The pilot of the passenger plane contacted the jet pilots to warn them about keeping a safe distance and the jet pilots identified themselves as American, IRIB reported.

Video posted by the agency showed a single jet from the window of the plane and comments from a passenger who had blood on his face.

The Iranian plane, belonging to Mahan Air, was heading from Tehran to Beirut and landed safely in Beirut, an airport source told Reuters.

An Israeli military spokesman had no immediate comment and there was no immediate comment from the U.S. military.

Israel and the United States have long accused Mahan Air of ferrying weapons for Iranian-linked guerrillas in Syria and elsewhere.

One passenger in the IRIB report described how his head had hit the roof of the plane during the change in altitude and video also showed an elderly passenger sprawled on the floor.

All of the passengers came off the plane and only some had minor injuries, the head of the Beirut airport told Reuters.

US and OAS help overthrow another government: Bolivia

Evo Morales cut off diplomatic ties with Israel over its deadly 2009 assault on the occupied Gaza Strip and called for top Israeli officials to be charged with genocide. The right-wing coup regime in Bolivia announced plans Thursday to restore diplomatic relations with Israel, reversing ousted former President Evo Morales’ 2009 decision to cut off ties with the country over its weeks-long assault on the occupied Gaza Strip that killed over a thousand Palestinians.

The United States and the Organization of American States  [OAS] can add another coup to their scorecards, even if U.S. media refuses to recognize it as such.

This time it was in Bolivia, where President Evo Morales was forced to step down on November 10, following weeks of pressure and extremist violence.

Morales resigned under duress in order to avoid bloodshed, and emphasized that his “responsibility as an indigenous president of all Bolivians is to prevent the coup-mongers from persecuting my trade unionist brothers and sisters, abusing and kidnapping their families, burning the homes of governors, of legislators, of city councilors… to prevent them from continuing to harass and persecute my indigenous brothers and sisters and the leaders and authorities” of the MAS (Movement towards Socialism, Morales’ political party).

His resignation has yet to take effect, as it must be approved by the legislature. This did not stop opposition party member Jeanine Añez, the senate’s second vice president, from declaring herself interim president, further proving that what’s happened is a coup.

MAS legislators, who have a majority in both chambers, have been unable to attend parliamentary sessions as security forces have not guaranteed their safety.

Currently, indigenous and labor movements are on the streets in several Bolivian cities, demanding that President Morales be reinstated.

Meanwhile, police forces are ripping the Wiphala flag, a symbol that represents the indigenous peoples of the Andes, from their uniforms and from government buildings.

Coup leader Luis Camacho entered the government palace with a Bolivian flag and a bible; upon leaving, one of his supporters, a Christian pastor, declared that “Pachamama will never return to the palace… Bolivia belongs to Christ.” (Pachamama is an Andean goddess representing Mother Earth.)

The coup and its aftermath are not just a rejection of President Morales, but of Bolivia’s indigenous majority and the social gains of the last 13 years.

US government fingerprints all over Bolivia coup

Morales’ resignation came hours after the head of the armed forces and the chief of Bolivia’s police “suggested” that he resign.

The head of the army, General Williams Kalimán Romero, was Bolivia’s military attaché in Washington from 2013 to 2016. The chief of police, General Vladimir Calderón, was Bolivia’s police attaché in Washington until December 2018.

As attachés they would have been in constant communication with the Pentagon and other agencies; it is no stretch of the imagination to wonder if they were still in contact with their U.S. counterparts as the overthrow of the Morales government unfolded.

The coup was carried out over three weeks after the October 20 elections, but it was months, if not years in the making.

The United States first began targeting Evo Morales in 2001 — five years before being elected president — when the US embassy in La Paz warned that his political base needed to be weakened.

Afterwards, USAID began funding right-wing political parties and “civil society” organizations that would feature heavily in attempts to overthrow President Morales.

The first such attempt came in 2008, two years after Morales was first elected president and days after he survived a recall referendum with 67.4% of the vote.

On that occasion, coup plotters in eastern Bolivia, a region rich in minerals where the white minority population is concentrated, attempted to secede from the country.

According to the International Federation for Human Rights, the opposition in eastern Bolivia “promoted separatism and ethnically and socially based hatred through the Civic Committees (Comités Civicos), in particular the Pro-Santa Cruz Civic Committee.”

Luis Fernando Camacho, the millionaire coup leader with ties to paramilitaries, is the current president of this committee, which has received U.S. funding in the past.

The desire to overthrow Morales has existed for years, but more immediate plans were finalized in the weeks before the election.

Bolivian media outlet Erbol published leaked audio of conversations held from October 8 and 10 between civic leaders, former military officials and opposition politicians who discussed “a plan for social unrest, before and after the general elections, with the aim of preventing President Evo Morales from remaining” in office.

One opposition politician mentioned being in close contact with Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Bob Menendez.

The OAS role in the coup

The OAS also played an important role in stoking protests and ensuring that the coup was successful.

On October 21, a day after the election, it issued a statement casting doubt on the process due to an “inexplicable” change in the trend of the vote count.

This statement was thoroughly debunked by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which found that trend did not change and that Morales widened the gap over his rivals due to late reporting rural precincts, where he enjoys a tremendous advantage.

A later statistical analysis by CEPR found that there was “no evidence that the election results were affected by irregularities or fraud.”

However, the damage was done: protesters took to the streets decrying electoral fraud. These claims were echoed by the State Department and Senator Rubio on Twitter.

After being invited by President Morales to conduct an audit, the results of which he promised to respect, the OAS instead opted to destabilize the country.

The full electoral audit was initially due by November 12, but on November 10, a day after Morales announced that a coup was taking place and amid political violence throughout the country, the OAS decided to issue a preliminary audit.

This report, which did not include data that could be independently verified, repeated the false claims of the October 21 statement and called for new elections.

In response, Morales agreed to new elections and to replacing the board of the electoral body, yet this offer was rebuffed by coup leaders.

Rather than denounce the coup and insist that Morales be allowed to finish out his term (which ends in January), the OAS held a vote that refused to call it a coup, although several countries dissented.

Mexico criticized the OAS for being “surprisingly quiet” given the violation of constitutional order, while Uruguay condemned the body’s “double standard depending on antipathy or sympathy” for the government in question.

Earlier in the day, Argentinian president-elect Alberto Fernández said “what happened in Bolivia is a shame, the behavior of the OAS is shameful because the audit the OAS held is significant in its flimsiness and has conclusions that are absolutely manipulated.”

It should be noted that the 2008 coup was neutralized in part because of the role played by UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations. This regional bloc has been severely debilitated in recent years as a direct result of State Department pressure and the willingness of right-wing Southern American presidents to give up on long-term regional integration plans for short-term political benefits.

The decline of UNASUR and CELAC (the Community of Latin America and Caribbean States — another target of the State Department), coupled with the OAS’s bias, leaves the region with no credible multilateral organization.

US and OAS help overthrow another government: Behind the coup against Bolivia’s Evo Morales

ICC Denounces ‘Unprecedented Attacks’ by US

Since almost the earliest days of the Israeli state and the earliest days of the CIA a secret bond, a secret link between them, basically by which the Israelis — the Israeli intelligence — did jobs for the CIA and for the rest of American intelligence. You can’t understand what’s been going on around the world with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand that the two countries have this secret arrangement. ~dangerous-liaisons

New Girl GIF by Fox TV - Find & Share on GIPHY

The International Criminal Court on Thursday rebuked the Trump administration for slapping sanctions and travel restrictions on court staff investigating alleged war crimes committed by U.S., calling the action “an unacceptable attempt to interfere with the rule of law.”

The new statement from the Hague-based body came after President Donald Trump issued an executive order authorizing the actions targeting ICC staff and their family members—as well as anyone who has “directly engaged in any effort by the ICC” to investigate the U.S. or a U.S. ally—as the Trump administration continues to lash out over ongoing investigations into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. forces and others in Afghanistan and alleged war crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians.

The court called Trump’s order “the latest in a series of unprecedented attacks on the ICC, an independent international judicial institution, as well as on the Rome Statute system of international criminal justice.”

“These attacks constitute an escalation and an unacceptable attempt to interfere with the rule of law and the court’s judicial proceedings,” the statement continued.

“They are announced with the declared aim of influencing the actions of ICC officials in the context of the court’s independent and objective investigations and impartial judicial proceedings.”

“An attack on the ICC also represents an attack against the interests of victims of atrocity crimes, for many of whom the court represents the last hope for justice,” the court added.

United Nations human rights spokesman Rupert Colville on Friday stressed the importance of the ICC being able to operate free from “threats or interference.”

“Victims of gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law and their families have the right to redress and the truth,” he said at a press briefing in Geneva.

Criticism came in from the E.U. as well, with Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Stef Blok saying he was “very disturbed” by the White House move, and the political block’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, deemed it “very bad news.”

Trump’s order had already prompted a chorus of harsh criticism from rights groups.

Daniel Balson, advocacy director for Amnesty International USA, expressed concern that the “vague and open-ended language in the executive order could leave open the possibility that NGO workers, activists, foreign government officials, and others working to advance international justice may find themselves implicated by these obstructive measures.”

They stay hidden and pull strings from behind the curtain. Whatever US does, they are behind it.

“The ICC has investigated individuals responsible for some of the world’s most horrific crimes, including those in Myanmar, the Central African Republic, and Darfur, to name just a few.

The ICC is a court of last resort; it exists to provide justice in situations where states are unwilling or unable to do so. It is a court for the people,” said Balson. “That the Trump administration is so committed to targeting the court speaks volumes about its lack of commitment to delivering justice to individuals, families, and communities.”

“Asset freezes and travel bans are for human rights violators, not those seeking to bring rights violators to justice,” added Richard Dicker, international justice director at Human Rights Watch. “By targeting the ICC, the Trump administration continues its assault on the global rule of law, putting the U.S. on the side of those who commit and cover up grave abuses, not those who prosecute them.”