The Biden administration has repeatedly called on Israel not to expand settlements in land Palestinians claim. But Israel’s new government has said it will continue settlement activity. It sees other issues, especially Iran’s nuclear program, as being at the top of the agenda with the U.S.
Hanna Bisharat built his house in Jerusalem in 1926 for his large family (pictured in black and white). After they were expelled during the Nakba, Golda Meir, the PM of Israel who declared “there were no such thing as Palestinians” stole this home and used it as her residence. pic.twitter.com/suuD3yxxoC
30 Palestinian shop owners in central Israel, lands occupied in 1948, recently received eviction orders from the Israeli Regional Committee for Planning and Building, Arab 48 news reported Tuesday.
The owners of the shops, located in Qalansuwa and Taybeh cities, were handed eviction notices under the pretext of building on residential plots of land, not for use as commercial property.
The committee gave shop owners, Palestinian citizens of Israel, 30 days to evacuate their stores or be fined 600,000 shekels ($186,811 US).
Palestinians responded to the bigotry and violence of settlers under the protection of armed Israeli soldiers by rallying in the streets and trying to prevent the settlers from accessing Damascus Gate.
Did you know that Palestinians in Jerusalem are mere “residents” in our ancestral city and that our “permits” to stay on our land can be revoked for, say, “breaching allegiance” to the regime that is systematically displacing our people and destroying our lives?
Exhibit A: https://t.co/Y1RiZpIOdg
This was originally developed by Israel Military Industries for Israel’s Eitan armored fighting vehicle and D9 armored bulldozer.
That means that like most other Israeli weapons it was almost certainly tested on Palestinians first.
The Netherlands is rewarding Israel for killing dozens of Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip last May.
That’s the only reasonable conclusion after the North European monarchy announced a new “security cooperation” agreement with the apartheid state.
Hans Docter, the Dutch ambassador in Tel Aviv, signed the pact with Israeli defense minister Benny Gantz last week.
It provides a “framework for collaboration” between the two countries’ militaries, according to the Dutch defense ministry.
The tightening Dutch embrace of Israel appears to be a repeat of how the Netherlands for decades fostered close ties with South Africa’s white supremacist regime.
Gantz has twice perpetrated major massacres of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, as army chief of staff in 2014, and as defense minister earlier this year, when he vowed that “no person, area or neighborhood in Gaza is immune.”
In the single deadliest attack, on residential buildings in Gaza City’s al-Wihda street on 16 May, Israeli bombing killed at least 44 people, including 18 children.
Multiple generations of multiple families were obliterated.
A civil lawsuit against Gantz for the killing of the family of Palestinian-Dutch citizen Ismail Ziada in 2014 is still winding its way through Dutch courts.
Indeed, the Eitan armored vehicle is undergoing an “upgrade” based on “lessons” Israel learned from Israel’s 2014 invasion of Gaza, which killed 2,200 Palestinians including more than 550 children.
The D9 armored bulldozer, made by Caterpillar, has long been notorious for how Israel uses it to destroy Palestinian homes and land and to perpetrate extrajudicial executions as part of the Israeli army’s so-called “pressure cooker procedure.”
The Dutch army will now benefit from innovations arising from the commission of such crimes.
Along with Luxembourg and Belgium, the Netherlands signed a $150 million contract in 2015 for Elbit to supply their soldiers with “smart vests.”
It’s no wonder senior Elbit executive Elad Aharonson calls the Netherlands a “key market.”
The Dutch government has not allowed its arms trade with an apartheid regime to interfere with its propaganda about how the land of tulips, clogs and windmills promotes international “peace” and “justice.”
Embracing South African apartheid
Contrary to its self-image as a modern and tolerant democracy, the Netherlands has always had a horrifying human rights record, including centuries of colonial atrocities in Indonesia lasting well into the 20th century.
Successive Dutch governments spent decades shielding South Africa’s apartheid regime from international pressure and calls from the Dutch public for sanctions.
Until the early 1980s, the Dutch state paid its white citizens to emigrate to South Africa, a policy initially adopted to alleviate economic pressure at home following World War II.
But subsidies for Dutch citizens to enjoy a segregated life of settler-colonial privilege at the expense of Black South Africans continued for decades even though objections to the morality of this policy had been raised at least since the 1950s.
This was only a part of the Netherlands’ conscious embrace of apartheid South Africa, which included academic and scientific exchanges and the 1953 signing of a “cultural accord” that was only finally abrogated in 1981.
But some public figures in the country are calling on their government to stop buying arms from Israel – weapons that are typically advertised as “fully battle-proven.”
The Dutch purchases support “an industry that has grown at the expense of the Palestinian population that has been living under Israeli occupation for decades,” two former goverment ministers and a former ambassador wrote in a joint op-ed in the newspaper De Volkskrant after the latest weapons deals were signed.
They note that Israel has been a big supplier of weapons to other regimes that have committed atrocities, including Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, Myanmar and South Sudan.
Arms purchases “from ‘decent’ countries like the Netherlands” have made Israel one of world’s biggest arms exporters per capita, the former Dutch politicians add.
But there is of course nothing decent about the Netherlands and its European Union peers who continue to hector the world about “human rights” while aiding, abetting and profiting from Israel’s crimes.
The Dutch defense ministry also announced that alongside the cooperation pact, the Netherlands signed a “status of forces agreement” with Israel.
This “regulates the legal status of soldiers residing on the territory of the other party, such as during military missions,” the ministry said.
Dutch forces do take part in UN peacekeeping missions, for example in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and on the border with Lebanon.
But these would presumably be covered by agreements or conventions between the UN and local parties.
A likely motivation for the status of forces agreement is Israel’s need to bolster the impunity of its military personnel wherever they are.
The text of the Israeli-Dutch agreement does not appear to have been published, but precedents may be instructive: The 2012 status of forces agreement between the Netherlands and the United States, for instance, gives the US exclusive jurisdiction in virtually all cases of alleged crimes by American personnel stationed in Aruba, Sint Maarten and other Dutch colonies in the Caribbean.
Another clue comes from the 2015 Israel-Greece status of forces agreement which reportedly “offers legal defenses to both militaries while training in each other’s respective countries.”
At that time, it was noted that the only other country with which Israel already had such an agreement was the United States.
This indicates that the Netherlands is going out of its way to warmly embrace – and reward – Israel’s military by signing a status of forces pact now.
Dutch lawmakers and the public concerned about their country’s deepening complicity with Israel’s regime of occupation, apartheid and settler-colonialism need to absorb the lessons of the past and raise their voices.
History shows that the Dutch state will never relinquish its deep attachment to racist and colonialist policies unless it is compelled to do so.
The hearing is titled “Oversight of the Justice Department’s (Non) Enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act: Lessons from the Obama Administration and Current Compliance Practices.”
In 1938 the U.S. Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act to mandate disclosure of the activities of non-diplomatic foreign agents in the United States propagandizing for war, swinging public opinion, and obtaining foreign aid and other economic benefits through congressional lobbying without disclosing that their activities were conducted on behalf of foreign principals.
The first panel of witnesses for Wednesday’s Senate hearing will include Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Justice Department Adam Hickey, Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI Bill Priestap and Inspector General of the Justice Department Michael Horowitz.
Second panel witnesses include Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, an outfit which circulated the now infamous dossier of allegations made against Donald Trump by a British spy.
William Browder, a Russian market investment expert from Hermitage Capital Management, who has now deemed Russia “absolutely uninvestable” will also testify.
According to reports, Browder knows Natalia Veslnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. to peddle opposition research on Hillary Clinton.
Panel Chairman Chuck Grassley may ultimately conclude that the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) has failed and that unregistered Russian foreign agents are taking over America.
If so, he will be half right, but not the first such senator to express concern. Grassley should consider what happened after a more extensive Senate FARA inquiry was launched 55 years ago.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman JW Fulbright became convinced that unregistered Israeli foreign agents were a serious matter in 1961.
“In recent years there has been an increasing number of incidents involving attempts by foreign governments, or their agents, to influence the conduct of American foreign policy by techniques outside normal diplomatic channels….there have been occasions when representatives of other governments have been privately accused of engaging in covert activities within the United States and elsewhere, for the purpose of influencing United States Policy (the Lavon Affair).”
The Lavon Affair referred to Israeli false-flag terror attacks on US facilities in Egypt, in the interest of preventing the handover of the Suez Canal to Egyptian control.
The Israeli spies were caught and prosecuted by Egypt, while the disclosure of the attacks created a diplomatic crisis.
During the course of the 1960s Senate and Justice Department investigations, it was revealed that Israel was funneling millions of dollars to unregistered foreign agents in America to lobby for foreign aid to Israel, set up think tanks, engage in Madison Avenue public relations, fund lobbying newsletters, and establish an umbrella organization called the American Zionist Council (AZC).
Within the AZC was an unincorporated unit that lobbied congress called the “American Israel Public Affairs Committee.”
On November 21, 1962, the Department of Justice ordered the AZC to begin registering as an Israeli foreign agent.
This touched off an intense battle between the Justice Department and the AZC which outlasted both JFK and RFK.
AIPAC’s FARA file would have had to detail AIPAC staffers Steven Rosen, Douglas Bloomfield and Ester Kurz 1984 receipt of stolen classified information taken from US industry groups opposed to allowing duty free imports from Israel into the United States.
Of course, the FARA disclosure would include details on two AIPAC executives, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, who from 2002-2004 solicited and received stolen classified national defense information from Colonel Lawrence Franklin about Iran and other matters which they passed to the Israeli embassy.
The pair attempted to contextualize and place the stolen classified national defense information in the Washington Post to precipitate a US attack on Iran.
AIPAC is not complying with the 1962 DOJ order.
The Grassley panel might want to invite the FARA Section Head Heather Hunt, who knows all about the AZC-AIPAC incident, to testify why.
If Grassley does not believe Israeli foreign agent activity to be important, he might want to invite as a star witness Stephanie Schriock.
Schriock has publicly claimed that as a high-powered campaign fundraiser for major candidates across the US, the first step in obtaining seed funding for a political campaign was always to circulate a position paper on Israel to AIPAC regional officials.
Only then could candidates obtain funds from willing pro-Israel donors sufficient to launch a serious campaign.
The Israel lobby’s oversized role in US campaign finance on Israel’s behalf has now made regional peace and productive innovation in US policy impossible, and war all but inevitable.
Grassley might also engage in the following thought experiment as he ponders his upcoming hearing. “What happens to a candidate or incumbent if they loudly criticize Russia or US policy toward Russia?” He should then swap out “Russia” for “Israel.”
Today, AIPAC may obtain most of its lobbying budget from a relatively small, but wealthy, group of US donors.
They know well how to do this
But that does not mean it is not an Israeli foreign agent for three reasons.
Such breaks, though DOJ lists sugar quotas as an example, is the major red flag. Despite changes in its PR framing, AIPAC’s primary business is the same as when founder Si Kenen first conceived it.
“The lobby for Israel, known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) since 1959, came into existence in 1951. It was established at that time because Israel needed American economic assistance…”
The second is that AIPAC was incontrovertibly established with foreign seed funding, including to Kenen, nestled inside the AZC.
The third is that, as an unincorporated unit within the AZC, AIPAC was clearly covered by the order to register as an Israeli foreign agent.
AIPAC’s top priorities include maneuvering the US to attack Iran, keeping US forces in the region as a buffer, protecting Israeli nuclear hegemony and making criticism and boycotts of Israel in the US impossible.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose all that, as well as unconditional US aid to Israel. Senator Grassley should therefore ignore for a moment the flap over Russia, and his own top-25 position as a recipient of pro-Israel PAC money.
He should then look seriously at the longest-running unresolved foreign agent problem and ask what action would be best for America.
In May 1963, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations opened an investigation into the covert activities of foreign agents on U.S. soil, focusing in particular on the American Zionist Council and the Jewish Agency for Israel. 
The investigation was prompted by a report from the Chairman of that standing committee, Senator J. William Fulbright, written in March 1961 (declassified in 2010), stating: “In recent years there has been an increasing number of incidents involving attempts by foreign governments, or their agents, to influence the conduct of American foreign policy by techniques outside normal diplomatic channels.”
By covert activities, including “within the United States and elsewhere,” Fulbright was referring to the 1953 “Lavon Affair” , where a group of Egyptian Jews was recruited by Israel to carry out bomb attacks against British targets, which were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood so as to discredit Nasser in the eyes of the British and Americans.
The Senate investigation brought to light a money laundering racket through which the Jewish Agency (indivisible from the State of Israel and a precursor to the Israeli Government) was channelling tens of millions of dollars to the American Zionist Council, the main Israeli lobby in the United States.
Following this investigation, the Department of Justice, under the authority of Attorney General Robert Kennedy, ordered the American Zionist Council to register as “agents of a foreign government,” subject to the requirements of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, involving the close monitoring of its activities.
This attempt to counter Israel’s growing interference in U.S. politics undoubtedly enjoyed the support of the President.
At the time when he was still a young journalist covering the United Nations inaugural conference, John Kennedy was troubled by Israel’s ability to buy politicians, up to and including the President himself.
By recognizing the State of Israel on May 15, 1948, (just ten minutes after its official proclamation) despite the unanimous disapproval of his government, President Harry Truman (pictured) not only gained a place in biblical history (“Truman’s historic act of recognition will remain forever inscribed in golden letters in the 4000-year history of the Jewish people”, declared the Israeli ambassador), he also pocketed two million dollars to revitalize his re-election campaign.
“That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast,” Kennedy told his friend novelist and essayist Gore Vidal .
In 1960, John Kennedy himself received a financial aid offer from the Israeli lobby for his presidential campaign.
He decoded Abraham Feinberg’s proposal for his journalist friend Charles Bartlett in the following terms: “We know your campaign is in trouble.
We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us have control of your Middle East policy.”
Bartlett recalls Kennedy’s promise that “if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it .”
Between 1962 and 1963, he submitted seven campaign finance reform bills but all were defeated by the influential groups they sought to restrain.
All government efforts to stymie the corruption of American democracy by Israeli agents were stopped short by Kennedy’s assassination and his brother’s replacement at the Department of Justice by Nicholas Katzenbach.
The American Zionist Council evaded foreign agent status by dissolving and renaming itself American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Ten years later (April 15, 1973), Fulbright commented on CBS: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate. […]
The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. – somewhere around 80 percent – are completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants Israel gets.”AIPAC continued the same practices, dodging any sanction even when its members were caught red-handed in acts of espionage and high treason.
In 2005, two AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, were acquitted after having received from a member of the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, Larry Franklin, documents classified as Secret-Defense which they transmitted to a senior Israeli official.
In 2007, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt demonstrated in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that AIPAC and less prominent pro-Israel lobbies were the main cause of the war in Iraq and, more broadly, the determining factor in the foreign policy of the U.S. in the Middle East.
Considering that nothing has changed, there is no reason to believe that the government of Benjamin Netanyahu will not also obtain from the United States the destruction of Iran that it consistently clamors for.
On October 3, 2001, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was reported by Kol Yisrael radio to have said to his Foreign Minister Shimon Peres that “We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.”
His successor Benjamin Netanyahu gave a demonstration of that on May 24, 2011, before the U.S. Congress, when members of both houses stood up to cheer him 29 times, in particular after each of the following remarks: “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers“; “No distortion of history could deny the 4000- year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land“; “Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967”; “Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel.”
Kennedy, the bomb and Dimona
Had Kennedy lived, Israel’s influence would most certainly have been curbed on yet another front, that of nuclear weapons.
By the early 1950s, David Ben Gurion, who combined the functions of prime minister and defense minister, had engaged his country in the secret manufacturing of nuclear weapons, diverting the Atoms for Peace cooperation program, naively launched by Eisenhower, from its intended goals.
Briefed by the CIA about the real purpose of the Dimona facility as soon as he moved into the White House, Kennedy put heavy pressure on the Israelis not to pursue it.
He demanded that Ben Gurion open up Dimona for regular inspections, at first in person in New York in 1961, then through formal and increasingly insistent letters.
In the last one, dated June 15, 1963, Kennedy urged that a first visit should take place immediately, followed by regular visits every six months, otherwise “This Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized .”
The reaction to this message was astonishing: Ben Gurion resigned on June 16, thus avoiding receipt of the letter.
As soon as the new Prime Minister Levi Eshkol took office, Kennedy sent him a similar letter, dated July 5, 1963.
Kennedy’s intention was not to deprive Israel of a power which was reserved to the United States and its NATO allies.
The President’s approach was part of a much more ambitious project, which he had announced on September 25, 1961, nine months after taking office, before the General Assembly of the United Nations: “Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be inhabitable.
Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness.
The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us. […]
It is therefore our intention to challenge the Soviet Union, not to an arms race, but to a peace race – to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament has been achieved .”
The message was well received by Nikita Khrushchev (pictured with Kennedy), who responded favorably in a 26-page confidential letter dated September 29, 1961, delivered through secret channels.
After the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the nuclear war that was narrowly avoided thanks to their composure brought the two heads of State even closer to the awareness of their shared responsibility to liberate humanity from the nuclear threat.
Khrushchev sent Kennedy a second private letter in which he expressed the hope that at the end of Kennedy’s eight years of presidency, “we could create good conditions for peaceful coexistence on earth and this would be highly appreciated by the peoples of our country as well as by all other peoples .”
Despite other crises, Kennedy and Khrushchev continued this secret correspondence, now declassified, comprising a total of 21 letters in which the intention to abolish nuclear weapons was a prominent concern.
In 1963, negotiations led to the first limited test ban treaty prohibiting nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater, which was signed on August 5, 1963, by the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom.
Six weeks later, on September 20, 1963, Kennedy manifested his pride and hope before the United Nations: “Two years ago I told this body that the United States had proposed and was willing to sign a limited test ban treaty.
Today that treaty has been signed. It will not put an end to war.
It will not remove basic conflicts.
It will not secure freedom for all. But it can be a lever, and Archimedes, in explaining the principles of the lever, was said to have declared to his friends: ’Give me a place where I can stand and I shall move the world.’
My fellow inhabitants of this planet, let us take our stand here in this Assembly of nations.
And let us see if, in our own time, we can move the world to a just and lasting peace .”
In his last letter to Kennedy, handed to U.S. Ambassador Roy Kohler but which was never forwarded to the addressee, Khrushchev also took pride in this first historic treaty that “has injected a fresh spirit into the international atmosphere.”
He formulated other proposals, borrowing Kennedy’s words: “Their implementation would clear the road to general and complete disarmament and, consequently, to the delivering of the peoples from the threat of war .”
For Kennedy, the nuclear weapon was the negation of all historical efforts to civilize war by sparing civilians.
He said to his friend and assistant Kenneth O’Donnell during his campaign for the Test Ban Treaty, “I keep thinking of the children, not my kids or yours, but the children all over the world.”
In his televised speech on July 26, 1963, he reiterated: “This treaty is for all of us.
It is particularly for our children and our grandchildren, and they have no lobby here in Washington .”
In the sixties, nuclear disarmament was a realistic goal.
Only four countries had a nuclear weapon.
There was a historic opportunity to be seized, and Kennedy was determined not to pass it up.
“I am haunted by the feeling that by 1970, unless we are successful, there may be ten nuclear powers instead of four, and by 1975, fifteen or twenty ,” he uttered prophetically during his press conference of March 21, 1963.
While all NATO member states and countries of the communist bloc were following the example of the USA and the USSR and taking a first step towards nuclear disarmament, Israel was acting secretly on its own, and Kennedy was determined to prevent it.
Kennedy’s death a few months later eased the pressure on Israel.
Johnson chose to turn a blind eye to the activities at Dimona.
John McCone, the CIA director appointed by Kennedy, resigned in 1965, complaining of Johnson’s lack of interest in the subject.
Israel acquired its first bomb around 1967, without ever admitting it.
Nixon was just as unconcerned as Johnson, while his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger privately expressed his satisfaction at the idea of having friendly Israel as a nuclear ally.
Nixon, who ushered the “deep state” into the White House, so to speak, played a double game: at the same time as he publicly supported the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (which was not a U.S. initiative), he sent a contradictory top-secret National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM-6) saying: “There should be no efforts by the United States government to pressure other nations […] to follow suit. The government, in its public posture, should reflect a tone of optimism that other countries will sign or ratify, while clearly disassociating from any plan to bring pressure on these countries to sign or ratify .”
According to 2011 figures from SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), there are today across the world about 20,000 nuclear bombs with an average power 30 times that of Hiroshima, which equals 600,000 times Hiroshima.
Of these, 1,800 nuclear warheads are on alert, i.e. ready to be launched in only a few minutes.
With less than 8 million people, Israel is the world’s sixth nuclear power.
“If the President had his way, there would be a nuclear war each week ,” Kissinger was reported to have said. In the 1950s, Nixon had recommended to Eisenhower the use of the atomic bomb in Indochina and Korea.
It was not until 1986, with the publication in the Sunday Times of photographs taken by Israeli technician Mordechai Vanunu inside Dimona, that the world discovered that Israel had secretly developed the atomic bomb.
After being kidnapped by the Israeli secret services, Vanunu was convicted of the charge of “betraying state secrets.”
He spent 18 years in prison, including 11 in complete isolation.
Since his release in 2004, he is prohibited from leaving Israel and communicating with foreign countries.
Johnson and the USS Liberty
Kennedy would not be remembered in Tel Aviv as a friend of Israel.
In addition to his attacks against the outrageous lobbying activities of Israel and its nuclear power ambitions, Kennedy defended the right of return of the 800,000 Palestinian refugees expelled from their neighborhoods and villages in 1947-48.
On November 20, 1963, his delegation to the United Nations called for the implementation of Resolution 194 crafted for this purpose.
Kennedy probably never got the chance to read Israel’s hysterical reactions in the newspapers: two days later, he was dead.
Johnson’s rise to power was greeted with relief in Israel: “There is no doubt that, with the accession of Lyndon Johnson, we shall have more opportunity to approach the President directly if we should feel that U.S. policy militates against our vital interests,” considered Israeli newspaper Yedio Ahoronot.
Far from reproaching Israel for its ethnic cleansing, Johnson fully embraced the myth of “a land without people for a people without a land“, even going so far as to compare in front of a Jewish audience, “Jewish pioneers building a house the desert“ with his own ancestors colonizing the New World – which, in fact, unintentionally underscored the equivalence between Israel’s denial of its ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the denial by the Americans of their own genocide history.
While Kennedy had cut down aid to Israel, Johnson increased it from 40 million to 71 million and to 130 million the following year.
While the Kennedy administration had authorized the sale of a limited number of defensive missile batteries to Israel, under Johnson more than 70% of the aid was earmarked for military equipment, including 250 tanks and 48 Sykhawkoffensive aircraft.
Military aid to Israel reached 92 million in 1966, more than the total of all previous years combined.
Conversely, by denying them U.S. aid, Johnson forced Egypt and Algeria to turn to the Soviet Union to maintain and upgrade their defense systems.
In June 1967, Johnson gave Israel a “yellow light” for its so-called “preventive” war against Egypt, by a letter dated 3 June, when he assured Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol of his determination to “protect the territorial integrity of Israel[…] and provide as effective American support as possible to preserve the peace and freedom of your nation and the area.”
Kennedy’s death deeply affected the Arab world, where his portrait graced many homes.
“Now, De Gaulle is the only Western head of state on whose friendship the Arabs can rely,” said Gamal Abdul Nasser.
While reducing aid to Israel, Kennedy had generously provided grain to Egypt as part of the Food for Peace program.
For that country, the short-lived presidency of John F. Kennedy will have been an enchanted interlude, a dream shattered all too soon.
In 1954, under Eisenhower, Egypt had been the target of false flag terrorist acts perpetrated by Israel in order to “break the West’s confidence in the existing Egyptian regime [and] to prevent economic and military aim from the West to Egypt ,” according to the very words of the head of military Intelligence (Aman) Benjamin Givli in a secret, today declassified, telegram. The accidental ignition of an explosive device led to the exposure of the conspiracy, sparking the scandal which became known as the “Lavon Affair” after defense minister Pinhas Lavon, a scandal which was quickly stifled by Israel and the United States.
Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, who advocated a moderate brand of Zionism, respectful of international rules, acknowledged at that time (but only in private) the irresistible rise of extremists, among which he included future President Shimon Peres, who “wants to frighten the West into supporting Israel’s aims“ and that “raises terrorism to the level of a sacred principle .”
Kennedy’s death gave free rein to this Machiavellian terrorism which Israel has developed into an art form.
Two days before the end of the Six Day War, the Israeli army launched against the USS Liberty, the most famous and disastrous of its false flag attacks.
On the sunny day of June 8, 1967, three unmarked Mirage bombers and three torpedo boats flying an Israeli flag bombed, strafed and torpedoed for 75 minutes this NSA (National Security Agency) ship – unarmed, floating in international waters and easily recognizable – with the obvious intention of leaving no survivors, machine-gunning even the lifeboats.
They only stopped at the approach of a Soviet ship, after killing 34 crew members, mostly engineers, technicians and translators.
It is assumed that if they had succeeded in sinking the ship without witnesses, the Israelis would have attributed the crime to Egypt so as to drag the United States into war on the side of Israel.
According to Peter Hounam, author of Operation Cyanide: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III (2003), the attack on the Liberty was secretly authorized by the White House as part of the project labeled Frontlet 615, “a secret political arrangement in 1966 by which Israel and the U.S. had vowed to destroy (Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser).”
The orders issued by the White House that day, which delayed the rescue mission by several hours, suggest that Johnson not only covered up the Israelis post-facto, but also conspired with them.
Oliver Kirby, the NSA Director for Operations at the time, reported to journalist John Crewdson of the Chicago Tribune (October 2, 2007) that the communications transcripts from the Israeli planes intercepted by the NSA and sent to Washington immediately, left no doubt as to the identity of the attackers, and about the fact that they were aware it was a U.S. target before the attack: “I’m willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that we knew they knew [that it was a U.S. ship].”
Unmasked, Israel claimed it was a case of mistaken identity and offered its apology, which Lyndon Johnson meekly accepted on the grounds that “I will not embarrass our ally.”
When, in January 1968, Johnson received Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to Washington and then invited him to his Texas ranch, relations were cozy.
Israel will have drawn a lesson of impunity whose influence on its future behavior should not be underestimated: the price for failure in a false-flag operation against the United States is zero.
In fact, failure is impossible, since the Americans will themselves step in to cover up Israel’s crimes. Better yet, Johnson rewarded Israel by lifting any restriction on military equipment: weapons and U.S. aircraft immediately flocked to Tel Aviv, soon turning Israel into the top customer of the U.S. military industry.
If we are asked what happened on 9/11, we will all visualise the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
We have forgotten many other things, such as the insider trading in the shares of the affected airlines, the fire in the Old Eisenhower Building, or the collapse of a third tower in the World Trade Center.
What is most astonishing is that almost no one remembers that at 10am, Richard Clarke triggered the ’Continuity of Government Plan’ .
At that very moment, President Bush and Congress were suspended from office and placed under military protection.
President Bush was taken to an air base in Nebraska where the CEOs of the upper floors of the Twin Towers had been since the previous evening ; and Congress to the Greenbrier megabunker.
Power fell into the hands of the “Continuity Government”. It was in the Raven Rock Mountain megabunker (’Site R’) . Power was not returned to the civilians until the end of the day.
Who exactly were the members of this ’Continuity Government’ and what did they do during the time they were in power? We still don’t know.
The members of Congress who asked the question were not allowed to hold a session of their assembly on the subject.
Please understand that until we have clarification, the 9/11 controversy will continue.
The procedure implemented on September 11 was designed by President Eisenhower at a time when nuclear war was feared.
If he, the Speakers and a majority of Congress were killed, there would be no constitutional powers.
The military would logically have to assume the continuity of government.
But this was obviously not the case on that day.
Not one elected official was dead.
The transfer of power was therefore unconstitutional.
It was strictly speaking a coup d’état.
The attacks of September 11
In my book and afterwards, I hypothesised about what really happened on that day.
But this is irrelevant to my point.
The people who perpetrated this crime wanted to create a shock comparable to Pearl Harbor, as the members of the Project for a New American Century wrote earlier, so that they could change the way the United States lives and functions.
So they told us a tall tale that we swallowed without flinching. But :
• To this day, there is no evidence of the 19 designated hijackers on board the hijacked planes.
They were not on the lists of passengers on board the planes released by the airlines on the same day.
The videos of the hijackers at the airport were not taken in New York, but at other airports where they were transiting.
• To date, there is no evidence that the 35 telephone communications between passengers on the hijacked flights and the ground existed .
This applies both to the conversation attributed to the brave passenger who allegedly attacked the hijackers on UA 93, and to the conversation testified to by US Solicitor General Theodore Olson with his wife on AA 77.
In contrast, at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (accused of being the 20th hijacker who would not have boarded the plane), the FBI testified that none of the planes had phones in the armrests, that passengers should have used mobile phones, that cell phones at the time could not work at altitudes above 5,000 feet, and that the records provided by the phone companies did not show any of the communications mentioned – including that of Attorney General Olson.
• To date, there is no physical explanation for the collapse of three of the World Trade Center towers onto their own footprints (i.e. vertically).
The Twin Towers were hit by two planes, but were not shaken.
However, their fuel would have run down the vertical beams and melted them.
A third tower was destabilized by the fall of the first two to its side.
It too would have collapsed, not laterally, but vertically.
It should be noted that no explanation was given for the lateral explosions heard by the firemen and widely filmed, nor for the vertical beams that were severed and not melted; two pieces of evidence attesting not to an accidental but to a controlled demolition.
It should also be noted that no collapse of skyscrapers has ever been observed, either before or after 9/11, following a large-scale fire… and that no one has learned the lessons of this attack and therefore changed the way such buildings are constructed to prevent such a catastrophe.
Finally, the photographs taken by firefighters of “pools” of molten steel and those taken by FEMA (the disaster management agency) of the melting rocks in which the foundations were built are inexplicable according to the official version.
• To date, there is no evidence that an airliner hit the Pentagon.
Already the next day, the fire brigade had given a press conference at the Pentagon during which they had attested that they had not found anything suggestive of a plane.
The authorities, who had issued a vengeful statement against my book, announced that they had collected many parts of the plane and reconstructed it in a hangar.
Then they stopped communicating on this subject.
Moreover, the families of the passengers of the plane in question, after having been scandalized by my words, changed their minds when they were given back funeral urns, claiming to have identified the bodies of their relatives thanks to their fingerprints (which would have been totally destroyed during fires at those temperatures).
Some refused to sign the confidentiality agreement offered to them in exchange for large compensation payments.
Widespread surveillance of Western populations
In the days following the attacks, the Bush Administration had Congress vote on an anti-terrorist code, known as the USA Patriot Act.
This is a very large piece of legislation that had been drafted over the previous two years by the Federalist Society (of which Solicitor General Theodor Olson and Attorney General John Ashcroft were members). It suspends the Bill of Rights in cases of terrorism.
At the time of the formation of the United States, there were two opposing groups.
The first, around Alexander Hamilton, drafted the Constitution to set up a system comparable to the British monarchy, but with governors instead of nobles.
The second, around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, only accepted the Constitution after it had been amended to prevent the use of Reason of State.
These 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Their suspension challenges the balance on which the United States was founded.
It gives power to the first group, the descendants of the ’Pilgrim Fathers’, the Puritans exiled from England.
President Bush is a direct descendant of one of the 41 signatories of the “Mayfower Pact” (1620).
In order to implement the USA Patriot Act, a new department was created, the Homeland Security Department, which brings together various existing agencies.
It has a political police force capable of spying on any citizen.
According to the Washington Post, which revealed this in 2011, it has hired 835,000 civil servants, 112,000 of whom are secretly employed , making the United States the most Orwellian country on the planet.
The way this department works was revealed in 2013 by Edward Snowden. Snowden not only provided information about the NSA’s foreign eavesdropping system, but also about domestic mass surveillance in the US. He now lives as a political refugee in Russia.
This system, although less documented, is gradually spreading to all Western states, through the ’Five Eyes’  and Nato.
The “endless war”: from 9/11 to the fall of Kabul
A month and a half after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created the Office of Force Transformation, which he entrusted to Admiral Arthur Cebrowski.
The idea was to change the very function of the Armed Forces.
The Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine  is a reform as important as the creation of the Pentagon after the 1929 crisis.
This time, it is about adapting to financial capitalism.
From now on, the United States will no longer try to win wars, but on the contrary to make them last as long as possible; this is what President Bush’s expression “endless war” means.
Their aim will be to destroy local state structures so that natural wealth can be exploited without having to endure political control; as Colonel Ralph Peters summed it up: “Stability is America’s enemy” .
This is exactly what has just happened in Afghanistan.
The war started there just after 9/11.
It was only supposed to last a few weeks, but it never stopped.
The Taliban victory that we have just witnessed was organized by the United States itself in order to make the conflict last even longer.
That is why President Biden has just said that the US did not go into Afghanistan to build a state, as it did in Germany and Japan after the Second World War.
Joe Biden had, during his meeting in Geneva with Vladimir Putin, rejected the endless war.
However, he has just relaunched it, aligning himself with the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine like Barack Obama.
None of the conflicts that began after 9/11 have ended.
On the contrary, instability has taken hold in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.
One can of course call these conflicts “civil wars” and accuse their leaders of being “dictators”, or explain nothing at all, but the fact remains that they were stable before Western intervention and that Gaddafi’s Libya and Aoun’s Lebanon were US allies when their misfortunes began.
Vice President Cheney had set up a secret group in the White House to design the development of the National Energy Policy.
He was convinced that oil would run out in the medium term.
This is why the United States destroyed states in order to be able to exploit their oil in the long term, but not now.
Moreover, the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine states that one should not fight globalised powers such as Russia and China.
On the contrary, they should be given access to the natural resources they have conquered, but they should be forced to pay royalties to the US in order to exploit them.
By publishing a number of internal US military reports, Julian Assange has not revealed any sensitive information.
But all these documents show that the Pentagon has never been interested in winning the post-9/11 wars.
Assange was persecuted to the point of insanity.
To wage these wars, the Pentagon secretly created clandestine Special Forces: 60,000 soldiers without uniforms .
They are capable of assassinating anyone in any country without leaving any trace.
Bob Woodward revealed the “Global Attack Matrix” operation, decided three days after the attacks .
Wayne Madsen published the names of the first victims in Papua, Nigeria, Indonesia and Lebanon .
All my predictions have been verified over the last 20 years.
Unfortunately, few people have seen how the world has changed.
Most refuse to make the connection between the revelations of one side and those of the other and to see the responsibility of the Western democracies for the crimes committed in the wider Middle East.
The problem remains the same: we cannot admit that the criminal is close to us.
The BBC has become embroiled in a fact-checking row with demands for an apology over a presenter’s claims that Libya was the first nation to carry out a state-sponsored hijacking of an airliner in the Middle East.
According to the broadcaster’s flagship radio show, “The Long View”, the assertion was based on a hijacking incident in 1971.
Counter-claims have emerged, though, pointing out that it was actually Israel which was the first ever state to carry out an act of sky piracy when, in 1954, it hijacked a Syrian civilian airliner.
The 29 June episode of “The Long View” was presented by Jonathan Freedland.
He looked at the history of state-sponsored hijackings following a recent well-documented incident in Belarusian air space, involving a Ryanair plane en route from the Greek capital, Athens.
Belarus scrambled a fighter jet to force the Lithuania-bound plane to land in Minsk on 23 May; the pretext was an alleged bomb threat.
However, this was simply a ruse to arrest journalist Roman Protasevich, 26, who was removed by Belarusian police when passengers disembarked from the aircraft.
Journalist Freedland used the major news story to link to similar historic incidents for the weekly show.
However, after the broadcast, several listeners contacted the BBC accusing Freedland of using his platform to conceal Israel’s pioneering role during the programme which, according to the BBC website, explored “the history of state sponsored air-hijacking”.
Complainant Mick Napier, one of the co-founders of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, insists that the claim is demonstrably false.
“Freedland must have known – half way competent programme researchers would have told him — that 16 years earlier [than the Libyan incident] Israeli warplanes had forced a Syrian Airways scheduled flight over the Mediterranean to divert from international air space to Lydda Airport in Israel.”
On the 11th of July 1948 Lydda Airport was captured by the Israeli Defense Forces and renamed Lod International Airport. In 1974 the airport was renamed Ben Gurion International Airport.
This was on 12 December, 1954: Israeli war planes forced a Syrian Airways Dakota aircraft carrying four passengers and five crewmen to land inside Israel.
The passengers were interrogated for two days before international protests, including strong complaints from the US, finally persuaded the Zionist state to release both the aircraft and its passengers.
“I have no reason to doubt the truth of the factual affirmation of the US State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice,” wrote Israel’s foreign minister at the time, Moshe Sharett, in his diary.
“What shocks and worries me is the narrow-mindedness and the short-sightedness of our military leaders.
They seem to presume that the state of Israel may — or even must — behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle.”
Some observers might claim that Israel still operates in such a manner, as it continually flouts international laws and casually ignores countless UN resolutions.
For a state which claims that its legitimacy stems from a UN resolution, this is indeed ironic.
The unprecedented act of aviation piracy was down to Israel’s Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan.
He needed hostages to trade for the release of five Israeli soldiers who were caught red-handed and arrested for trying to retrieve tapping devices on telephone wires on the Syrian Golan Heights.
Israel expressed outrage at their imprisonment, but despite appeals the government in Damascus refused to release them.
Tensions mounted a month later when one of the Israeli soldiers, Uri Ilan, the son of a former Israeli politician, committed suicide in jail on 13 January, 1955.
Although the Israeli media accused Syria of torture, an examination by the UN showed “no signs of physical ill-treatment” of Ilan.
Despite his death, Syria still refused to release the remaining prisoners, and accused Israel of holding Syrian civilians as prisoners.
The impasse spiralled out of control in December 1955, when two Israeli paratroop battalions backed by artillery and mortar fire under the command of Ariel Sharon (who went on to be held responsible for the 1982 Sabra and Shatila Massacre of Palestinian refugees in Beirut, among other atrocities) attacked Syrian military posts at Buteiha Farm and Koursi near the north-east shore of Lake Tiberias.
آريل شارون قصاب صبرا و شتيلا
It was Israel’s largest military raid inside Syria at that time and resulted in 56 Syrians being killed, including three women; many more were wounded.
Sharon’s troops also took 30 prisoners, who were later used by Israel as hostages to exchange for the four Israelis held by Syria.
The US expressed its “shock” at the raid and supported a resolution by the UN Security Council that condemned Israel for its “flagrant violation” of the armistice agreement.
Clearly, back in the 1950s Israel did not hold sway over Washington as much as it does today.
That was the fifth time that the Security Council had condemned, censured, called upon and otherwise passed resolutions critical of Israel.
Since then, there have been countless more, but the occupation state simply ignores them.
The support that it gets from the US means that it gets away with this with alarming frequency.
It’s a mystery why the award-winning Freedland, editor of the Guardian’s opinion pages, appears to have airbrushed this episode from the history of state sponsored hijacking in his programme.
Did he allow his own Zionism to dictate his output?
Maybe we will never know if the BBC’s dismissive response to Napier’s complaint is anything to go by.
That response is available in full in an article that he has written for the SPSC website.
His complaint centres on the “untruthfulness of Freedland’s claim that the 1971 Libyan and not the 1954 Israeli air piracy was ‘the first ever case where a commercial scheduled passenger [aircraft] had been hijacked, taken over by a government’.”
Napier told me that his point is not that the Israeli crime wasn’t highlighted but that the Libyan example was falsely claimed to be “the first ever case” of such an incident.
“Freedland ignored Israel’s trailblazing role in state air piracy, and attributing that role to an Arab regime is not indicative of any bias, despite Mr Freedland’s very prominent role defending the Israeli state and attacking its opponents.
The programme concealed from the public a historical fact that Israel introduced air piracy into the Middle East and falsely attributed that innovation to Libya.
My complaint is that he claimed that Libya rather than Israel introduced the practice (hijacking) into the Middle East; this is false. He is entitled to his own militantly pro-Israel opinions but not to his own facts.”
Napier says that he and others will not let the matter drop until the BBC puts the record straight and issues an apology. At the time of writing, Jonathan Freedland could not be reached for a comment.
The BBC Complaints Department says that it will respond to Napier’s follow up complaint within 20 days.
As the veteran pro-Palestine campaigner insists, this is not about trying to change someone’s opinion, but to ensure that facts are presented accurately.
That Israel carried out the first state-sponsored hijacking of a civilian airliner isn’t open to interpretation.
The BBC needs to acknowledge this history lesson, and issue a correction without delay.
JTA — Jared Kushner, former US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and onetime senior adviser, is quitting politics to focus on investment, particularly on businesses that advance ‘Israeli-Arab peace’, according to a report.
Kushner’s business will be called Infinity Partners and will be based in Miami, where Kushner and his wife Ivanka now live, Reuters reported, quoting anonymous sources.
The couple live about an hour’s drive from Trump’s Palm Beach home.
Kushner will also open an office in Israel that will promote business ties between Israel, India, Persian Gulf states, and North Africa.
One of Kushner’s last acts as an adviser to Trump was leading the brokering of normalization deals between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco.
Much of Kushner’s emphasis while shaping his father-in-law’s Middle East policy was on peace nurtured through investment and economic development.
It was a winning formula with what he dubbed the “Abraham Accords,” but failed to bring about a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Jared Kushner gets Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Israeli deals
Kushner also took a leading role in running Trump’s campaigns in 2016 and 2020, but has signaled that he is not going to be involved in a possible Trump campaign in 2024.
Kushner is a third-generation principal in a family real estate empire founded by his grandfather, a Holocaust survivor.
The company has done extensive business in Israel.
Settler shoots Palestinian in Hebron, IDF drop a knife next to victim.
Israeli statistics state that 3,500 ‘Israelis’ have been killed and 25,000 have been wounded as a result of Palestinian violence since Israel was founded in 1948.
Forms of terrorism have included hostage-taking, plane hijackings, stone-throwing, stabbing, shootings, and bombings.
According to Israeli Human Rights groups in Judea and Samaria [Palestine West Bank] , 500 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians from 2000 to 2012, in Israel, and another 254 Israeli civilians were killed in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
One of those human rights groups reported that the main argument used to justify violence against civilians is that “all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation”.
They criticized this argument, saying it is completely baseless and contradicts the principle of international humanitarian law.
“According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare, and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets.
This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.”
Six things Hashem hates; Seven are an abomination to Him: A haughty bearing, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A mind that hatches evil plots, Feet quick to run to evil, A false witness testifying lies, And one who incites brothers to quarrel. Proverbs 6:16-19
PALESTINIAN GENOCIDE: 5,100,000 Palestinians have been killed since 1948
For anti-racist Jews and indeed all anti-racist humanitarians the core moral messages from the Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation) and from the more general WW2 European Holocaust (30 million Slav, Jewish and Gypsy dead) are “zero tolerance for racism”, “bear witness”, “zero tolerance for lying” and “never again to anyone”, anyone including the Indigenous Palestinian victims of the racist Zionist Palestinian Genocide – 2 million dead since 1936, 0.1 million from violence, 1.9 million from war-, expulsion- and occupation-derived deprivation; 7 million refugees; 4.1 million Occupied Palestinians deprived of ALL the human rights listed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ; 6 million Palestinians forbidden to even live in the homeland continuously inhabited by their forbears to the very dawn of agrarian civilization; 0.9 million Palestinian children confined without charge or trial to what the Catholic Church and many others have described as Israel’s Gaza Concentration Camp for the asserted “crime” of being Indigenous Palestinians living in a tiny, remorselessly Zionist-bombed patch of Palestine.
Things were made even worse by the COVID-19 pandemic and by United States economic sanctions on neighboring Syria and Iran.
These sanctions, of course, are part of a longstanding US policy that aims to punish any country or organization that engages in or supports resistance to Israel.
“My heart aches seeing the images of people going hungry on the streets of Lebanon,” Gantz tweeted on Tuesday.
He added that he had made similar comments at a Sunday ceremony honoring former members of the South Lebanon Army.
The SLA was a collaborator militia that aided Israel during its 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon.
That occupation ended in 2000 when Lebanese resistance fighters led by Hizballah drove Israeli forces out of the country. Many of the SLA members then fled to Israel.
The hypocrisy in Gantz’s offer is breathtaking.
Despite its withdrawal, Israel still violates Lebanese airspace and sovereignty almost daily, flying unmanned aircraft and fighter jets over the country.
But it was only last month that Gantz was directing threats at Lebanon.
“Lebanon needs to know that what Gaza experienced a few weeks ago is only the tip of the iceberg,” Gantz said in June.
Gantz’s threat referred to Israel’s killing of some 245 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over the span of 11 days during May, including entire families and dozens of children.
He was speaking at a ceremony honoring Israeli soldiers who participated in the occupation of Lebanon.
Gantz claimed to be the last Israeli soldier to leave Lebanon when Israeli forces abruptly abandoned their positions in May 2000.
He was serving as the liaison between the Israeli army and its SLA collaborators.
“The targets are ready. Whoever hides weapons in their house, endangers their children,” Gantz threatened – apparently laying the pretext to attack Lebanese civilian homes as Israel had just done in Gaza.
In February, Gantz also explicitly threatened Lebanese civilians while supposedly delivering a warning to Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Hizballah is Lebanon’s de facto defense and deterrent force against repeated Israeli threats and aggressions.
“If Nasrallah’s threats become acts – the result will be painful for Hizballah, its leaders and unfortunately also for the citizens of Lebanon, whom Hizballah has turned into a human shield,” Gantz tweeted.
Gantz did not hide the political motive behind his “humanitarian” offer to Lebanon, saying it was spurred by “Hizballah’s attempts to deepen Iranian investments in the country.”
Far from being “humanitarian” then, Gantz’s offer is a ploy aimed at Iran, a country Israel sees as a regional counterweight to its domination.
Nasrallah said in a recent speech that if the crisis continues to get worse, Iran may help by sending fuel to the country “even if it causes a problem.”
This is not the first time that Israel has made cynical offers to Lebanon.
Following last August’s port explosion in Beirut, Israel rushed to exploit the tragedy by offering aid.
The Bristol University academic facing demands to be sacked after he called for “the end of Zionism” has doubled down on his comments, adding that Jewish students were being used as “political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime”.
Leading Jewish organisations had urged Bristol University to take action after Professor David Miller launched an inflammatory tirade against Israel during an online event about free speech.
Responding to the JC, Professor Miller was unrepentant, suggesting he was the victim of attempted censorship and accusing the Union of Jewish Students of endangering the safety of Muslim students on campus.
He said: “The ‘Jewish student groups’ you refer to are political lobby groups overseen by the Union of Jewish Students, which is constitutionally bound to promoting Israel.
“There is a real question of abuse here — of Jewish students on British campuses being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing.
“The UJS’ lobbying for Israel is a threat to the safety of Arab and Muslim students as well as of Jewish students and indeed of all critics of Israel.”
His remarks were condemned by the Campain Against Antisemitism. “David Miller is a perpetrator, not a victim,” a spokesperson said.
“His doubling down on his dangerous claims that Jewish students are the pawns of Israel and pose a threat to Muslims are nothing short of incitement.”
Bristol University was urged to act in the wake of Professor Miller’s comments in which he accused Israel of an “all out onslaught… on the left globally” and demanded “the end of Zionism as a functioning ideology”.
During the nine-minute video shown at the weekend, the political sociology professor praised University College, London (UCL) for the decision of its Academic Board to recommend replacing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. He called the decision the “beginning of the fightback”.
The JC asked Professor Miller if he wanted to see his own university drop the IHRA definition, formally adopted by Bristol in 2019, and would he be prepared to resign his post to make the point.
He said: “No university should allow itself to be held hostage by the State of Israel’s campaign of censorship.
“Manufactured controversies around Judeophobia — such as in my case — are being used to silence criticism of Zionism and Israel.
That is the purpose of the IHRA definition in practice. If Saudi Arabia was engaged in a similar censorship campaign on British campuses, we would laugh it out of the room.”
A spokesperson for Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, said: “Universities have clear responsibilities regarding discrimination and harassment, and must balance these with their legal duties to protect free speech on a case by case basis.”
Oxford, Cambridge and the majority of Russell Group universities have adopted IHRA in full and the government has urged other universities to follow suit or risk a potential cut in funding.
Shadow Education Secretary Kate Green has said any university that does not adopt IHRA is “letting down their students, staff and the communities they serve”.
During the video, Professor Miller also railed against Jewish student groups who lodged formal complaints about his views to Bristol University which, he claimed, was part of a “drive to stop anyone speaking out about Palestine”.
He said: “We have to fight back against [the complaints], and the way to fight back is to organise proper debates to understand these issues and not to be fooled that there is some kind of liberal Zionist panacea which is not as bad as the IHRA… This is a problem for freedom of speech and also for academic freedom.”
The University of Bristol adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism in December 2019. On Wednesday, a Department of Education spokesperson stressed Mr Williamson’s determination to eradicate antisemitism on campuses by making universities adopt IHRA.
Bristol’s JSoc said the professor’s latest outburst, made at a virtual event entitled Building The Campaign For Free Speech, was a “direct attack” on their members and President Edward Isaacs. In a statement, the JSoc said: “For a member of staff to abuse his position and launch a personal attack on our JSoc President is unjustifiable. Professor Miller’s words led to our President being targeted for abuse online.
“We will not sit by in silence and allow this hatred to be spread by representatives of our university towards Jewish students.”
The UJS added: “This is not the first time this has happened and until appropriate action is taken it will not be the last.”
In further inflammatory comments, Professor Miller told Saturday’s virtual event that Israel was attempting to “impose their will all over the world.”
On Tuesday, the Community Security Trust (CST), which has complained about Professor Miller in the past, issued a damning statement accusing the university of displaying “negligence” in failing to act over the Professor’s “unconscionable language.”
The group added that his comments had “nothing to do with academic freedom” and that they “bring into question whether students, Jewish or not, should remain under Professor Miller’s duty of care.”
The communal organisation said it was seeking an “urgent meeting” with Bristol University to see if the academic authorities finally “meet their responsibilities, which so far they have utterly failed to do.”
Reacting to growing anger, the University’s Pro Vice-Chancellor for Student Experience, Prof Sarah Purdy, offered to meet Bristol’s JSoc to discuss the “upset” over the remarks on Tuesday.
In response, Bristol JSoc and the UJS said: “We welcome the opportunity to meet the university.
However, these issues are not new and have been raised in multiple meetings previously and in formal complaints. Our message going into this meeting will be, action needs to be taken.”
A university spokesperson said: “We would urge anyone who feels that they have been discriminated against or subject to hate speech or harassment, to contact our support services so we can offer appropriate help and support.
“We are unable to comment on complaints made about individual members of staff.
However, we are aware of comments made this weekend which we know have caused upset.
We welcome a discussion with the Jewish Society about this and have contacted them today with an offer to meet.”
They claimed that the university was committed “to making it an inclusive place for all its students”.
A university spokesperson added: “We have been working closely with Jewish students to understand their specific concerns and worries.
“A key outcome from these discussions was the adoption, in full, of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.”
The controversial sociology lecturer quit the Labour Party last May, after being suspended when the JC revealed his remarks that the leader, Sir Keir Starmer, had taken “Zionist” money.
He claimed to have been a victim of “targeted harassment” and said he had witnessed “the degree of influence that Zionist advocates and lobbyists for Israel have over disciplinary processes and Party policy”.
An investigation by The Times last June also showed he had shared conspiracy theories about the White Helmet rescuers in Syria, the Salisbury bombings by Russia and the origins of coronavirus.
Jewish students previously voiced their concern after Prof Miller used a slide in one of his lectures linking UK communal organisations to a Zionist movement which he claimed was part of “five pillars of Islamophobia.”
The CST branded his claims, made in 2019, “disgraceful and dangerous”, and lodged a formal complaint to the university.
Defending the slides, David Miller told The Sunday Telegraph: “I don’t teach conspiracy theories of any sort” adding that it is “simply a matter of fact” that “parts of the Zionist movement are involved in funding Islamophobia”.
The United States, which has four ammunition warehouse bases in Israel, also provides it with a large arsenal. Israel, which already has one of the most powerful Air forces in the world, is now testing F-35s in combat against the Palestinians.
Israeli Forces spokesman Zilberman announced the start of the bombing of Gaza, specifying that “80 fighters are taking part in the operation, including the advanced F-35s” (The Times of Israel, May 11, 2021).
It is officially the baptism of fire for the US Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation fighter, whose production Italy also participates in as a second-level partner.
Israel has already received twenty-seven F-35s from the US, and last February decided to buy no longer fifty F-35s but seventy-five.
To this end the government has decreed a further allocation of 9 billion dollars: 7 were granted by a US to Israel free military “aid” of 28 billion, 2 were granted as a loan by the US Citibank.
While Israeli F-35 pilots were being trained by the U.S. Air Force in Arizona and Israel, the US Army Engineers built in Israel special hardened hangars for the F-35s, suitable for both fighters’ maximum protection on the ground, and their rapid take-off on attack.
At the same time, the Israeli military industries (Israel Aerospace and Elbit Systems) in close coordination with Lockheed Martin enhance the fighter renamed “Adir” (Powerful): above all its ability to penetrate enemy defenses and its range of action which was nearly doubled.
These capabilities are certainly not necessary to attack Gaza.
Why then are the most advanced fifth-generation fighters used against Palestinians?
Because it serves to test F-35s fighters and their pilots in real war action using Gaza homes as targets on a firing range.
It does not matter if in the target houses there are entire families.
The F-35s, added to the hundreds of fighter-bombers already supplied by the US to Israel. are designed for nuclear attack particularly with the new B61-12 bomb.
The United States will shortly deploy these nuclear bombs in Italy and other European countries, and will also provide them to Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East with an arsenal estimated at 100-400 nuclear weapons.
If Israel doubles the range of F-35 fighters and is about to receive eight Boeing Pegasus tankers from the US for refueling the F-35s in flight, it is because it is preparing to launch an attack, even nuclear, against Iran.
The Israeli nuclear forces are integrated into the NATO electronic system within the “Individual cooperation program” framework with Israel.
Although not a member of the Alliance, Israel is integrated with a permanent mission in the NATO headquarters in Brussels.
In the same framework, Germany supplied Israel with six Dolphin submarines. modified for launching nuclear missiles (as Der Spiegel documented in 2012).
Italy’s military cooperation with Israel has become a law of the Republic (Law No. 94 of May 17, 2005).
This law establishes comprehensive cooperation, both between armed forces and military industries, including activities that remain secret because they are subject to the “Security Agreement” between the two parties.
Israel has supplied Italy with the Opsat-3000 satellite, which transmits very high-resolution images for military operations in distant war theaters.
The satellite is connected to three centers in Italy and, at the same time, to a fourth center in Israel, as a proof of the increasingly close strategic collaboration between the two countries.
Italy supplied Israel with thirty Leonardo Aermacchi fighters for pilot training.
Now it can provide Israel with a new version of the M-346 FA (Fighter Attack), which – Leonardo Industry specified – serves at the same time for training and for “ground attack missions with 500-pound drop ammunition, and precision-guided ammunitions capable of increasing the number of targets to hit at the same time “.
The new version of the fighter – Leonardo Industry underlined – is particularly suitable for “missions in urban areas”, where heavy fighters “are often used in low-paying missions with high operating costs”.
The ideal for the next Israeli bombings of Gaza, which can be carried out with “a cost per flight hour that is reduced by up to 80%”, and will be very ” cost-effective “, that is, they will kill many more Palestinians.
“For these crimes 58,000 Americans died needlessly. It is time to resurrect the “Vietnam Syndrome” against repeat performances. And to make it permanent.”
Fifty years ago the Pentagon Papers exploded politically in a nation weary of the Vietnam War.
Daniel Ellsberg worked on a Defense Department study about Washington’s involvement in Vietnam.
He was so appalled with the findings that he leaked the document to the New York Times.
The embarrassed Nixon administration sought to block publication.
Attorney General John W. Mitchell, later imprisoned for his role in the Watergate scandal, sent a telegram to the Times demanding return of the materials: “further publication of information of this character will cause irreparable injury to the defense interests of the United States.”
The legal battle went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the paper’s right to publish the drearily titled “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force.”
The documents further undermined the credibility of an administration was continuing a war the president had promised to end.
In 1996 R.W. Apple, Jr., of the Timeslooked back at the disclosures: “They demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance.”
Based on these falsehoods 58,000 mostly young Americans died.
Although some observers imagined that truth and honesty to government would be restored with the end of the Nixon administration, international affairs and especially war continued to bring out the worst in governments.
Ronald Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal.
Bill Clinton promoted fake atrocity stories to build support for the first Iraq War.
George W. Bush and his administration employed their unique “bodyguard of lies” to almost completely supplant the truth to win public support for the catastrophic invasion of Iraq.
Perhaps looking most like Vietnam was Afghanistan, which is nearing its 20th anniversary.
The Washington Post published a detailed history of the latter war, which it called “THE AFGHANISTAN PAPERS: A secret history of the war.” Like the Pentagon Papers, the Afghanistan Papers’ overwhelming theme was dishonesty.
The story was formally titled “At War with the Truth.” The Post explained: “U.S. officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it.”
As terrible as was the loss of American life in Vietnam, the true horror was the civilian death toll. Estimates start around 200,000 Vietnamese and run to well over one million for when the US was involved.
Hundreds of thousands of South and North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong insurgents also died.
America was not responsible for all those deaths, but US involvement greatly prolonged the war, resulting in many casualties for no ultimate gain.
What followed America’s military departure was ugly, but inevitable, unless America was willing to stay forever.
The peace agreement was signed with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in January 1973.
The last American combat troops departed on March 29th.
Fighting soon resumed and the Republic of Vietnam collapsed in April 1975.
As the North Vietnamese army closed in on the capital of Saigon evacuation of American personnel along with selected Vietnamese began.
The visual was humiliating for the supposed leader of the free world.
Indeed, fear of repeating a “Saigon moment” has infused debate over later, ill-fated interventions.
The specter often is used against proposals to end US involvement in other wars.
For instance, in 2006 author Patrick Cockburn wrote: “Iraq may be getting close to what Americans call ‘the Saigon moment,’ the time when it becomes evident to all that the government is expiring.”
In 2019 Juan Cole warned: “In Syria, this is Trump’s Saigon Moment.
All US special forces personnel are being withdrawn from Syria after Turkish artillery targeted some of their bases to force them back from the border, and after Turkey cut off their supply lines. …
Not since 1975 have [US troops] had to rush for the exits in quite this ignominious a fashion, and it is said that they are angry about it, especially about the US betrayal of the Kurds who bravely fought alongside them against ISIL.”
Writer Stephen Lendman penned an article entitled “US Syria Pullout? A Saigon Moment?”
The National’s Thomas Harding reported: “Afghanistan faces a ‘Saigon moment’ of comprehensive defeat with the Taliban taking over Kabul after the withdrawal of US and NATO troops, leading politicians and academics have warned.”
British Conservative politician Tobias Ellwood feared the most “likely scenario is that as the withdrawal becomes more evident the Taliban will get more aggressive, far bolder, and we’re going to see more attacks, which will usher in an expedited retreat, even leading to scenes that we saw in Saigon a few decades ago.”
The Diplomat’s Luke Hunt observed: “there is a genuine sense of foreboding that Afghanistan will tread the same path as South Vietnam did after President Richard Nixon pulled US troops out in 1973.”
Yet the debate surrounding the Vietnam War was dishonest in two ways. The first was the false narrative of past progress.
The second was the false narrative of future disaster – if US military efforts failed.
Vietnam-era hawks repaired to the famed “domino theory,” which predicted that not supporting the Republic of Vietnam would undermine America’s Asian allies and devastate Washington’s regional influence. Southeast Asia would go communist.
Japan would go neutral. China and the Soviet Union would go big.
Communist insurgents did take control in Laos and Cambodia.
The results were particularly gruesome in the latter.
However, little more than three years later Hanoi invaded what had been renamed Kampuchea and ousted the Khmer Rouge, a movement crazy even by communist standards.
Laos was isolated and insular, and made no effort to export its ideology.
Thailand remained independent.
General turned President Suharto had previously crushed Indonesia’s communist movement with great bloodshed. Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, and other states remained unmolested.
Even more dramatic were the changes scrolling forward a couple decades. The Soviet Union was gone. The Warsaw Pact had dissolved. NATO was expanding, incorporating former Soviet satellite states. Moscow largely disappeared as a geopolitical power in East Asia. Mao Zedong was dead. The People’s Republic of China radically relaxed economic and social controls. The Chinese people enjoyed the fruits of capitalism. PRC leaders were warmly welcomed in America. Japan had the world’s second largest economy. Asian-Pacific waters became an American lake.
As for Vietnam, it fought a short, sharp war with Beijing. Hanoi and Washington Eventually began a diplomatic dance that ended in official recognition. Explained the State Department:
“Twenty-five years after the establishment of bilateral relations in 1995, the United States and Vietnam are trusted partners with a friendship grounded in mutual respect.
U.S.-Vietnam relations have become increasingly cooperative and comprehensive, evolving into a flourishing partnership that spans political, economic, security, and people-to-people ties.
The United States supports a strong, prosperous, and independent Vietnam that contributes to international security; engages in mutually beneficial trade relations; and respects human rights and the rule of law.
Relations are guided by the 2013 U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership, an overarching framework for advancing the bilateral relationship, and Joint Statements issued by our two countries’ leaders in 2015, 2016, and in May and November 2017.
In 2020, Vietnam and the United States commemorated 25 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries, renewing their commitment to strengthened cooperation.”
There have been financial and technical assistance to deal with mines and unexploded ordinance, 11 Political, Security, and Defense Dialogues, military assistance under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative (SAMSI), and weapons sales.
Perhaps even more incredibly, given the earlier role of American aircraft carriers: “On March 9, 2020, the United States completed its second aircraft carrier visit to Vietnam with the USS Theodore Roosevelt’s five-day port call to Da Nang.
Sailors participated in cultural exchanges and community service projects including making crafts, playing sports, a language exchange, gardening, and painting, demonstrating the importance of people-to-people ties between the United States and Vietnam.”
War, what war?
Of course, the shift in relations was not an endorsement of the Hanoi government.
Freedom House rates the country as “not free,” with especially few political liberties. Explained the group: “Vietnam is a one-party state, dominated for decades by the ruling Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV).
Although some independent candidates are technically allowed to run in legislative elections, most are banned in practice.
Freedom of expression, religious freedom, and civil society activism are tightly restricted.
The authorities have increasingly cracked down on citizens’ use of social media and the internet to voice dissent and share uncensored information.”
Vietnam also flunks basic religious liberty. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom labels Vietnam a Country of Particular Concern.
The Commission’s latest annual assessment reported: “Authorities continued to actively persecute independent religious minority communities, including Protestant Hmong and Montagnard Christians, Hoa Hao Buddhists, the Unified Buddhists, Cao Dai followers, Catholics, and Falun Gong practitioners.
Ethnic minority communities faced especially egregious persecution for the peaceful practice of their faith, including physical assault, banishment, detention, imprisonment, and forced renunciation of faith.”
However, Hanoi’s victory proved to be a wave of one, a harbinger of none .
Vietnam remains a war that America should never have fought.
France committed the original sin of colonialism.
Washington blundered by helping Paris try to reassert control after Japan’s defeat in World War II.
Then the Kennedy administration made America the de facto colonial power, with disastrous results.
Against both France and America Hanoi triumphed by harnessing the power of nationalism, offering rule by Vietnamese over Vietnamese, an end to foreign control, and a united people.
Washington’s alternative – mouthing platitudes about freedom while allying with local elites and fueling corruption and repression – proved inadequate.
Many Vietnamese, especially those who did not understand the reality of the communist party, backed the North.
Similarly, Britons can criticise Britain, but not Israel. Germans can criticise Germany… and so on.
What does this tell us? It tells us that, in spite of how Britons, Americans or Germans vote, they are not free to form their own governments.
There is a non-elected government that controls the UK Parliament, the US Congress, the German Bundestag, and many other legislatures.
It is a foreign reign of terror run by Israel and its Zionist networks.
Have you wondered why so many members of the US Congress have Israeli citizenship?
Or why a US citizen in Texas has to pledge allegiance to Israel (promise to refrain from participating in the boycott of Israel) in order to keep her job in Texas?
Over 50 per cent of US states, including Texas, has anti-BDS legislation.
The laws vary from state to state, but anti-BDS legislation has been widely challenged on legal grounds, and with good reason.
Without going into the specifics of the various anti-BDS laws, it would suffice it to say that unless Israel is officially a part of the US (or vice versa), state enacted anti-BDS laws violate the US Constitution by engaging in foreign relations (granting political privileges to Israel) – a right reserved for the federal government.
Moreover, whether state or federal law, prohibiting boycotts is a violation of the US Constitution’s First Amendment – the right to free speech and the right to political boycott.
In the US, as in all Western nations, “elections” and governments have become institutions of Zionist vetted and sustained selections.
Yet, we falsely believe that we exercised choices; that there were choices to exercise.
If you live in a “Western democracy”, your government supports Zionism, at least in the sense that it has buckled under to it.
Look at what happens to rare conscientious objectors, like Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Represnetative Ilhan Omar in the US.
My hat goes off to those honourable human beings for what they have endured in their attempts to pursue justice.
We might not all have the intellectual or emotional capacity of Corbyn and Omar, but we can surely all pull our weight. We mustn’t get intellectually lazy.
When a country acts against its own interests in favour of Israel, what does that mean?
Does it mean that Glasgow, Vancouver, Milwaukee and Bonn are Israeli territory?
Your guess is as good as mine. One of the five criteria for being a country is having borders.
To the best of my understanding, Israel has never established borders.
Therefore, we don’t exactly know where it is.
The USA has military bases in over 130 countries – some sources say over 170 countries.
But since Israel controls the US to the extent it does, the US is not a sovereign nation.
It would be more accurate to call it the USI.
No – Israel is not a country like any other, it is the world’s largest and oldest terror network, and it has achieved territory, no borders. We can call it Terror Without Borders.
In the run up to the recent Israeli elections, we saw Binyamin Netanyahu forming a partnership with Otzma Yehudit, or Jewish Power, a group that openly advocates the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. 2
Jewish Power, whose leaders have a long history of expressing support for the persecution of the Palestinians, the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine, the banning of intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Arabs, proudly call themselves disciples of Meir Kahane.
Similarly, Netanyahu’s primary challenger, former Israeli army chief Benny Gantz, broadcast a promo bragging about how much killing and destruction he committed in Gaza in 2014, in a series of campaign videos for his political party, posted on YouTube and social media prior to the elections.3
The Israeli New Right’s co-leader, Ayelet Shaked, performed in an advertisement where she sprayed on perfume from a bottle labelled “Fascism”, proclaiming that it “smells like democracy to me”.
That sort of thing works in Israel – a country where well over 90 per cent of the voting population have chosen to support ethnic cleansing. For over 70 years!
You can’t say that about the population of Saudi Arabia or any autocratic country.
You can’t even say it about the 12-year autocratic rule in Hitler’s Germany. Hitler was a crazy despot who, somewhat democratically elected, became a genocidal maniac.
In Nazi Germany, you could be killed for being Jewish. Or Roma. Or homosexual, etc.
In Israel, you can be killed for not being Jewish.
Zionism’s claimed raison d’être is that Jews from anywhere have a right to “return” to Palestine/Israel after thousands of years.
The logic changes in mid-sentence: Palestinians – although their right to return to identifiable properties can be verified (many families even retain keys to homes they were expelled from) – must accept “the realities on the ground”, after 70 years.
We are all Palestinians. The statement is not to be construed as cheapening the suffering of the Palestinians.
It is said to indicate that we all run the risk of the destiny that is theirs, if we don’t start resisting, like they have for over 70 years.
“We are all Palestinians” is also not to be construed as indicating that Rwandans, Sudanese, Congolese, the people of Yemen or any other people are not equally deserving of protection.
“We are all Palestinians” simply signifies that we are subject to the exact same dynamics of Zionist pursuit as the ethnically diminished Palestinians. Just at an earlier stage.
Zionist greed isn’t a legitimate cause, nor is the freedom to perpetuate it at everyone else’s expense.
Yet, the infliction of intellectual anaesthesia, alternated with threats, that we endure to prevent us from realising this, and from rising up against the obliteration of democracy is forceful, repeated, and often accompanied by popular symbols of freedom.
Anything to create a total chaos in the mind. Chaos and fear. Or simply exhaustion.
What levels of brainwash will we accept before taking back reason and humanity?
How much corruption of the minds of our children and ourselves are we willing to accept from institutions of learning or from “news” outlets?
This article addresses some of the reasons that our overriding pursuit of democracy needs to be concerned with, first and foremost, throwing off the multi-level terror of Israel.
The issues of this article will be roughly divided into the following four subsections (although they overlap to a large extent):
Democracy presupposes informed consent of the people to be governed.
How and why are people “educated”?
Is it a matter of opinion or fact whether the World Trade Centre exploded or imploded?
Punished for noticing the largest scale holocaust in known history
Democracy (people power) is a term derived from the Greek demos(people) and kratos(rule).
Democracy can exist only with the informed consent of the people, the governed. Consent is meaningless unless it rests on relevant information. Democracy does not exist where votes are either obtained by fraud or embezzled after the ballots are counted.
Democracy dies where information is suffocated.
What happens to your vote after the poll count? Does it die behind closed doors?
If the decisions that impact the “represented” are made behind closed doors, as a result of so-called lobbying that is inserted between the voter and the decision-maker, the vote is effectively cancelled.4
Israel sports an unbroken legacy of generation after generation of democratically elected genocide.
To achieve the Israeli brand of democracy, however, the population – the demos — had to be replaced, with Zionists.
The result is an ethnically cleansed democracy – voilá! That is Israel, or occupied Palestine or whatever you choose to call it.
As Israel has no borders, its brand of “democracy” affects a few other countries as well.
How do other Zionist-ruled countries replace the demos and its natural choices with Zionists, ruling in ways that go against the interests of the majority of people?
It is not necessary to replace every non-Zionist by eliminating them physically in all countries.
It often suffices to eliminate their ability, or their courage, or just their energy to think.
Was it Steve Biko who said that the most powerful weapon in the hands of an oppressor is the mind of the oppressed?That is pretty incisive and succinct.
To confuse us from seeing clearly, Hitler ramrodded down your throats throughout our educational captivity.
We are simply not told that Zionism is older and more organized than Nazism.
That that’s how it has had the time to achieve such depth and magnitude, to become even more deadly, more culture-suffocating.
In order to prevent us from noticing a holocaust even huger than Hitler’s mind-boggling genocide of Jews and Roma and many others, almost everything we have heard about Israel in school consists of outright fabrications.
Below: Rolf Mengele regarding his father, SS Dr. Josef Mengele. Joseph instructs son that his knoweledge of him is based on lies and propaganda.
I’m not just talking about how we were deceived about Israel’s “inception” or the 1967 war.
I’m talking about almost everything we are told about Israel in school.
Or did your teachers tell you that the plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine and replace the population with immigrants started in the 19thCentury?
Yet, we are compelled, by subtle and not so subtle terror permeating all areas of life, to reason and act against our better judgement.
The terror is executed, for instance, by attacking access to facts; instilling fear of retribution for asking questions or analysing; creating emotional exhaustion by ignoring obvious truths, making people prove self-evident things ad nauseum. Let’s have a look at how we are “educated”.
2. How and why are people “educated”?
Let’s start with the question of why anyone who has the power to influence education would want to educate people about anything.
The reason is likely to compel them to act in a certain way.
It has been explicitly stated in various terms that perception management and, where that doesn’t work, action management is at the core of Zionist goals.
The Oded Yinon Plan and the Project for the New American Century are but two chilling examples.
How are such plans implemented in daily life? How can the mind and its perceptions be controlled? One has to rinse the brain of competing impulses, including the impulse to question.
Hijacking and loading the language is a favorite means of controlling people’s thoughts and actions.
Ponder the term “holocaust denial” its expanding definitions, its application and who is excused from its reach.
Another perfect example of this type of brainwash is the term “diaspora”.
It implies a right to “return” to a place, i.e. it presupposes dispersement from a common geographical origin.
How about the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”?
I’m particularly impressed with that deflection.
How about “conspiracy theorist”? Am I a conspiracy theorist?
I understand the term “conspiracy” to refer to the planning of a crime by more than one person.
Do I believe that more than one person is involved in the biggest heist since white supremacy – Zionism – which is expanding to new depth and magnitude as we speak?
Yes. I will explore the term anti-Semitismin a separate article.
For the time being, I will work with the following definition: I understand the term “anti-Semitism” to be limited to include any person or notion that does not support Jewish supremacy,
as naturally manifested by the right of Zionist Israel to create a Jewish democracy that has a right to defend itself against discomfort in any form by eliminating the suggestion of any threat to its way of life, by any means necessary, limited to the territory of Israel Without Borders.
While blackmail, extortion, racketeering, bribery, murder, money laundering, embezzlement, arson, robbery, dealing in obscene matter, etc. constitute prohibited acts in most or all legal systems, Zionist terror networks need not fear the application of these prohibitions to them, anywhere in the West.
In the US, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO) is a federal law that provides for severe criminal penalties and civil causes of action for mafia-like tactics and organised crime which affects interstate or foreign commerce.
RICO covers the aforementioned crimes and others, when performed as part of an ongoing criminal organisation, and provides that leaders of a syndicate can be tried for crimes they have ordered.
We know that RICO is not enforced against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) or similar networks.
Instead, these entities’may, and do, offer all-expenses-paid trips to Israel to each member of the US Congress, while enjoying the privilege of “legal” backing by a system that has “found” these trips to be educational.
This is a result of brainwash, as well as of subtle and not so subtle coercion of law-enforcement agents, including judges. Law-enforcement agents have been carefully educated in what they can and can’t “find”.
Similarly, acts of extortion, harassment, slander, libel, sabotage, persecution, including threats to life and livelihood, are determined to be “lobbying” if done by a Zionist.
Let’s compare the benign term lobbyingto the knee-jerk term terrorism. Obviously, if a Muslim engages in these practices, they are to be labelled “terrorism”.
Stated differently, the terms “lobbyism” and “terrorism” are interchangeable to a large extent,distinguished only by the identity of the actor, not by any element of the act.
Please folks, please, stop calling these acts “lobbying” – reinforcing the smoke screen plays right into the hands of the vilest terrorists on record.
Let’s consult the experts on how education works practically on an ongoing basis.
How do you go about information-suffocation, including culture-suffocation, with the aim of achieving reality replacement and maintaining self-censorship among the masses?
Following is a selection of means for Isra-Zio occupation of mind territory.
a. Israel’s internet-Invasion – Google, Wikipedia, the “Anti”-Defamation League, etc.
It is increasingly difficult to find certain relevant information on the web, even when you know it is there, including things you have viewed before, or even published yourself.
It is obvious that algorithms are re-set to catch what suits Google, the ADL, AIPAC and their ilk, while they simply remove a lot that threatens to shed light on Zionist terror.
[inaudible], in conjunction with My Israel, has arranged Instruction day for Wiki editors. The goal of the day is to teach people to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world… We wanna be there. We wanna be the guys who influence what is written there, how it’s written, and to ensure that it’sbalanced and Zionist in nature (emphasis added).
b. AIPAC and campus control
One avenue of culture strangulation / enforced cultureis the concerted threat-mechanism that has been part and parcel of Western campuses for a very long time.
One example is the onslaught on University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) students who voted in favour of the boycott Israeli products campaign, BDS. UCLA students have told me that one student received a phone call in which he was informed that if he voted for BDS, he “will never go to med[ical] school, you’ll see”.
Another student received a death threat around the time of the vote, but was not able to determine where the threat came from.
In the following clip from an AIPAC conference, AIPAC tells you in its own words how it replaces people who don’t agree with Israel (in the United States government and on campuses):
AIPAC student outreach:
A short version of AIPAC’s announcement of how it will take over student governments can be seen here:
c. Presstitution and the role of mainstream media
The above explains how the same blatant fabrications can come at us from hundreds of media outlets simultaneously, giving the illusion that so many reports must be based on actual facts or events.
When “investigative” journalists of almost all media outlets collectively lose the drive or the courage to investigate, they fall in line with official narratives that couldn’t be true by the laws of physics.
How many suspect that something is wrong with, say, the official 9/11-narrative? Why do they choose to remain silent if they do suspect?
Could it be that the overwhelming majority of journalists accept, or even agree, that it is necessary to keep the essential truths from the readers,to keep them voting for forces that bring about their destruction? Is the press one of these forces?
Does the press aim at subjugating us into thinking the government’s thoughts for it? Is the Press, like the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, and arm of the government in Western “democracies”?
If almost all “investigative” journalists are entirely without opinion, or integrity, in relation to the issues they spend their careers writing about, why do we keep calling them journalists? Shouldn’t they be referred to as presstitutes? 5
It would be less confusing. The alternative would be to declare almost every journalist of a mainstream “news” outlet mentally and emotionally unequipped to understand the results of what they write.
That might be preferable, since it clears them of responsibility for complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely, aiding and abetting the most sinister and well planned world war in our documented history.
There are a precious few conscientious objectors among mainstream journalists.
For example, Marc Lamont Hill. Look what happened to him.
3. Is it a matter of opinion or of fact whether the World Trade Centre exploded or imploded?
The reason I address this issue here is that the official 9/11 story has become one of the most devastating devices of deception that Zionism uses to gear the masses towards accepting endless war.
It is deception management at its finest.
The Official 9/11 narrative is one of those issues (mentioned below) that come to us in sealed envelopes, permitted conclusions provided within.
Questioning any part of it invokes reprisals; suggesting it was an inside job is taboo.
I have been called a “conspiracy theorist” for disbelieving the official narrative of how the 9/11 bombings against some of the most surveilled places in the world were planned and carried out by a man operating from a cave in Afghanistan, probably while on dialysis.
(What do you call someone who believes it?)
I have been met with angry responses like “Are you a holocaust denier as well?” “Are you anti-Semitic?”
My initial reaction to these responses was to wonder what kind of somnolent mind would jump to that impression from what I said.
However, I had to reflect anew when a very intelligent, honest, and well-educated friend recently stated that her main reason for believing the official story of 9/11 was that she couldn’t believe that so many people would be able to remain silent about what had actually happened.
She said that people in the know would not be able to keep quiet about it; that if there were people other than Muslim terrorists behind the bombings, they would start talking about it.
They do talk about it! But she is justified in not knowing that people go to great lengths, confer and compare notes, to pursue fact-finding on 9/11.
Most media outlets never touch the matter.
Even more interesting, in a sense, is that most media didn’t question who did it even in the very beginning. So, they didn’t have any questions to start with? Now, that chills me.
No, truth isn’toptional. There is a wide spectrum of room for opinions, but it is not a matter of opinion whether the World Trade Centre exploded or imploded.
Ask any engineer who hasn’t sold his or her mind. Or just ask any person who has seen an implosion.
The official explanation we receive for the collapse of the Twin Towers is that they exploded as a result ofbeing hit by jets. Yet, this doesn’t explain why the third tower of the WTC (Building 7) imploded in the same manner after not being hit by a jet. Does it?
The 9/11 example highlights the compelling need for history laws (discussed in the next section) in order to prevent our minds from wiggling about in the pond of knowledge. Perception managers will have you believe that it is your extremist leanings that lead you to doubt the official account.
4. Punished for noticing the largest scale holocaust in known history
We are in the midst of the largest scale holocaust in our known history. Over 40 million Muslims, and counting, have been ethnically cleansed as a direct and intended result of meticulously planned Zionist-operated wars.
But we don’t have a name for this holocaust.
It is a matter of no mention in every major news outlet.All focus must be reserved for the German holocaust.
Let me rephrase that. We must focus on the part of the German holocaust that targeted the Jews.
I just referred to that holocaust with a lower case “h”. Definitely anti-Semitic.
We have laws against “holocaust-denial”, which includes asking questions about the German holocaust. What happened? How many died?
You can go to prison for asking questions like that in Europe, and you are pretty much guaranteed to lose your job.
Not in 1619. In 2019. In other words, these history laws criminalise research and the broadcasting of information about the German holocaust.
The idea is that we don’t need to ask questions, because all legitimate questions have already been asked and answered by the relevant authorities.
The questions have been served upon us in sealed envelopes, permissible conclusions provided within.
In a message on YouTube, Gilad Atzmon argues that history is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along.
Accordingly, he says, history becomes a meaningful adventure once we revisit and revise the past.
He indicates that when history becomes a sealed, untouchable, chapter, it is to be equated with a religion and, when this happens, we have the right to be agnostic.
I note with sadness that not only do we lack the freedoms of information, thought, speech and press, but also the freedom of religion.
Germany has an anti-Semitism commissioner, and other countries have similar governmental posts. To protect Semites? Hardly.
Only Jews (I should sayallegedlyto protect the Jews) – Semites or not. So, what are these commissioners expected to monitor, and to prevent or punish? Xenophobia?
Or research and analysis? What I see is that we are punished in many ways if we notice the unparalleled genocide unfolding before us. In the Western world we are fond of boasting that we have democracy.
But we persecute those who try to enjoy it, by attempting to silence them with blackmail, threats and slander, or other methods that are formally illegal in every system of nominal democracy.
Danish journalist Poul Osmundsen is a case in point.
His published article, “Asmaas holocaust-porno [on] Facebook“,6 took issue with a photo gallery that Asmaa Abdol-Hamid posted on Facebook, which features photographs of the Nazi and Zio holocausts.
The title of the photo gallery translates as “the holocaust of our time”.
Osmundsen dedicated his entire article to what he called “holocaust porno” and “anti-Israel death-porno”.
He went on and on with variations on that theme.
Untroubled by facts, Osmundsen was unmoved by what he saw in the photos. That shocks me. I was very disturbed indeed by what I saw.
But Osmundsen was outraged that Abdol-Hamid dares to equate the Nazi holocaust with the Israeli holocaust.
I use the present tense about the gallery, because it is still available to view.
Osmundsen complained about the site’s 5,000 followers.
At the time of writing it had 10,845. His main complaint concerned the fact that pictures from the Nazi extermination of Jews were coupled with corresponding pictures from the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict” (sic).
He ranted about the distasteful anti-Israeli propaganda of equating Israel’s “policy” (sic) towards the Palestinians with the Nazi extermination of Jews; was outraged by the temerity of likening Palestinian deaths to Jewish deaths, of calling the Zionist holocaust planned.
He considered the photo of a dead Jew to depict the holocaust.
A similar photo of a dead Palestinian to depict “Palestinian death-porno”.
The mendacity of his article was outshone only by the intensity of his hatred, possibly paralleled by a perplexing stupidity.
His revelling in terms like “porno” (the article was replete with sexual innuendo) is interesting.
When I read his rantings and ravings, I felt a sense of embarrassment for witnessing what was nothing short of an onanistic frenzy of narcissism.
One does wish that people would do these things in private.
Osmundsen asserted that Israel practices self-criticism, that it punishes those who persecute Palestinians, but that the media fail to report this.
Osmundsen explained that, “in Arab culture”, no distinction is made between Israeli and Jew – they are all guilty.
In “Arab culture”, theyfail to distinguish the guilty from the non-guilty. The article was supplemented by shocking outpourings of raw hatred, in the comments section. Shocking outpourings.
And Zionism is to be treated as a political ideology?