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?
Supporters of Israeli apartheid and mass murder are losing control of the narrative, which has led to redoubled perception-management efforts, ranging from the cringey to the iron-fisted.
More people are becoming conscious of the Palestine issue and politicians and pundits can no longer get away with painting themselves as progressive-minded humanists without acknowledging the brutal nature of Israeli occupation.
The National Director Emeritus for the Anti-Defamation League has announced on Twitter that he is cancelling his subscription to The New York Times, claiming that a front-page story featuring the photos of children killed in Israel’s assault on Gaza this month constitutes “blood libel” against Jews.
“I am cancelling my subscription to NYTimes,” tweeted Abraham Foxman.
“I grew up in America on the NYT – I delivered the NYT to my classmates – I learned civics – democracy and all the news ‘fit to print’ for 65 years but no more. Today’s blood libel of Israel and the Jewish people on the front page is enough.”
Foxman’s statement drew criticism from all corners, including from loyal establishment pundits like Jonathan Chait, for his ridiculous assertion that merely humanizing Palestinian children killed by Israel is the same as promoting the ancient antisemitic canard known as blood libel.
Supporters of Israeli apartheid and mass murder are losing control of the narrative, which has led to redoubled perception-management efforts, ranging from the cringey to the iron-fisted.
Two Palestinian journalists were arrested by Israeli security forces in Jerusalem yesterday and were placed in administrative detention today, bringing the total now held administratively by the Israelis to 13. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns Israel’s misuse of administrative detention to hound Palestinian reporters.
“Administrative detention” is one of the many apartheid abuses which Israel has come under criticism for employing, as Israel-based +972 Magazineexplained last year:
According to human rights group B’Tselem, as of September 2020, Israel is holding 376 Palestinians, including two minors, in administrative detention. Israel uses administrative detention to indefinitely detain Palestinians (and on extremely rare occasions Jewish extremists) without charge or trial. Administrative detention orders, handed down by the IDF commander in charge of the occupied West Bank, are reviewed every six months, but the detainees are not told what crimes they are being accused of, nor shown the evidence against them.
According to lawyers who defend Palestinian detainees, administrative detentions are almost always based on “confidential material” handed over ex parte to the courts by the Shin Bet, to which the detainees themselves and their lawyers have no access. As a result, it is virtually impossible to defend oneself against an administrative detention order.
“The world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today,” AP president and CEO Gary Pruitt said in a statement after the building was destroyed.
Which, of course, is the whole idea: for the world to know less about what happens in Gaza.
The Israeli government has a decades-long history of threatening and targeting journalists in order to exert control over the public narrative about what happens under its rule, and as that narrative slips from its grip we are seeing this pattern ramp up with greater and greater aggression.
“Rather than reduce the cruelty, the Israeli government keeps trying to reduce accurate news coverage,” author and activist Norman Solomon writes. “The approach is a mix of deception and brutality. Blow up the cameras so the world won’t see as many pictures of the atrocities.”
People are simply becoming too conscious of the Palestine issue to tolerate its existence as a taboo subject anymore, even in the most mainstream circles of discussion.
The old tactics of silencing and marginalizing Palestinian rights advocates simply do not work anymore, and politicians and pundits can no longer get away with painting themselves as progressive-minded humanists without acknowledging the brutal and unjust nature of Israeli occupation.
Palestine is simply not a third rail anymore, and it’s been this way for a while now.
By the time I started doing commentary in late 2016 people were still saying you’ll be smeared as an antisemite and dragged through the mud if you criticize Israel, but my experience this entire time has been that I get a lot more vitriol and attacks coming my way by criticizing US imperialist agendas toward nations like Russia, China, Syria and Venezuela than by criticizing the Israeli government.
There’s pushback to be sure, but it’s not nearly as vituperative as what I’m used to.
This last attack on Gaza was just the ignition of a powder keg in shifting public sentiment that had been building for several years, and it hasn’t been due to any top-down effort at perception-steering by the establishment narrative managers, but by ordinary people sharing ideas and information and moving the Overton window of acceptable debate through sheer force of will.
The fact that this can be done makes one wonder in what other ways we can collectively move the narrative in a way that benefits ordinary people instead of the oligarchic empire of the US and its allies. This is an exciting time to be alive.
The world is reeling in horror at the latest Israeli massacre of hundreds of men, women and children in Gaza.
Much of the world is also shocked by the role of the United States in this crisis, as it keeps providing Israel with weapons to kill Palestinian civilians, in violation of U.S. and international law, and has repeatedly blocked action by the UN Security Council to impose a ceasefire or hold Israel accountable for its war crimes.
In contrast to U.S. actions, in nearly every speech or interview, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken keeps promising to uphold and defend the “rules-based order.”
But he has never clarified whether he means the universal rules of the United Nations Charter and international law, or some other set of rules he has yet to define.
What rules could possibly legitimize the kind of destruction we just witnessed in Gaza, and who would want to live in a world ruled by them?
The UN Human Rights Council has agreed to launch an open-ended international investigation into violations during Israel’s 11-day aggression on Gaza, and into “systematic” abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories and inside Israel. #SavePalestine#ICC4Israelpic.twitter.com/Z6qMUdzdn3
We have both spent many years protesting the violence and chaos the United States and its allies inflict on millions of people around the world by violating the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of military force, and we have always insisted that the U.S. government should comply with the rules-based order of international law.
But even as the United States’ illegal wars and support for allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia have reduced cities to rubble and left country after country mired in intractable violence and chaos, U.S. leaders have refused to even acknowledge that aggressive and destructive U.S. and allied military operations violate the rules-based order of the United Nations Charter and international law.
President Trump was clear that he was not interested in following any “global rules,” only supporting U.S. national interests.
His National Security Advisor John Bolton explicitly prohibited National Security Council staff attending the 2018 G20 Summit in Argentina from even uttering the words “rules-based order.”
So you might expect us to welcome Blinken’s stated commitment to the “rules-based order” as a long-overdue reversal in U.S. policy.
But when it comes to a vital principle like this, it is actions that count, and the Biden administration has yet to take any decisive action to bring U.S. foreign policy into compliance with the UN Charter or international law.
For Secretary Blinken, the concept of a “rules-based order” seems to serve mainly as a cudgel with which to attack China and Russia.
At a May 7 UN Security Council meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that instead of accepting the already existing rules of international law, the United States and its allies are trying to come up with “other rules developed in closed, non-inclusive formats, and then imposed on everyone else.”
The UN Charter and the rules of international law were developed in the 20th century precisely to codify the unwritten and endlessly contested rules of customary international law with explicit, written rules that would be binding on all nations.
The United States played a leading role in this legalist movement in international relations, from the Hague Peace Conferences at the turn of the 20th century to the signing of the United Nations Charter in San Francisco in 1945 and the revised Geneva Conventions in 1949, including the new Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians, like the countless numbers killed by American weapons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Gaza.
As President Franklin Roosevelt described the plan for the United Nations to a joint session of Congress on his return from Yalta in 1945:
“It ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed.
We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join.
I am confident that the Congress and the American people will accept the results of this conference as the beginning of a permanent structure of peace.”
But America’s post-Cold War triumphalism eroded U.S. leaders’ already half-hearted commitment to those rules.
The neocons argued that they were no longer relevant and that the United States must be ready to impose order on the world by the unilateral threat and use of military force, exactly what the UN Charter prohibits.
America’s “endless wars,” its revived Cold War on Russia and China, its blank check for the Israeli occupation and the political obstacles to crafting a more peaceful and sustainable future are some of the fruits of these bipartisan efforts to challenge and weaken the rules-based order.
Today, far from being a leader of the international rules-based system, the United States is an outlier.
It has failed to sign or ratify about fifty important and widely accepted multilateral treaties on everything from children’s rights to arms control.
Its unilateral sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and other countries are themselves violations of international law, and the new Biden administration has shamefully failed to lift these illegal sanctions, ignoring UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ request to suspend such unilateral coercive measures during the pandemic.
So is Blinken’s “rules-based order” a recommitment to President Roosevelt’s “permanent structure of peace,” or is it in fact a renunciation of the United Nations Charter and its purpose, which is peace and security for all of humanity?
In the light of Biden’s first few months in power, it appears to be the latter.
Instead of designing a foreign policy based on the principles and rules of the UN Charter and the goal of a peaceful world, Biden’s policy seems to start from the premises of a $753 billion U.S. military budget, 800 overseas military bases, endless U.S. and allied wars and massacres, and massive weapons sales to repressive regimes.
Then it works backward to formulate a policy framework to somehow justify all that.
Once a “war on terror” that only fuels terrorism, violence and chaos was no longer politically viable, hawkish U.S. leaders—both Republicans and Democrats—seem to have concluded that a return to the Cold War was the only plausible way to perpetuate America’s militarist foreign policy and multi-trillion-dollar war machine.
But that raised a new set of contradictions.
For 40 years, the Cold War was justified by the ideological struggle between the capitalist and communist economic systems.
But the U.S.S.R. disintegrated and Russia is now a capitalist country. China is still governed by its Communist Party, but has a managed, mixed economy similar to that of Western Europe in the years after the Second World War – an efficient and dynamic economic system that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in both cases.
So how can these U.S. leaders justify their renewed Cold War? They have floated the notion of a struggle between “democracy and authoritarianism.”
But the United States supports too many horrific dictatorships around the world, especially in the Middle East, to make that a convincing pretext for a Cold War against Russia and China.
A U.S. “global war on authoritarianism” would require confronting repressive U.S. allies like Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, not arming them to the teeth and shielding them from international accountability as the United States is doing.
So, just as American and British leaders settled on non-existent “WMD”s as the pretext they could all agree on to justify their war on Iraq, the U.S. and its allies have settled on defending a vague, undefined “rules-based order” as the justification for their revived Cold War on Russia and China.
But like the emperor’s new clothes in the fable and the WMDs in Iraq, the United States’ new rules don’t really exist.
They are just its latest smokescreen for a foreign policy based on illegal threats and uses of force and a doctrine of “might makes right.”
We challenge President Biden and Secretary Blinken to prove us wrong by actually joining the rules-based order of the UN Charter and international law.
That would require a genuine commitment to a very different and more peaceful future, with appropriate contrition and accountability for the United States’ and its allies’ systematic violations of the UN Charter and international law, and the countless violent deaths, ruined societies and widespread chaos they have caused.
They are as opposite as day and night. The Jewish people have existed for thousands of years.
In their two thousand years of Divinely decreed exile no Jew ever sought to end this exile and establish independent political sovereignty anywhere.
The people’s sole purpose was the study and fulfillment of the Divine commandments of the Torah.
The Zionist movement created the Israeli state.
The latter is a persuasion less than one hundred years old.
Its essential goal was and is to change the nature of the Jewish people from that of a religious entity to a political movement.
From Zionism’s inception the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people stood in staunch opposition to it.
To this day Torah Jewry remains forever loyal to its faith. Zionists want the world to believe that they are the representatives of the entire Jewish people. This is false!
The Jewish people never chose them as their leaders.
Semites are generally swarthy people. The European Ashkenazim Jews are not from the Hebrew stock!
The Zionists have deceived many well meaning Jewish people via terror, trickery and false propaganda.
They have at their disposal the use of a nearly universally subservient media.
Whoever attempts to criticize them puts his livelihood and, at times, his very life in danger.
However, despite the media blackout and easy resort to terror the simple truth remains unrefuted and irrefutable: ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH FAITH AND TORAH LAW THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO HAVE THEIR OWN STATE WHILE AWAITING THE MESSIANIC ERA!
The Creator gave us the Holy Land thousands of years ago. Yet, when we sinned, He took it away and sent us into exile.
After a series of secret meetings between Saudi and Israeli officials were exposed by a select few of mainstream press outlets, both the Saudis and the Israelis are now becoming more open about the relationship between the two governments. Although, for years, GCC countries like Saudi Arabia have held a public position of hostility toward Israel, many researchers and observers have long been aware of secret cooperation between the two and that public statements were largely designed to provide a cover of Arab identity and self-interest for the benefit of public consumption.
As valid as it seems that China may be cracking down on moslem Uyghurs, China is actually responding to a long standing secret build up of Islamic radicalism used by UK/US/Israel and funded by Saudi Arabia to destabilize China, and the Caucuses.
Throughout past two decades Islamic schools have been funded and built in order to rouse independent movements among the Chinese Uyghurs and use them as shock troops against Chinese government.
Islamic radicalism is being propelled by zionists for two main purposes:
1. As patsy destabilization tools to derail economic rivals; and
2. As a propaganda war of Israel against moslem states.
I recommend books by Chalmers Johnson (Blowback),
Robert Dreyfus (Devil’s Game) and
Mark Curtis (Secret Affairs) for more insight on western creation of Islamic Radicalism.
Zionists are running a terror INDUSTRY.
They usesubverted Islamic teachings and historical revisionism to recruit and train proxy forces to destabilize and destroy both Islamic and Economic rivals.
This Islamic radicalization Operation has a long precedence in Middle East when two centuries ago British created Wahhabism and then The Moslem Brotherhood for same purposes.
Infamous Zionist and pseudo Middle East “scholar” Bernard Lewis provided the British foreign office the Balkanization plan of Middle East by conjuring up violent uprisings via deliberate promotion of sectarian and Islamic fundamentalism.
Thanks to Zionism the Muslims are spread all over the earth. Sharia Law is only something personal now. Lewis has always been a liar and fear monger.
All three western intel agencies (Mi6, CIA and Mossad) have independently produced volumes of Islamic radical teachings in parallel with Saudi Wahhabism and have set up hundreds of Madrases in Middle East, North and North Eastern Caucuses into China, Africa, and Southeast Asia including Indonesia, Thailand…
US foreign policy advisors Henry Kissinger and Zbignew Brzezinski were strong followers of the Bernard Lewis plan which Kissinger used in 1975 in Lebanon and Brzezinski used to defeat Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Bernard Lewis plan was “Lebanonization “, as in the manufacture “civil war” Kissinger unleashed in Lebanon in 1975.
The war pitted Lebanon’s Catholic, Palestinian, Shiite Moslem, Sunni Moslem, Druze, and Greek Orthodox populations against each other- with a steady supply of arms to all sides.
Lewis pushed for“Islamic fundamentalism.”
“That British-run variant which he favors is opposed to modern science and technology and in opposition to tenets of Islam banning usury, AND is loyally committed to paying IMF debt.
Lewis sees fundamentalism as a battering ram against the nation-state.”
He writes,”Islamic fundamentalism is the most attractive alternative to those who feel there has to be something better, truer and more hopeful than inept rulers andbankrupt ideologies foisted on from outside.”
He notes that British subversive movements acting under such a cover enjoy a practical advantage in Middle East.
“Dictators can forbid parties, they can forbid meetings, they cannot forbid public worship, and they can, to only a limited extent, control sermons.”
As such they represent a “network outside the control of the state . . .the more oppressive the regime, the greater the help it gives to fundamentalists by eliminating competing oppositions.”
It goes without saying that the Zionist plan provided both the radicalization from the bottom AND the dictatorship propaganda against their rivals.
When you hold the megaphone and the mercenaries, nation after nation will succumb to the Zionist trap of Islamic radicalization.
This process continues today via ISIS and sectarian mercenaries like some Kurdish minorities, and in case of Uyghurs in an attempt to Balkanize and defeat China as an emerging super power.
We normally think of colonizers as large countries, and the colonized as smaller and weaker nations.
But this is not always the case. Colonization does not require occupation.
It merely requires the subjugation of the colonized.
With ambition, superior information and calculation, and the right mindset, smaller nations can (and have in the past) colonized and dominated larger and nominally more powerful countries.
India was successfully colonized by tiny Britain in the 18th century. The vehicle for colonization was the East India Company.
It was only after the Indian mutiny that Britain acted directly and sent in troops to establish the British Raj.
For the next 200 years India was drained of its wealth, its economy was restructured to support England’s needs and global ambitions, and its people militarized to fight and die on behalf of the British crown.
The Indian leaders who remained were willing participants in this venture; those who felt otherwise were destroyed or marginalized.
In a similar vein, Israel today is in the process of colonizing the United States, which is vital to its global projection and exercise of power.
The steps Israel is taking are visible to all (as was the case with British designs on India) and yet it is remarkably difficult to connect the dots while such a takeover is in process. Or, to do anything about it.
Colonization does not mean total control of everything
It means total control of what matters.
The British were interested in Indian wealth, and a standing army of Indians willing to die for their wars.
They couldn’t care less about India’s internal petty politics that did not directly or indirectly impact their mission.
An effective “divide and conquer” strategy pit Indians against each other and discouraged any kind of coordinated response, or sedition.
The British leveraged their “outsider advantage” to objectively collect data with which to calculate and coordinate which Indian princes to support in battles, and which to connive with.
Like pieces on a chessboard, Indian leaders exhausted themselves through internal battles, and were prevailed to seek cover provided by the British.
Small amounts of leverage can change outcomes (as the Israeli lobby AIPAC has shown, in its path to dominating Congress and regional/local US politics), and over the years the British were able control and align India to the British crown.
Less than 10,000 English controlled colonial India, which at that time had a population of 300 million.
It is instructive to note that while there were relatively few white Englishmen, a class of local “brown sahibs” was developed, to actually run things.
This elite class was educated in English ways, and rewarded monetarily and through social stature.
Britain was too small a country to ultimately matter by itself, but by leveraging India the English could pursue their global ambitions. India was the “Jewel in the (British) Crown”.
Today, Israel has effective control of US policy in the Mideast, and similar goals.
Much has already been written about Israel’s control of Congress.
Israel is now edging towards control over the US Executive Branch, with both presidential candidates supported by billionaires whose #1 agenda is Israel (Saban and Adelson).
The Supreme Court will be one-third Jewish, and justices have community ties and families.
As Israel demonstrated through its successful intimidation of Judge Goldstone, jurists are human and everyone has their price.
Goldstone claims that the theoretical two-state solution to come provides the legal justification not to consider the Israeli regime as practicing apartheid. Yet the state of Israel created and continues to develop the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for 500,000 Jews, and only for Jews, while not building for the Palestinians from the refugee camps and elsewhere. This is sufficient to call this Israeli practice a form of apartheid.
Israel’s “occupation force” in the US has long included AIPAC as well as the dense network of community organizations at the State and local levels.
Through relationships that have been developed over years and with unlimited funds at their disposal, the “Israel Lobby” ensures that votes go the right way, and that opponents are squashed when Israel demands unity.
In 2003 at the onset of George Bush’s Iraq war this occupation force was multiplied through the inclusion of Christian Zionists.
Critics of the Israel Lobby are marginalized by whatever means available, including being called anti-Semitic.
The Lobby has been effective in securing massive aid packages for Israel even though Israel’s per-capita GDP exceeds that of several European nations.
Israeli insiders permeate the US government, and it is US policy that there be “no light” between the countries so that where Israel is concerned there is no debate.
Israel’s top priorities are the top priorities of the US. There are of course instances where this does not happen (such as, Iran) but the direction points to a tighter colonial noose in the years ahead.
The media matters: establishing beliefs and narratives
The colonizer must be a “Sacred Object” above criticism or objective review, and dangerous critics must be either destroyed or marginalized.
No Englishman in India spoke of the mother country and its ways with anything other than reverence, even though during periods of the British Raj England was in turmoil.
Within England there was a free press and active debate; but this was not permitted in India, about Britain. The only acceptable posture was that of reverence.
Today Israel has a free press, and it is easy to read translations of the Hebrew language press.
Israeli commentators compare Netanyahu to Hitler, Israel is called a racist apartheid state based on evidence, and the extreme violence against and ongoing abuse of Palestinians is well documented.
But, these same conversations are forbidden in the US.
No newspaper would report them, nor are they permitted in polite company. Transgressors are labeled anti-Semitic, whether Jewish or not.
In the US today, boycotts are seen as a permitted non-violent form of free speech. Citizens have the right to boycott whatever they want from wherever they want without risk of penalty. The sole exception is Israel.
The British conquests were “for God and country”, and therefore justified. The British were superior, the natives inferior.
This setup the moral justification for the mayhem wrought by the British as they colonized Asia and the Mideast.
At that time, all men were not born equal, and it took the US Constitution to establish that self-evident fact.
Israel is seeking to revert to those days, by acting as though Arab lives are inferior, and (more recently) promoting Islamophobia to serve their Christian Zionism wing.
In 2003, uber Zionist Bernard Lewis posed as “Arab expert” and advised president Bush that the only language Arabs understood was force.
In the decades to come, Islamists launched movement after movement, terrorist act after terrorist act; Bernard published essay after essay, bestseller after bestseller. In 1990, his cover essay on “The Roots of Muslim Rage” in the Atlantic relaunched the “clash of civilizations” with, now, special reference to the United States. The hatred emanating from the Islamic world, Bernard repeated, “goes beyond hostility to specific interests or actions or policies or even countries and becomes a rejection of Western civilization as such, not only what it does but what it is, and the principles and values that it practices and professes.”
This helped to justify the attack on Iraq, as part of a neocon plan to “creatively destroy” the sovereign Arab states in Israel’s neighborhood, to facilitate Israel’s dominance.
The Nazis at Nuremberg were shown greater respect than Saddam and his Ba’at leadership, and the contempt for Arabs was in full display.
Today, Israeli Jews are in the process of destroying Palestinian society and erasing Palestinian culture, with impunity.
Churches and mosques are both being destroyed, though Israel would prefer to keep the spotlight on mosques, to fan a religious war between Islam on one side, and Christians and Jews on the other.
While the Israeli press records and debates Israel’s bad behavior, Americans are forbidden to publicly debate Israeli behavior critically.
Three Recent Examples:
Senator Chuck Schumer 5th column Jew
1/ During the Congressional debate around the Iran deal president Obama had negotiated, Senator Chuck Schumer said he would vote “against”…not because of any independent analysis, but because this is what Netanyahu wanted.
In other words, he publically said that he would follow the Israeli prime ministers’ direction, over that of his own president.
Because, as he said, he was “guardian of Israel”.
A sitting US senator proclaimed allegiance to a foreign country, and nobody asked him to resign!
2/ The Israeli Prime Minister addresses the full US Congress to lobby against the Iran nuclear deal.
When the deal does go through, Israel demands more US aid! And, is likely to get it.
One can try various definitions of “blackmail” to see which one fits.
The US president is impotent in dealing with Israel.
The so-called “pro Israel lobby” effectively functions like an agent of Israel.
The Israel lobby is playing the role of the East India Company, in Britain’s colonization of India.
3/ The Israel Lobby interferes massively in US foreign policy in the region.
The “mainstream” media such as NYT spins events to reflect Israel’s views (bureau chiefs are typically Jewish and resident in Israel).
The Iraq war cost $1 trillion+ and cost thousands of US lives, created ISIS, and was pushed by the Lobby. Israel benefits from the distraction.
The colonization of the US by Israel is becoming increasingly explicit.
It is now increasingly seen as “normal” to have a double standard: one for Israel, another for the rest of the world.
The boycott-Israel movement is an example of that: you can boycott anything or anyone, but not Israel. This is true power, and the face of colonization.
It’s not enough the fake Muslim Saudis are guardians of the Kaba…go there and see their evil faces plastered on the walls all over the place. Now they want Jerusalem holy sites.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is said to have supported an Israeli plot to overthrow the Jordanian King Abdullah II in exchange for guardianship of the holy sites in the occupied city of Jerusalem, Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper reported.
The paper quoted a Jordanian security official as saying that the attempt to overthrow King Abdullah II was a “scheme” involving Israel, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.
According to the unnamed official, “the large and complicated” coup involved many parties, but the king succeeded in thwarting it calmly while preserving the internal and regional balances.
“The king’s vigilance and the rapid movement of the military and security forces have thwarted the coup’s attempt to remove him and replace him with his brother Prince Hamzah Bin Al-Hussein,” the source said.
Israel, the source continued, planned to overthrow King Abdullah II due to Jordan’s opposition to the US’ peace deal for the Middle East dubbed the ‘deal of the century’, which Amman viewed as a plan to “find an alternative homeland for the Palestinians and annex the Jordan Valley to Israel”.
The paper added that the Saudi crown prince agreed to support Israel’s scheme in return for the transfer of the guardianship over the holy sites in occupied Jerusalem from Jordan to Saudi Arabia.
With US approval, it continued, Bin Salman authorised the former chief of the royal court, Basem Awadallah, to make the necessary preparations for the transfer of power at the family level, while ousted Fatah chief Muhammad Dahlan was assigned with mobilising Palestinians in Jordan and local tribes.
According to the report, Saudi Arabia armed some southern tribes, issuing them citizenship in return for carrying out military actions if necessary.
Petroleum and the pilgrimage. The two combined give Saudi Arabia the chance to punch well above its weight, affording one of the world’s most regressive regimes the chance to exercise an outrageous influence on Islam. It’s time to think of alternative arrangements.
It might seem obvious to you why Saudi Arabia is bad for Islam.
Because the House of Saud controls Mecca, the direction of Muslim prayer and location of the hajj pilgrimage, and Medina, where the Prophet Mohammed built the first Muslim society, died and is buried, the Kingdom is linked to Islam.
And vice versa. Though there is only one Muslim-majority country in the world where women can’t drive, because it is the country that rules over Islam’s holy land, it is assumed that Islam does not want women to drive.
Because it is one of the few Muslim-majority countries that suffers an absolute monarchy, it is presumed Islam prefers unaccountable government too.
In so many ways, Saudi Arabia stains the reputation of Islam. But Saudi Arabia has another kind of influence on Islam.
Every year, millions of pilgrims descend on Mecca to circumambulate the Ka’ba, the cubical shrine we believe was built by Abraham to honor God, and restored by Mohammed to His worship.
Many are from poor countries, and are visibly bedazzled by Saudi conspicuous consumption, the magnificence of the wealth on display, the awesomeness and indescribable hugeness of the great mosques that have been constructed to accommodate their numbers.
God has given the Saudis money beyond measure, and power over His holy land; this must mean God approves of their Islam.
I know how many feel. God has given the Saudis money beyond measure, and power over His holy land; this must mean God approves of their Islam.
And what an Islam it is. The official Saudi interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, was born in violent revolt not only against Shi’a Islam, and the strong traditions of spirituality embedded in Shi’a and Sunni Islam, but even against the Sunni Ottoman caliph.
Far from being the world’s leading Sunni power, Saudi Arabia has usurped the mantle of Sunni Islam, helped in its power projection by its small population, great wealth, and the collapse of its erstwhile rivals.
(The Ottomans, after all, are long gone.) Saudi Arabia uses oil money to push its Wahhabism onto the Muslim world, and to change Mecca and Medina too.
In recent decades, the Saudis have rebuilt much of Mecca and Medina. Some of this has been necessary.
Some of this has been very good. But some of it has come at a great cost to Islam’s dearest relics, monuments and oldest mosques, which have been bulldozed without the least concern.
In recent decades, the Saudis have rebuilt much of Mecca and Medina. Some of this has been necessary. Some of it has come at a great cost.
To be fair, some of the criticism levelled at Saudi Arabia for these urban transformations is unreasonable.
Think about it this way: Thanks to modern technology, and rising standards of living, millions of people not only want to go to Mecca, but can afford to.
It’s no longer a journey of months, but of days, even hours.
They speak different languages, represent different customs, and all want to not only worship in the same mosque, but get to the Ka’ba at the center of it.
While it is nice to imagine Mecca and Medina could retain the features and architecture of old cities, it is also fanciful.
When you are dealing with traffic flow in the hundreds of thousands, slippery stones and narrow alleys aren’t just problematic.
They can be deadly.
Too, skyscrapers might ruin the alleged vibe of an ancient city, but as every modern urbanist knows, building up is often the only realistic option.
But the bigger question is: Why is it the first-ugliest building in the world? In an age of cell phones and, God help us, a religion that features a regular call to prayer, what is the purpose of attaching a gaudy clock to the top?
The biggest question: These high towers are part of the progressive income stratification of a city dedicated to a leveling religion.
We’re all equal on the pilgrimage, wearing the same robes, praying side-by-side, but then when we get to our hotels, the stratification resumes.
There’s far too much money in Mecca, squeezing out the average pilgrim, and even worse, this money has been introduced even while sacred history is wiped away
So while, yes, the needs of modern religious life might mean old mosques, shrines and historical sites are in the way, that doesn’t demand destroying them.
Flush with ample funds, the Saudis could have easily rebuilt Islam’s sacred heritage elsewhere.
God’s money is For the Chosen Royals
Saudi children play on old furniture outside of the home where they live in squalor in a neighborhood in South Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, March 1, 2013. Like many families across Saudi Arabia who are barely scraping above the poverty line each month, this family relies on the hope of the charity of others to survive. (Credit: Lynsey Addario/ VII)
They haven’t even tried. They appear to be going to war with Islamic history, probably so that nothing is left that might challenge the idea that Wahhabism is an intrusion into Islamic history, and not faithful to it.
There’s far too much money in Mecca, squeezing out the average pilgrim.
This money has been introduced as sacred history is wiped away.
If you think the Islamic State’s war on antiquities is horrifying, you are right. But it is not exceptional.
It has its roots in a perverse and excessive iconoclasm, which has seen Saudi Wahhabist mandates literally crush, demolish, smash, erase, and break down the very sites and landscapes that Muslims worldwide know so well.
If you think I am exaggerating, don’t. Several years ago, I helped lead a small group of American Muslims on a pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina.
We had a Saudi guide with us who, during our bus tour around Mecca and Medina, refused to let our driver stop at mosques of historical significance, because he thought we might cross the line and worship in a manner unbecoming of an austere and hardheaded Wahhabist. He treated us like children.
Which, of course, none of us were: Wahhabists, or children. (In revenge, I spent the ride back happily pointing out sites of Ottoman significance, while describing the House of Saud’s unseemly alliance with non-Muslim powers against their fellow Muslims.)
My fellow pilgrims were incensed. They had paid, scrounged up and saved, and here they were, in their holy city, and they weren’t allowed to stop at, for example, the mosque where Mohammed was commanded by God to turn away from the first direction of prayer, Jerusalem, to the current direction of prayer, Mecca.
(It matters if you’re Muslim.) They felt outraged. They felt they were denied the chance to experience their Islam because someone else had decided their interpretation of Islam mattered more.
And that is precisely the point. Mecca and Medina are ruled by Saudi Arabia, but they belong to the Muslim world.
They are our collective sacredness. They shouldn’t be an individual possession. Islam is a very egalitarian religion.
(As some Muslims joke, people who dislike organized religion should join Islam, because we’ve mastered disorganization.) Islam has few hierarchies, and those that exist are not widely shared.
Why then does a regime which represents a sliver of Muslims, exports and enforces an ideology that is historically antithetical to Islam’s rich traditions of pluralism, spirituality and cosmopolitanism, allowed to control our holy cities?
Why don’t everyday Muslims get a say?
Mecca and Medina are ruled by Saudi Arabia, but they belong to the Muslim world.
This is, for the moment, a matter of conjecture.
The European Union includes some of the world’s wealthiest, most progressive and secure societies.
Yet before the refugee crisis, they are hopelessly divided, and their cooperation pushed backwards.
If Europe now can’t do it, how can the present Muslim world manage to come to any kind of alternative arrangement, some more inclusive shared administration of its common properties? T
The Muslim world is deeply and badly divided; it is hard to imagine how any kind of cooperative agreement could ever be reached, and also, depressingly, not difficult to conceive of other Muslim-majority governments who would make a different kind of mess out of Mecca and Medina.
As it is, Saudi Arabia has the wealth to pour into subsidizing the pilgrimage, and Muslim piety in the Holy Land, in a way few other countries can.
But for how long? Years back, pilgrimage was the preserve of the lucky few.
It was too far, too risky, too expensive. My own great-great-grandfather began a travelogue describing his own journey from northern India to Mecca, but he died on the return trip.
Today, we have Snapchat hajj channels. Aircraft make the world much smaller. News travels fast. Muslims live all over the world.
What I mean to say is, in the past, the idea that Mecca and Medina belonged to all of us was deeply felt, but at best an abstraction.
In the years to come, it will be harder for Saudi Arabia to deny the desire of the world’s Muslims to see their holy cities reflect their pieties, and to cease the imposition of a view of Islam which is not only deeply alienating to the rest of the world, but deeply unpopular within the Muslim world.
How that happens is anyone’s guess. But it will happen. I’d say hell or high water, but in the case of a sacred desert, neither seems quite right.
But not as wrong as what is happening to the center of my sacred universe.