Archive | July 10th, 2012

European Parliament Passes Landmark Resolution: Condemns Israeli Policies, Alludes to Sanctions


The European Parliament passed on July 5 2012 a landmark resolution condemning Israeli policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, focusing on home demolitions and forced displacement, with the strongest language to date. The resolution comes as a result of a concerted advocacy effort on the part of ICAHD and other human rights organizations.

Noteworthy in the facilitation of the Parliament resolution are the EU Heads of Mission reports on East Jerusalem and Area C, who reference ICAHD legal and political analysis extensively. Years of advocacy efforts that span Jerusalem, Geneva and Brussels have culminated earlier this week in this historic resolution, unprecedentedly referring to the EU-Israel Association Agreement as a means of coercing parties to justly resolve the conflict.

Following are some of its highlights:

Whereas international human rights and humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, is fully applicable to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip; whereas Israel is obliged, inter alia, to ensure in good faith that the basic needs of the occupied Palestinian population are met, administer its occupation in a manner that benefits the local population, protect and preserve civilian objects, and avoid the transfer of its own population into the occupied territory and of the population of the occupied territory into its own territory;

Whereas the recent EU Heads of Mission reports on ‘Area C and Palestinian State Building’, on East Jerusalem, and on settler violence, confirmed once more alarming and potentially irreversible developments on the ground in the areas concerned;

Whereas the Palestinian presence in the West Bank, with special regard to Area C, and in East Jerusalem has been undermined by Israeli Government policies, especially by the building and expansion of settlements; whereas Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and constitute a major obstacle to peace efforts while they are subsidised by the Israeli Government with considerable incentives in the fields of taxation, housing, infrastructure, roads, access to water, education, health care, etc.;

Whereas current developments in East Jerusalem, make the prospect of Jerusalem becoming the future capital of two states increasingly unlikely and unworkable in practice; whereas East Jerusalem is increasingly detached from the West Bank while the Historic Basin within Jerusalem is increasingly detached from the rest of East Jerusalem;

Whereas Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have a permanent-resident status which can only be transferred to children under certain conditions and is not automatically transferred through marriage, preventing spouses and children of many East Jerusalem permanent residents from living with their family members; whereas, on the other hand, approximately 200 000 Israeli settlers are living in and around East Jerusalem;

Whereas protecting the Palestinian population and its rights in the West Bank, with special regard to Area C, and in East Jerusalem is of the utmost importance for preserving the viability of the two-state solution; whereas the ongoing expansion of settlements and settler violence, planning restrictions and the consequent acute house shortage, house demolitions, evictions and displacements, confiscation of land, difficult access to natural resources, and the lack of basic social services and assistance are having a significant negative impact on the living conditions of Palestinians;

Whereas Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement states that relations between the parties shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this agreement;

Stresses that ending the conflict is a fundamental interest of the EU, as well as of the parties themselves and the wider region, notes that the EU, as the largest donor to the Palestinian Authority and one of Israel’s major trading partners has instruments at its disposal to more actively encourage both parties to work towards a solution;

Expresses its deepest concern about developments on the ground in Area C in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, as described in the EU Heads of Mission reports on ‘Area C and Palestinian State Building’ of July 2011 and on East Jerusalem of January 2012;

Stresses the importance of protecting the Palestinian population and its rights in Area C and in East Jerusalem, which is essential for keeping the viability of the two-state solution alive;

Calls on the Israeli Government and authorities to meet their obligations under international humanitarian law, in particular by securing an immediate end to house demolitions, evictions and forced displacement of Palestinians.

? I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish State. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism RESISTS the idea of a Jewish state, with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain.

– Albert Einstein, on April 17, 1938, in a speech at the Commodore Hotel in New York City


? He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust.

– Aquinas

? Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man. [?and a cruel society?, I might add. – Dan]

– Thomas Paine

? We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.

Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941)

Daniel Stone


Posted in Europe, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on European Parliament Passes Landmark Resolution: Condemns Israeli Policies, Alludes to Sanctions

Revolt of the Plebs Broadcast Organized Jewish Interests

Revolt of the Plebs Broadcast July 10, 2012

by crescentandcross

The ONE AND ONLY Keith Johnson interviews THE ONE AND ONLY Nashid Abdul Khalliq on Christian/Muslim relations and what can be done to frustrate the drive on the part of organized Jewish interests in pitting these two peoples at each other’s throats.


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on Revolt of the Plebs Broadcast Organized Jewish Interests

UN Report Reveals Massive IsraHell Human Rights Abuses in Occupied Territories


The United Nations has released a report detailing massive human rights abuses committed by Israel in the Palestinian occupied territories and revealing that the Zionist state refuses to cooperate with the U.N.’s mandate.

In the report, Israel is named as the provoker of violence and it emphasizes that Hamas generally does not retaliate. The report called on the U.N. council to condemn Israel and to commission a full study on the prolonged occupation. In addition, an appeal is made for another World Court advisory opinion, this time on Israel’s treatment of Palestinian prisoners.

Richard Falk, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967, said that since the beginning of his tenure in May 2008, despite repeated conciliatory efforts, there had not been any alteration of Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the mandate.

The principal purpose of the report was to assess efforts to realize the Palestinian right of self-determination, including in relation to refugees in neighbouring countries. It was important to assess to what degree refugee rights in the Palestinian diaspora were relevant to any negotiated peace arrangement reached between Israel and the Governmental representatives of the Palestinian people.

Several conclusions emerged from the mission, such as widespread disillusionment with the so-called peace process as a path to the realization of Palestinian self-determination, as well as with the roles played by the Quartet and the United Nations.

There was also rejection of armed resistance as the means by which to achieve positive progress toward realization of rights, past armed resistance having led to an intensification of hardship and suffering associated with life under Israeli occupation.

Furthermore, there was short-term pessimism about the achievement of Palestinian rights due to Israeli policies, especially the expansion of settlements and the purported annexation of East Jerusalem.

There were three main areas of urgent concern, namely Israel’s frequent use of administrative detention and the recent phenomenon of hunger strikes by Palestinian prisoners, targeted killings by Israel in the Gaza Strip, and Israeli settlements and related violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The main recommendations of the report included that a resolution should be adopted by the Human Rights Council and a special body be mandated to prepare a study on Israel’s use of administrative detention; that the Human Rights Council should commission a study on the adequacy of international humanitarian law to cover the situations of prolonged occupation and provide Israel and the international community with appropriate recommendations; that the International Court of Justice should be requested to provide an Advisory Opinion on the Israeli practice of transferring detained Palestinians to prisons in Israel, denying normal visitation rights, possibly joined to a request for legal clarification of the special character of prolonged belligerent occupation; and that the Human Rights Council should give increased attention to Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the normal functioning of the United Nations by way of the Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.

Of course, the Jewish Supremacists in America and Canada condemned the factual report as “anti-Semitism.”

The B’nai B’rith, which is very vocal on “civil rights” in America, issued a statement calling the report “anti-Israel,” claiming that Jews suffer much more than Palestinians.

In Canada, the Jewish Supremacist executive director of “UN Watch,” Hillel Neuer, wrote in the National Post that Richard Falk was an “anti-Israel hatemonger.”

Posted in Human RightsComments Off on UN Report Reveals Massive IsraHell Human Rights Abuses in Occupied Territories

American Jews Become More Fanatical over IsraHell, not Less, New Poll Shows


Contrary to claims by some liberal American Jews, most younger Jews are more attached to Israel than ever before, and support for the Zionist state is at an all-time high, a new poll has shown.

The survey, carried out by the Jewish “Workmen’s Circle” organization, showed that “young Jews are now more attached to Israel than the previous generation, almost reaching the level of interest of their elders.

While Jews 45 and older were rated as having a 40-44 level of attachment to Israel, those between 35 and 45 only scored a 24. Those under 35 got a 39 out of 100, according to the poll.

The poll looked only at Jews who are not Orthodox and do not attend Jewish day school, thus reflecting the broader Jewish population and particularly the segment of the population that attends such programs as Birthright.

It is these trips to Israel, and not a connection to Jewish life, which are being credited with the recent increase is Israel interest.

“It seems that the attachment levels for the entire age cohort are elevated due in large part to the increasing number of people who have visited Israel,” sociologist Professor Steven M. Cohen who, along with Professor Samuel Abrams, conducted the survey.

A full 34% of the under-35 age group has been to Israel, compared with 22% of 35-44 year olds. The poll dubbed the effect the “Birthright bump” in data. Birthright Israel has sent nearly 300,000 Jews between the ages of 18 to 26 to Israel since 2000.

In spite of the increased interest in Israel, however, confidence in the Israeli government has actually dropped, leading to the conclusion that the young population is more nuanced in its views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

“Apparently, while attachment to Israel and trust in Israeli leaders are correlated, they are not the same sentiment,” says Abrams. “Among those under 35, people in my own age demographic, Jews can be both attached to Israel and assume fairly independent if not skeptical stances toward Israeli government policies.”

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on American Jews Become More Fanatical over IsraHell, not Less, New Poll Shows

Jewish Supremacists Strengthen Grip on NYC


The population of the New York Jewish community has grown nearly 10 percent since the previous study in 2002, according to a UJA-Federation of New York’s Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011.

More than 1.5 million Jews now live in the eight-county New York area, a total that surpasses the combined Jewish populations of the metropolitan areas of Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.

In the five boroughs of New York City, the Jewish population rose to 1,086,000, with 316,000 on Long Island and 136,000 in Westchester.

UJA-Federation’s study also finds that the recent growth in Jewish population largely results from increased birthrates and longevity, rather than from immigration that previously drove the rise in the area’s Jewish population.

Increases were also measured at both ends of the age spectrum, including the number of Jewish children and young adults under the age of 25 (which now totals 498,000) and the number of Jewish seniors, particularly those ages 75 and over (198,000).

The New York Jewish community is highly diverse, according to the study. Of the 1.5 million Jewish people in the New York Jewish community, nearly half a million are Orthodox, 216,000 live in Russian-speaking households, and about 12 percent of all Jewish households are biracial or nonwhite.

The study also explores the changing nature of Jewish identity and engagement.

Nondenominational Jews and Jews with no religion now make up a third of all Jewish households in the New York area.

More than half of all Jews feel that being Jewish is very important.

And less-engaged Jews are relatively engaged in Jewish activities that one can perform independently of institutions.

The full study can be found here.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish Supremacists Strengthen Grip on NYC

Criticism of Israel Not Kosher!



“The cover was not intended to be anti-Semitic; the New Statesman is vigorously opposed to racism in all its forms,” said Editor Peter Wilby in his grovelling apology.  Although Wilby promised not to self-censor, the material below is no longer on the magazine’s web site.

Big Jewry, like big tobacco, is seen as one of life’s givens.

Free speech died when criticism of Israel was banned.

In the UK, criticism of Israel has been banned since “The New Statesman” published this tepid attack back in Feb. 2002 and then abjectly retracted.  

 Zionism is not about a Jewish national homeland. That’s to trick Jews into supporting Israel. 

RatherJerusalem is destined to be capital of the Masonic-Jewish world government dictatorship (The NWO- See The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”) This is why, in the Masonic-Jewish-subjugated plantations of the West, criticism of Israel is no longer tolerated.(Palestinians have been deemed ineligible for “human rights,” a fate that awaits us all.)

In an attempt to be “balanced,” the offending article actually played down Zionist media meddling. But that wasn’t good enough. We’re not supposed to mention the “Kosher Conspiracy,” let alone put it on the cover!    

by Dennis Sewell
(The New Statesman)

That there is a Zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left. Big Jewry, like big tobacco, is seen as one of life’s givens.

According to this view, Israel has the British media pretty well sewn up. Wealthy Jewish business leaders, acting in concert with establishment types and co-ordinated by the Israeli embassy, have supposedly nobbled newspaper editors and proprietors, and ensured that the pro-Palestinian position is marginalized both in news reporting and on the comment pages.

As one well-known foreign affairs specialist puts it: “The sheer scale of the activity is awesome. It operates at every level. By comparison, the disparate, underfunded and shambolic pro-Palestinian organizations don’t stand a chance.”

He insists that these words remain unattributable because, he claims, “the fact is that journalists put their careers in jeopardy by speaking up for the Palestinians. That’s ultimately the Zionist lobby’s most powerful weapon.”


Nevertheless, many journalists have spoken out against the Zionist lobby over the past 12 months. Last spring, there was a spat in The Spectatorbetween Lord Black of Crossharbour, left, the magazine’s proprietor, and three well-known contributors to his newspapers.

William Dalrymple, A N Wilson and Piers Paul Read wrote a letter complaining that “under Black’s proprietorship, serious, critical reporting of Israel is no longer tolerated in the Telegraph Group”.

Conrad Black (who also owns the Jerusalem Post and is married to Barbara Amiel, the enthusiastic Zionist columnist) promptly returned fire. The troublesome trio, he alleged, illustrated “the depths of the problem of anti-Semitism in the British media”.

A few months later, Sam Kiley, a foreign correspondent for the Times, resigned after a row with his editors. Kiley had succeeded in tracking down and interviewing the Israeli soldiers who had shot dead Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy who had become, posthumously, an icon of the intifada.

Middle managers at Wapping, Kiley claims, know that Rupert Murdoch has business interests in Israel and would “fly into hysterical terror every time a pro-Israel lobbying group wrote in with a quibble”. The instruction Kiley received to file his piece “without mentioning the dead kid” was the last straw.

Just before Christmas, Deborah Orr, who writes a column for the Independent, complained that she was “fed up with being called an anti-Semite”. A tendency to equate anti-Zionism – indeed, any criticism of Israel – with anti-Semitism is a persistent vice of Zionist campaigners.

Time was when the worst a commentator could expect if he or she had written critically about Israel was a telephone call from the publisher Lord (George) Weidenfeld, registering his anguish and disappointment.


Weidenfeld,left, at one time chef de cabinet to Israel’s founding president, Chaim Weizmann, was and remains a serious operator at the level of government, editors and media proprietors.

His name figures in ministerial diaries published by the Foreign Office (breakfast 8 am with Peter Hain and so on), but his media interventions have always been discreet. Today, however, critics of Israeli policy are guaranteed to receive thousands of vituperative letters and e-mails.

These correspondents take their cue from organizations such as the Zionist Federation’s Media Response Unit, run by the former Labour MP for Basildon Eric Moonman; or from the web-based, set up by two students at the University of London who felt that Israel was getting a bum deal in the press.

Robert Fisk, Orr’s colleague at the Independent, complains that he has been the victim of an anonymous smear campaign seeking to link him with the notoriously anti-Semitic historian David Irving.

Another frequent target is Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian, who was named Journalist of the Year at Granada’s What the Papers Say Awards last month for her “dedication to truthful reporting”. She has been bombarded with insulting mail, some of it denouncing her as a “self-hating Jew”.


But however vile these letter-writing campaigns may be for the journalists concerned, is there the slightest evidence that they affect what appears in the press? When one looks at the array of pro-Israel organizations in Britain, one is struck not by their cohesion so much as their fragmentation. Few (including Bicom) are much more than a two-men-and-a-dog operation located above a shop, or out in cyberspace.

The only Jewish stereotype they reinforce is the one portrayed in Woody Allen films, where a dozen members of a family sit around the dinner table, all shouting different things at the same time. Some clearly believe that Ariel Sharon can do no wrong, others that he can do no good. In this, they reflect the pluralist cast of Israel’s polity. And that Israel is the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East is something they constantly invite the rest of us to remember.

Bicom deals directly with the press, arranging visits and “interview opportunities”. It does not, it says, directly pressurize individual journalists even when it believes they write untruths.

Recently, the organization tried to hire Tim Luckhurst, a former editor of the Scotsman, to sharpen its techniques. Luckhurst, a non-Jew who is broadly sympathetic to Israel’s dilemmas, was tempted, but eventually turned the organization down, preferring to continue the struggle under his own byline.

The task of making formal complaints about supposed media misrepresentations increasingly falls to theBoard of Deputies of British Jews, a solemn, rather bureaucratic organization. Its remonstrations are hardly strong-arm stuff; their register always more in sorrow than in anger.

The board has turned to another non-Jew to put its case, the Scottish National Party activist Fiona Macaulay, recruited in July from the Scottish Parliament.


A steelier edge to perception management is provided by the Israeli embassy in the form of its press attache, David “DJ” Schneeweiss. The pro-Palestinian camp credits DJ, an Australian who emigrated to Israel 15 years ago, with almost supernatural powers.

Allegedly, he can be on the phone to every news editor at once, while simultaneously schmoozing their proprietors. His opponents accuse him of peddling the “big lies” of Israeli propaganda, such as the line that the Palestinians deliberately put their children up front to draw Israeli sniper fire, hoping a few infant deaths will help the cause.

But most journalists who have been fed that line source it from Jerusalem. DJ is more of a close textual analyst, pointing out that when Hamas uses the phrase “end the occupation” in a communique, it does not mean, as the PLO does, the occupation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza; it means the end of the existence of Israel.

The campaign against Goldenberg nicely illustrates the perils of crude lobbying. Last June, after months of being pestered by Zionist organizations, Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, traveled to Israel and the occupied territories to judge the situation for himself. Shortly afterwards, he sent his foreign editor on a similar fact-finding mission. The result has been that Israeli policies have been brought into sharper critical focus in the Guardian than ever before.

Hardly the outcome the Zionist lobby desired. Nor has Simon Kelner, the editor of the Independent, muzzled Robert Fisk, despite an attempt by the Israeli embassy to persuade him to do so. In fact, given that Black and Murdoch need no nobbling, it is hard to find an instance where any senior figure in the media has been successfully nobbled in recent years.


Read the liberal press almost any day of the week, and you will find that Israel comes off worst. Many younger correspondents appear to have forgotten that the UN was instrumental in bringing Israel into existence; that the Israelis have had to fight off three invasions from neighboring Arab states; and that UN Resolution 242 is a more nuanced document than the reflexive attachment of the epithet “illegal” to the occupation of the West Bank suggests.

Palestinian acceptance of Israel’s right to exist behind secure borders is often reported uncritically, sometimes implying that this position is shared by Hamas. And a creeping cultural and moral relativism holds Israel to account for every action and reaction, while excusing Palestinian excesses on the grounds of poverty and a general victim status.

I could go on, but only at the risk of being thought to have been nobbled myself. The truth is that the “Zionist lobby” does exist, but is a clueless bunch.

Related – Makow – The Jewish Conspiracy – Last Moment of Lucidity 

You Tube Anti-Semitism, a trick we always use”  

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on Criticism of Israel Not Kosher!

Trotskyism is a tool of the capitalists … Leninism is a weapon for the workers!


Last week, the Guardian asked whether Marxism was ‘on the rise’, and, after worrying about where all this agitation might end, went on to give a massive plug to the Trotskyist SWP’s festival of disinformation, held every year in London under the name ‘Marxism —-‘ (insert year here).

A cursory look around the world at any point in the last 100 years would tell you that Marxism never went away. Marxists have led or been involved in every serious anti-capitalist struggle since Marxism came into existence, and, despite temporary reverses, communists still lead vast swathes of the world’s poorest people in the life-and-death battle to rid the world of imperialist domination.

Britain’s own once powerful communist movement was decimated after the old CPGB gave up on revolution and started telling workers to support the Labour party instead. Today, though, with poverty, unemployment and debt spiralling out of control, and with the economic crisis set to get worse while imperialist wars get bigger and dirtier, it’s certainly true that more and more people — even in this still relatively cushioned imperialist heartland — are joining the class struggle.

They are finally waking up to the reality that this parasitic system has outlived its usefulness and has a future only in the past. Capitalism and imperialism have nothing to offer the vast masses of the world’s people except deeper poverty, more crippling debt slavery, more barbarous wars and more devastating human and environmental waste and destruction.

So it’s not surprising that corporate media and politicians are desperate to persuade us that the pro-imperialists of the SWP are the people to join if you want to express opposition to capitalism in Britain. Opportunists and counter-revolutionaries of all kinds will be getting plenty more free advertising in the capitalist press from now on, precisely because they will be as much use to workers in overthrowing capitalism as chocolate is in making a pot to hold tea.


– Trotskyism is a tool of the capitalists … Leninism is a weapon for the workers! –

Leaflet issued by CPGB-ML, 5 July 2012


What is Trotskyism?

1. THEORY OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION. This claims that socialism can only be successful if revolution occurs in all the advanced capitalist countries at once; and that all attempts at building socialism in a single country that has carried out a successful revolution are bound to fail.

Since this hypothetical simultaneous revolution has so far failed to materialise in real life (and is unlikely ever to do so), this position simply means that Trotskyists always end up denouncing all the real revolutionsthat have taken place, and furiously attacking any country that has not only carried out a revolution but actually had the temerity to go on and try to build socialism.

2. ANTI-LENINISM IN ORGANISATION. Leninism calls for the building of a revolutionary, disciplined proletarian revolutionary party, which is able to act with unity and is hostile to opportunist elements. Trotskyism stands for a loose mish-mash of whoever wants to sign up; for reformists and opportunists to be allowed into the ranks of the proletarian party; for the formation of groups, factions and cliques within a single party. No wonder no Trotskyist party has ever led a revolution!

3. HOSTILITY TO LENINIST LEADERS. We are constantly told that Trotsky was the true ‘inheritor’ of Lenin and one of the authors of the Russian revolution, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Trotsky was an enemy of Lenin and Leninism until the eve of the revolution, and only joined the Bolsheviks in 1917 when it was obvious they were going to win. In 1913, Trotsky described Lenin as a “professional exploiter of every kind of backwardness in the Russian working-class movement“, and went on to say that the “entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay“. (Letter to Chkeidze)

If Trotsky could express such ill-mannered views about Lenin before the revolution, while doing his best to undermine the building of a truly revolutionary party in Russia, it is not surprising that he went on to shower vile abuse on Lenin’s faithful pupil Stalin after the revolution — while furiously working to undermine the building of socialism in the USSR that was being led by the Bolshevik party. Trotsky’s attacks on ‘Stalinism’ were actually just the continuation of his lifelong struggle against Leninism. The counter-revolutionary nature of Trotskyism explains why Trotsky is held up to schoolchildren throughout the imperialist world as the ‘real’ revolutionary!

Uniting the counter-revolutionaries

Because of its reactionary content, Trotskyism inevitably attracted all those elements that were striving to weaken and destroy socialism in the USSR. With a passionate hatred of socialism and workers’ power, these elements strove for the overthrow of the Soviet regime, and, fully backed by imperialism, supported Trotsky abroad after his expulsion from the USSR. And the same type of people have continued to call on workers to rally around Trotskyism, even after it morphed from being a mistaken political trend within the working-class movement into “a frantic and unprincipled gang of wreckers, diversionists, spies and murderers acting on the instructions of the intelligence services of foreign states“. (Stalin, March 1937)

Ever since then there has been a kind of division of labour between the imperialists and the Trotskyists, who have worked in tandem to slander and defame the Soviet system, its government, its institutions and its leadership — all so as to belittle and discredit the achievements of socialist construction.

Trotsky went to the despicable length of equating fascism with ‘Stalinism’, and imperialists have hung on to that useful slander ever since, using it to confuse workers and combat communist influence. Moreover, Trotsky actually predicted the defeat of the USSR in WWII. He would have been devastated to witness the crowning victory of socialism over fascism, but was saved that final humiliation thanks to his assassination by one of his own followers in Mexico in 1941.

Not surprisingly, Trotskyism has supported every counter-revolutionary movement against socialism, from the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and the so-called Prague Spring of 1968 to the counter-revolutions that swept through eastern and central Europe in the late 1980s, and which finally brought down the once great and glorious USSR in 1991.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, as a result of the revisionist economic and political policies set in place under Khrushchev after Stalin’s death, Trotskyite organisations went delirious with joy. Beside a photograph of a toppled statute of the great Lenin, the Socialist Worker declared that “Communism has collapsed. It is a fact that should have every socialist rejoicing.” It even claimed that Yeltsin’s counter-revolution had brought “the workers of the Soviet Union closer to the spirit of the socialist revolution of 1917, not further form it“. (31 August 1991)

Two years later, Labour’s 1993 election defeat led the same SWP to suffer a deep “depression” and “post-election demoralisation“, declaring that “the election was a disaster for everyone who wants a better society“. What could better demonstrate the incurably anti-popular nature of the SWP than its malicious glee at the fall of the Soviet Union and its heart-aching pain at the fourth consecutive electoral defeat of the imperialist Labour party, with its proven track record of attacks on the working class at home and wars against the oppressed peoples abroad?

Trotskyism is a thoroughly counter-revolutionary trend marked by double-speak and cynical hypocrisy. It practises sectarianism and factionalism while calling for unity; it supports imperialist wars against the oppressed while mouthing phrases about anti-imperialism; it facilitates attacks on the working class through its cretinous support for the Labour party, while pretending to oppose such attacks; it supports counter-revolutions everywhere in the name of defending revolution.

Right in essence and left in form is the best way of describing this malicious tendency, which everywhere sows confusion and division in the working-class movement, making us weaker to defend ourselves against the onslaught of imperialism. If we wish to liberate our world from imperialist exploitation and oppression, we must first rid our movement of all pro-imperialist, social-democratic ideology, not least the r-r-revolutionary garbage of Trotskyism.

See also:
The masses of Europe fight back against austerity (Proletarian, June 2012)
Communists and the struggle against imperialism (Proletarian, December 2011)
Who stole our future? (Leaflet, October 2011)
Time to face it: capitalism must go (Leaflet, November 2011)
Stop the hypocrisy (Proletarian, April 2012)
Stopping the war machine: anti-war work in Britain (Lalkar, July 2012)

Watch this:
VIDEO: Trotskyism or Leninism (YouTube, January 2012)
VIDEO: Red Youth — October (YouTube, November 2011)
VIDEO: Capitalism can’t save the planet (YouTube, November 2008)
VIDEO: World food crisis — famine in the midst of plenty (YouTube, September 2011)
VIDEO: Join the struggle (YouTube, July 2011)


Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Trotskyism is a tool of the capitalists … Leninism is a weapon for the workers!

Nazi settler population surges under Netanyahu



Since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was elected more than three years ago, the Jewish population in the West Bank has ballooned by 18 percent, drawing tens of thousands of Israelis to the territory the Palestinians claim as the heartland of a future state, according to figures obtained by The Associated Press.

The rate of growth – nearly twice that of Israel proper- has deep implications for an already moribund peace process. The issue is at the heart of a three-year-old impasse in Mideast peace efforts, and critics say each new settlement home makes it ever tougher for the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach the territorial compromise that would be needed for any agreement.

The rising settler numbers are “consistent with Netanyahu’s commitment to maintain the Israeli control over the Palestinian territories and consistent with his lack of commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution,” Palestinian government spokesman Ghassan Khatib said.

Israel, which has a population of almost 8 million, has long sought to cement its hold on the West Bank, captured from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war, by having masses of Jewish settlers live there. For years, the two sides had discussed the possibility that in a final peace deal, Israel would maintain some settlements while uprooting others. Israel has shown more than once – especially when it removed all of its 8,500 settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – that it can tear down settlements when it thinks the price is worth it.

But the numbers in the West Bank are much higher, more than tripling since the first interim peace accord of 1993 to more than 342,000 at the end of 2011, according to Interior Ministry figures.

That includes a rise of more than 50,000, or 18 percent, since Netanyahu was elected in early 2009, driven by a high settler birth rate and the migration of Israelis to the West Bank.

The numbers do not include some 200,000 Jews living in areas of Jerusalem that Israel captured in the 1967 war and immediately annexed. The Palestinians claim east Jerusalem as their capital, and along with the international community, consider these enclaves to be settlements. Israel says east Jerusalem is part of Israel because of the annexation.

With nearly 10 percent of Israel’s 6 million Jews now living on occupied territory, the growing settler population has in effect erased the pre-1967 frontier, said pro-settler Jerusalem Post commentator Michael Freund.

“Jewish life in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem is growing and flourishing, and there is no human power on earth that is going to uproot or move hundreds of thousands of Jews from places such as Ariel, Tekoa or Hebron,” he wrote in a recent column, referring to the West Bank by its biblical name and naming three settlements there.

The Palestinian growth rate in the West Bank, in the meantime, was far lower: In 2011, the population grew 2.8 percent to 2.19 million, from 2.13 million a year earlier, according to the Palestinian bureau of statistics.

Palestinians, who hope to create a state in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, consider the huge growth in the settlement population a violation of peace accords that barred both sides from altering the status quo through unilateral actions. They have demanded Israel halt all settlement construction as the price for resuming talks.

The settler growth rate is roughly in line with that of previous dovish Israeli governments. But the Palestinians express additional alarm over the leadership of Netanyahu, a longtime settler patron who repeatedly has ruled out the type of broad withdrawal the Palestinians demand.

Netanyahu has rejected the Palestinian demand for a construction freeze, saying the fate of settlements should be decided in negotiations. In the meantime, his government has authorized the construction of thousands of settler apartments. Just last week, Netanyahu vowed to continue settling the West Bank, including areas deep inside the territory.

A government-commissioned report released Monday could clear the way for further construction. It recommended that Israel legalize dozens of unsanctioned West Bank settlement outposts despite international opposition to the enclaves and proposed other measures to facilitate settlement construction. That could give Netanyahu ammunition to support new settlement activity and fend off pressure from a Supreme Court that has ordered the government to take action against the existing outposts.

The report was not binding and it was not clear whether the prime minister planned to follow through on it. In a statement, he said he would study the document with top advisers.

Commenting on the report, U.S. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said: “We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts.”

He added that Deputy Secretary of State William Burns would visit Israel and the West Bank this week.

Israel began building its more than 120 West Bank settlements immediately after the 1967 Mideast war, drawing sharp criticism from the international community. Israel promised not to establish new settlements as part of its commitment to peacemaking in the mid-1990s. But earlier this year, it retroactively recognized three unsanctioned settler enclaves as bonafide settlements. It also has allowed existing settlements to continue to grow.

The rise in the settler population can be attributed largely to a birth rate topping 4 percent, more than double the national Jewish average. But about one-third derives from Israelis who moved to the West Bank in recent years, according to the Israeli central statistics bureau. Many have come for cheaper housing. Others are ideologically drawn to land they believe was promised to Jews in the Bible.

About three-quarters of the settlers live in three blocs Israel hopes to retain in any peace deal. Most of these settlements are located along the Israeli frontier, which would make it technically easy to redraw the border and compensate the Palestinians with alternative land swaps, should they agree to such an accommodation.

But even that would still leave about 85,000 settlers to remove, many of them hard-line ideologues in small, isolated settlements that are likely to oppose eviction. If Israel’s traumatic withdrawal from Gaza proved anything, it was that the removal of tens of thousands of settlers would be a colossal and possibly violent task.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said he was “not surprised” by the higher settler growth rate because the population includes many religious families and young couples, groups that tend to have many children. He said this trend would have no bearing on peace prospects.

“Most of the growth is in large settlement blocs, which in any case will be remaining part of Israel in any final status agreement,” he said.

Regev claimed every peace plan floated over the past two decades left the blocs in Israeli hands. Khatib acknowledged territorial swaps have been discussed but said no formal agreement was ever reached.

Hagit Ofran of the anti-settlement watchdog group Peace Now says construction patterns have shifted in the Netanyahu years. If, in the past, 80 percent of new construction took place in the blocs, then during Netanyahu’s first 2 1/2 years in office, that number dropped to about 70 percent, she said.

“That means ideological settlers, the more radical, religious ones, are growing in number,” she said, though she thinks construction this year might hew closer to the older pattern.


Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi settler population surges under Netanyahu

The Libyan Election Farce


All candidates are neo-imperial candidates – Wall Street proxy Jibril of “National Forces Alliance” presumed winner.

By Tony Cartalucci

Ideally the West would like to install “liberal” pro-globalist candidates into power in each of the nations it has destabilized and destroyed during its premeditated, engineered “Arab Spring.” In the case of Egypt where Mohammed ElBaradei was sufficiently exposed and his presidential aspirations effectively derailed, the West’s Muslim Brotherhood proxies made for a viable second option.

In Libya, a similar scenario has unfolded with two tiers of Western proxies poised to take power – pro-globalist technocrats like US-educated Mahmoud Jibril (Gibril) Elwarfally’s National Forces Alliance, and of course NATO’s terrorist proxies within the Muslim Brotherhood along with Al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) warlords like Abdul Hakim Belhaj.

In Egypt where relative economic and social stability returned after the brief chaos and violence of the early 2011 protests, the alternative media was able to sufficiently expose and disrupt “liberal” candidate ElBaradei. In Libya, the nation has been plunged into nationwide lawlessness, violence, and sweeping genocide by sectarian extremists, tribal confrontations, and militant opportunists. The people of Libya have been too busy defending themselves and desperately fighting for their own immediate survival to function as a nation-state, let alone scrutinize candidates politically before the farcical Western-hyped elections.

In other words, no matter who wins the so-called elections in war-torn Libya, the West has ensured all the candidates are loyal proxies, and will most assuredly have one of these proxies in place to guide Libya according to its own agenda rather than that of the Libyan people.

The New York Times has already proclaimed in its article, “Party Led by Pro-Western Official Claims Lead in Libya,” that Jibril’s party is the likely winner. Readers might recall that in May of 2011, Jibril had made a pilgrimage back to the United States where he received his higher education and spent years teaching in Pittsburgh, to speak before the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution (Brookings page here) about turning Libya into a “lake” to develop the skills of Africans to serve the needs of markets in the European Union.

Jibril will serve not as an “elected representative” of the Libyan people, but as a technocratic proxy implementing not only the West’s designs for Libya, but carrying out its role in recolonizing and exploiting both the vast populations and resources of the entire African continent. Jibril, or whoever the West finally installs into power will not only carry out this agenda, they will do so under the guise of a “democratic mandate.” While impressionable and/or duplicitous people the world over applaud Libya’s elections, they are but the most superficial attempt to spin NATO’s genocidal destruction of one of the most developed nations in Africa.

And despite these elections, Libya will remain largely lawless and a terrorist safe-haven by design so that it may continue serving its purpose as a weapons, fighter, and cash hub for NATO militant proxies throughout the region, particularly verses Syria.

Libya’s “transitional government” led by Western big oil representative Abdurrahim el-Keib had already played a significant role in carrying out Western designs against other geopolitical targets throughout North Africa and the Middle East, including Mali and Syria where Libya has shipped both weapons and fighters to augment NATO-backed terrorists seeking to overthrow these targeted governments.

Libya under el-Keib has also lent significant political support to the West’s Arab World agenda. Along with the government of Tunisia – led at the time by US funded “activist” Moncef Marzouki, Libya had withdrawn recognition of Syria’s government. The US-installed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has likewise backed Western designs throughout the region, most recently backing US calls for intervention in Syria.

What the uninformed public believes it is seeing is a transition to “democracy” across the Arab World and each of these nations joining together to ensure such a transition in remaining “dictatorships” takes place. It might be mistakenly believed then that the United States is merely “reacting” to this unfolding paradigm in a supportive capacity.

What has happened in reality is that the so-called “Arab Spring” was planned by the West as early as 2008 with activists literally flown to the United States to receive training, funding, and equipment with which to return to their home countries and begin a campaign of coordinated destabilization.

It was under this cover of seemingly legitimate peaceful protesting that more violent elements, organized as early as 2007 or even earlier (as was the case in Libya), began violently overthrowing regimes targeted, according to US Army General Wesley Clark, as early as 1991, with a complete list documented as early as 2001. This list, provided during General Clark’s talk at the Commonwealth Club of California, October 3, 2007, included seven nations slated by the Pentagon for destabilization and destruction: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

Libya’s elections are therefore an absolute farce in the wake of a premeditated Western military campaign aimed at the entire Arab World – the elections a motion gone through to couch the creation of a Western client regime within the perceived legitimacy elections may grant it in the minds of both Libyans and global public opinion.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on The Libyan Election Farce

There will be hell to pay for NATO’s Holy War


By Pepe Escobar

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is running out of rhetorical ammunition in the US’s Holy War against Syria. Perhaps it’s the strain of launching a NATO war bypassing the UN Security Council. Perhaps it’s the strain of being eaten for breakfast routinely by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Hillary has just called on “Western powers” and their Arab stooges – the NATOGCC compound [1] that passes for the “international community” – to “make it clear that Russia and China will pay a price because they are holding up progress” regarding weaponized regime change in Syria.

In non-newspeak, this means, “If you block our new war, there will be payback”.

Howls of laughter in the corridors of the Kremlin and the Zhongnanhai notwithstanding, this shows how desperate the NATOGCC compound is to force regime change in Syria as a stopover in cutting off Iran’s privileged connection with the Arab world. And this while Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan – leading NATO’s eastern flank – itches to attack Syria but can’t find a way to sell it to Turkish public opinion.

Into this incandescent context plunges WikiLeaks – releasing a batch of very embarrassing emails against the Assad system and the NATO rebels as well. A possible side effect will be to inspire waves of so-called progressives all across the West to start supporting the Holy War on Syria. A realistic effect will be to show how unsavory both sides – the police state Assad system and the armed opposition – really are.

Car bombing tourism, anyone?

It’s useful to examine what price Washington itself, not to mention its NATO subjects, could be paying for this Holy War branch-out fought with – who else – the same bunch of “terrorists” who until yesterday were about to destroy Western civilization and turn it into a giant Caliphate.

Washington, London and Paris have tried – twice – to twist the UN Security Council into yet another war. They were blocked by Russia and China. So plan B was to bypass the UN and launch a NATO war. Problem is NATO has no stomach – and no funds – for a very risky war with a country that can actually defend itself.

Thus plan C is to bet on a prolonged civil war, using the Far-from-Free Syrian Army (FSA), crammed with mercenaries and jihadists, and the band of opportunistic exiles known as the Syrian National Council (SNC).

The SNC has actually called for a Libya-style no-fly zone over Syria – shorthand for a NATO war. Turkey also formally asked NATO for a no-fly zone. NATO commanders may be inept – but they have a certain amount of experience with major embarrassment (see Afghanistan). They flatly refused it.

The SNC – and the FSA – could not be more un-representative. The “Friends of Syria” – as in Hillary and the Arab stooges – barely acknowledge the existence of the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change (NCB), the main indigenous opposition movement in Syria, composed of 13 political parties, mostly from the Left, Arab nationalists and including one Kurdish party. The NCB firmly denounces any form of militarization and totally dismisses the FSA.

Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari – a Kurd – has warned that Salafi-jihadists of the al-Qaeda mould are moving into Syria in droves. Apparently this bunch still listens very closely to “invisible” al-Qaeda ideologue Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri; five months ago he issued these marching orders to jihadis in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. It also helps that many of them are being weaponized – via different networks – by the House of Saud and Qatar.

For months everybody knows that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) of al-Qaeda-linked Abdul Hakim Belhaj has been active in Syria – as well as remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq now responsible for car bombings even in Damascus.

In the event of a post-Assad Syria dominated by hardcore Sunnis infiltrated by Wahhabis and Salafi-jihadists, guaranteed blowback will leave Afghanistan after the 1980s anti-Soviet jihad looking like a ride on Disneyland Hong Kong.

We accept yuan and rubles
As for China, it’s laughing about Hillary’s desperation all the way to the bank. As the House of Saud becomes ever more paranoid with what it sees as the Obama administration flirting with democracy in the Arab world, Beijing jacked up trade ties by delivering a bunch of new missiles to Riyadh.

And while the “West” flirts with Holy War, Beijing’s state-sponsored corporations have been buying commodities like crazy all across the Middle East, North Africa and South America – as well as stockpiling rare earths for strategic reserves. China produces no less than 97% of the world’s rare earths – used on everything from iPads to those shiny new missiles now frying in the Arabian desert.

Other side effects as in “the price to pay” for the bypassing of the UN and the obsession on NATO as global Robocop will be inevitable. It shouldn’t be forgotten that the Holy War on Syria is a stopover on the way to Tehran. For instance, a new system of maritime insurance, as well as a new international exchange mechanism – bypassing Western diktats – may be about to be born.

Yet the most important element may be a concerted move by Russia, Iran and China to reorganize the global energy market by transacting outside of the petrodollar.

So Washington cuts Iran off from SWIFT – the international bank clearing system? Iran’s central bank counterpunches; if you want to do business with us, you can pay in any currency apart from the US dollar, or you can pay with gold.

This is the Holy Grail of the Holy War – not Syria; one thing is for Tehran to accept euros as payment for its oil and gas; another thing is to accept gold. On top of it with full support from both Russia and China.

In a nutshell; the whole Holy War syndrome is accelerating the end of the US dollar as global reserve currency. And when it happens, will there be an American Spring? Or will US elites – like the Mob – have the guts, and the muscle, to force Russia and China to pay the price?

1. NATOGCC is a compound of the North Atlantic treaty Organization and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His most recent book is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at

This article was originally published at Asia Times

Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd.

See also – ‘Bloody bandits and Western lies: What’s really going on in Syria’: Everything you’ve heard about Syria is a lie says Ankhar Kochneva, a Russian journalist who has seen first hand the realities of the Syrian civil war. Kochneva told RT she has proof a Western invasion of Syria will be launched by summer’s end.

Posted in USA1 Comment

Shoah’s pages


July 2012
« Jun   Aug »