Archive | October 14th, 2014

Pakistan: Why India Continues Cross-border Shelling?


By Sajjad Shaukat

Since October 6, this year, India accelerated cross-border shelling along the Line of Control

(LoC) and Working Boundary (WB) and killed several innocent persons including their animals

inside Pakistan. It compelled tens thousands of the residents of the villages to migrate to safe

areas, with their livestock and other belongings.

In this regard, spokesman of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Maj-General Asim

Bajwa said that Pakistan Rangers and troops “befittingly” responded to “unprovoked firing” by

Indian Border Security Forces (BSF) and military troops. He also clarified that Pakistan’s Armed

Forces are fully prepared to meet any aggression.

Regarding these constant violations, Pakistan government has lodged a strong protest, and also

raised the issue with the UN Military Observers Group in India and Pakistan, asking for a visit of

the observers to the affected areas.

Meanwhile, in India where Pakistan is accused of starting the skirmishes, leader of the

fundamentalist party BJP and Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi is reported to have given a

free hand to the Indian forces to go on aggressively with the violations. While, Pakistan’s Prime

Minister Nawaz Shariff convened a meeting of the National Security Committee on Oct 10, this

year, and discussed the recent ceasefire violations by India at the LoC and WB.

It is notable that by acting upon a preplanned scheme, Indian soldiers crossed over the LoC in

Kashmir on January 6, 2013 and attacked a Pakistani check post, killing one Pakistani soldier

and injuring many troops. Contrarily, on December 24, 2013, New Delhi agreed for the meeting

of Directors-General Military Operations (DGMOs) of both the countries, who met in Pakistan,

and discussed specific measures strengthening the bilateral ceasefire mechanism across the LoC.

While, Islamabad and India had on November 25, 2003, agreed to observe ceasefire along all

areas of WB, LoC and the Actual Ground Position Line in Jammu and Kashmir. However,

Pakistan military indicated that Indian hostility has gradually increased since 2010 making lives

of civil population living in closer vicinity of the LoC and WB difficult. Indian troops committed

86 ceasefire violations in 2011, 230 in 2012 and 414 in 2013. But, Indians have again resorted

to unprovoked firing for about 224 times on both LoC and WB and killed several people on the

Pakistani side this year.

In this context, military officials further elaborated that Indian perennial escalation across the

LoC and WB is according to a deliberate plan. So question arises as to why India continues

cross-border shelling inside Pakistan.

In fact, by promoting Hindu chauvinism on the basis of anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan slogans,

extremist party, BJP won a landslide victory in the India elections 2014 by defeating the

Congress. Now, BJP-led Prime Minister Modi has been implementing its party’s agenda against

Pakistan. In this context, recent upsurge in skirmishes across the LoC and WB is also linked

to upcoming elections in Indian occupied Kashmir, as BJP again wants to make Pakistan

a scapegoat. Therefore, the border violations, accompanying hostile statements by Indian

leadership are aimed at motivating support base before the elections, and even the expected delay

in polls in Kashmir would provide more time to the Indian side to hype up sentiments at the cost

of Pakistan. The BJP government is looking at winning a majority in the Kashmir assembly so

that it could fulfill its manifesto pledge of revoking the special status, given to Kashmir under

Indian constitution’s Article 370, and to strengthen its measures to annex the area.

As regards Indian covert aims, BJP rulers are trying to divert attention of international

community from the Kashmir dispute, while, Kashmiri leaders and Pakistan have been keeping

this issue in limelight.

In this connection, terming the support and advocacy of the right to self determination of the

people of Jammu and Kashmi (J&K), Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, while addressing 69th

session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), stressed for settlement of the Kashmir

issue, and offered Pakistan’s readiness to endeavor for the same through negotiations. He also

reminded the international community of its pledge for holding “plebiscite” in the Indian-
held Kashmir, and resolves the issue in accordance with UN Charter. The speech generated

appreciations from the political circles of Pakistan and Kashmir as well. It is also acknowledged

that the speech is true reflection of sentiments of the people of Pakistan, who believe that peace

and prosperity in south Asia is inter- linked with solution of core dispute of Kashmir between

Pakistan and India.

Islamabad’s successful attempt at the UNGA seems to have irked Indian political, diplomatic and

journalist circles. Under the growing frustration, a notoriously controversial journalist affiliated

with the Indian NDTV namely Barkha Dutt engaged Pakistan’s prime minister’s special advisor

on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz, and managed to create a controversy through aggressive posture

to make him concede that Pakistani High Commissioner Abdul Basit’s meeting with the

Kashmiri leadership in New Delhi was ill-timed, and affected secretary level engagements with

Pakistan. No doubt, Barkha-Aziz episode has been projected, because under the pretext, India

cancelled secretary level talks with Islamabad.

Moreover, Indian media created an impression that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif by highlighting

Kashmir issue made an effort to improve relations with military establishment in the backdrop of

the protesters of the sit-ins led by PTI and PAT. It also generated controversy of gray relations

between political and military echelons of Pakistan. By increasing cross-border shelling, New

Delhi also wants to create pressure on Islamabad and the Armed Forces in wake of present

political turmoil—and military operation Zarb-e-Azb which successfully continues against

terrorists in North Waziristan Agency.

It is of particular attention that BJP leader Dr. Subramaniam Swami stated on July 12, 2014 that

India needed only two years to defeat Pakistan militarily, and the only solution of Kashmir was

war, as “there is no peaceful, democratic solution. Responding to the withdrawal of the US-
led NATO forces from Afghanistan, he remarked, “Americans will hand over Afghanistan to

Taliban and go…India should send at least 200,000 troops to Afghanistan.”

In these terms, Indian hawks think that in the aftermath of the withdrawal of NATO, they will

keep their anti-Pakistan network in Afghanistan by harming the genuine interests of Pakistan

which shares geographical, cultural and religious bonds with the former, and is determined to

bring peace and stability there.

Now, as part of its blame game, India has intensified unprovoked firing at the LoC in Kashmir

and WB in Sialkot to delay the Pak-India peace process, without caring for latter’s nuclear

Undoubtedly, every Indian government due to international pressure found it easy to make false

pledges that it was willing to engage in peace process to resolve all issues like Siachen, Sir

Creek, Wullar Barrage, Water and especially main dispute of Kashmir with Islamabad. But, New

Delhi earnestly endeavored to find excuses and pretexts to cancel peace talks, while shifting the

blame to Pakistan. For example, in 2002, under the pretension of terrorist attack on the Indian

parliament, India postponed the dialogue process. Again, in 2008, India cancelled the ‘composite

dialogue’ on the pretext of Mumbai terror attacks.

Particularly, on May 27, 2014 Prime Minister Modi’s meeting with Prime Minister Sharif in

the oath-taking ceremony proved faultless, because Modi raised baseless issues of terrorism as

pre-conditions to advance the Pak-Indian dialogue. He said that slow pace of trial against the

terrorists of the Mumbai 26/11 terror case; being held in Pakistan is main hurdle.

But, Indian prime minister ignored the fact that on July 19, 2013 the Indian former home

ministry and ex-investigating officer Satish Verma disclosed that terror-attacks in Mumbai in

November 26, 2008 and assault on Indian Parliament in January 12, 2001 were carried out by the

Indian government to strengthen anti-terrorism laws.

Notably, in the recent past, United Nations Military Observer Group India and Pakistan in New

Delhi was asked to vacate official accommodation, claiming that its role had become irrelevant.

It is also mentionable that Pakistani business community is agitated by the High handedness of

Indian authorities in India, whenever they participate in trade exhibitions. As per visa protocols

of year 2012, both India and Pakistan are bound to give business visa “Exemption from Police

Reporting.” Recently, Pakistani delegation members were fined $ 40 per participant for missing

Police reporting during trade exhibition (Alishan Pakistan), held at New Delhi from 11-14

September 2014. Besides this, no relaxation is being granted by Indian authorities in issuance of

visa to Pakistani businessmen. Element of non-cooperation and aggressiveness towards Pakistan

is significant in conduct of Indian authorities after the arrival of Modi regime in power.

Nonetheless, we can undoubtedly conclude that India continues cross-border shelling inside

Pakistan so as to obtain multiple designs against the former.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,

Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in India, Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Pakistan: Why India Continues Cross-border Shelling?



Small turnout for the vote on Palestine in the UK parliament.

George Galloway, who allegedly works for MI6, ”THIS IS ANTI-GALLOWAY ZIO-NAZI PROPAGANDA”  ”Shoah”  did not vote to recognise Palestine as a state.Palestine state vote in UK parliament: George Galloway abstains.

Less than half of the members of the UK parliament turned up to vote.GALLOWAY

Robert Halfon (left) and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar
Conservative MP Robert Halfon, who is Jewish, said that a Palestinian state “already exists in Jordan.”Robert claims to be the Member of Parliament for Harlow.

The Scottish National Party voted to recognise Palestine as a state.
Are some of the people who did not vote to recognise Palestine as a state members of Mossad-run pedophile rings?..


ISIL terrorists used US-made CWs in Syria: Analyst


An analyst says the Takfiri ISIL terrorist group has used US-made chemical weapons in a series of chemical attacks across Syria.

Gordon Duff, a senior editor at Veterans Today, said in an interview with Press TV that the chemical weapons being used by the ISIL “are made in the US-owned labs outside Tbilisi, Georgia.”

These chemical and biological weapons are then shipped and moved by the CIA-run networks through their regional allied countries into Syria, Duff said.

He strongly criticized the Western government for their “desperate silence” over the issue, saying they have “done nothing” to stop these shipments.

The remarks come as pictures of Kurdish fighters killed in battles with the ISIL militants suggest that the terrorists used chemical weapons against Kurds in the Syrian border town of Kobani.

The pictures show burns and white spots on the victims’ bodies, while there are no visible injuries or external bleeding. Kurdish activists had earlier said the ISIL militants attacked them with chemicals in a village near Kobani.

Duff said that the ISIL was now capable of developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the terrorist group was also looking for certain scientists who could develop dangerous “dirty bombs.”

“They are holding nuclear materials, which they picked up form [the Iraqi city of] Mosul. We know they can make chemical weapons in facilities there as well,” he said.

The political commentator said that foreign-sponsored terrorists have used chemical weapons three times – once near Aleppo, a second time near Damascus, and another time in Homs – in recent years.

Meanwhile, the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations has accused Turkey and Saudi Arabia of providing WMDs for the terrorists operating inside his country.

Bashar Ja’afari told a UN committee on Monday that Ankara and Riyadh are involved in giving chemical weapons to the militants, adding that Turkey supports over 100 terrorist groups in Syria.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on ISIL terrorists used US-made CWs in Syria: Analyst

Psy-ops whistleblower: “I worked with 9/11 suspects Rumsfeld, Myers, Zakheim”

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr

Psy-ops whistleblower: “I worked with 9/11 suspects Rumsfeld, Myers, Zakheim”

by  Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor


We live in an age of out-of-control psy-ops… and nobody understands that better than Scott Bennett, U.S. Army Special Operations Officer (11th Psychological Operations Battalion, Civil Affairs-Psychological Operations Command) and global psychological warfare-counterterrorism analyst – who is outraged that the CIA-linked Deep State is funding ISIS (the best enemy money can buy) and al-Qaeda.

In an exclusive interview with Truth Jihad Radio, Bennett described how he was recruited as a counter-terror specialist by former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld and I5th Joint Chiefs Chair Richard Myers – both of whom are suspected of treason and conspiracy to mass murder in connection with the false flag attack of September 11th, 2001.

During the interview Bennett confirmed that Rumsfeld and Myers are leading 9/11 suspects…and added that another apparent 9/11 criminal – Rabbi Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller who “lost” 2.3 trillion dollars the day before 9/11 and whose company SPC International specialized in remote-hijacking commercial airplanes – may have conspired to cover up Western funding of “radical Muslim” groups including ISIS and al-Qaeda.

In the interview Bennett described the false-flag-infested US counter-terror policy as a disaster: “We’re heading for a cliff.” He said that more and more counter-terror officers in the US military are waking up to 9/11 truth, but that many remain silent for fear that speaking out could damage their careers. He added that unprincipled careerists dominate the higher ranks, which makes it difficult for honest, patriotic junior officers to do their jobs properly.

psy-ops insignia

psy-ops insignia

During the interview, Bennett described in general terms (so as not to violate his security clearance) how he clashed with his boss, Rabbi Dov Zakheim – then Senior Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton – in 2010. The clash apparently involved Bennett’s efforts to expose and/or interdict terror funds flowing through Swiss Banks. A reasonable inference would be that Zakheim was trying to protect “deep state funding flowing to “radical Muslim terrorists.”

Like VT contributor Chip Tatum, who survived a “close encounter” with the Bush Crime Family, Bennett has set up an unofficial life insurance policy by arranging for extremely sensitive documents to be released in the event of his untimely disappearance or demise. It is hoped that his example will inspire other US military whistleblowers to step forward and expose the 9/11 false flag operation and the fraudulent “war on terror” it spawned.

Scott Bennett (full bio here) is the author of Shell Game and Follow the Money. He “was formerly with defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. He received a Direct Commission as an Officer, held a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI) security clearance, and worked in the highest levels of international counterterrorism in Washington DC and MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. He has developed and managed psychological warfare theories, products, and operations for U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. Central Command, the State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism, and other government agencies.   He served in the G.W. Bush Administration from 2003 to 2008, and was a Social Science Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Since 2010 Scott has filed numerous military-government whistle-blowing reports with Congressional Committees, including: the Intelligence, the Armed Services, the Government Oversight and Reform, the Homeland Security, the Judiciary, the Foreign Affairs, the Banking, and the Terrorism Committees.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Psy-ops whistleblower: “I worked with 9/11 suspects Rumsfeld, Myers, Zakheim”

Richest 1% of people own nearly half of global wealth, says report


Credit Suisse study shows inequality accelerating, with NGOs saying it shows economic recovery ‘skewed towards wealthy’

The Guardian

A model on a luxury yacht at a boat show in the port of Dalian.
A model on a luxury yacht at a boat show in the port of Dalian. China now has more people in the top 10% of global wealth holders than any other country. Photograph: Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images

The richest 1% of the world’s population are getting wealthier, owning more than 48% of global wealth, according to a report published on Tuesday which warned growing inequality could be a trigger for recession.

According to the Credit Suisse global wealth report (pdf), a person needs just $3,650 – including the value of equity in their home – to be among the wealthiest half of world citizens. However, more than $77,000 is required to be a member of the top 10% of global wealth holders, and $798,000 to belong to the top 1%.

“Taken together, the bottom half of the global population own less than 1% of total wealth. In sharp contrast, the richest decile hold 87% of the world’s wealth, and the top percentile alone account for 48.2% of global assets,” said the annual report, now in its fifth year.

The report, which calculates that total global wealth has grown to a new record – $263tn, more than twice the $117tn calculated for 2000 – found that the UK was the only country in the G7 to have recorded rising inequality in the 21st century.

Its findings were seized upon by anti-poverty campaigners Oxfam which published research at the start of the year showing that the richest 85 people across the globe share a combined wealth of £1tn, as much as the poorest 3.5 billion of the world’s population.

“These figures give more evidence that inequality is extreme and growing, and that economic recovery following the financial crisis has been skewed in favour of the wealthiest. In poor countries, rising inequality means the difference between children getting the chance to go to school and sick people getting life saving medicines,” said Oxfam’s head of inequality Emma Seery.

“In the UK, successive governments have failed to get to grips with rising inequality. This report shows that those least able to afford it have paid the price of the financial crisis whilst more wealth has flooded into the coffers of the very richest.”

The $20.1tn rise in global wealth over the past year is the largest recorded since 2007. The total has risen every year since 2008 and is now 20% above its pre-crisis peak, the report said.

Wealth in the US in the past year had grown by as much as the $12.3tn the country lost in the financial crisis.

The Credit Suisse analysts pointed to the debate that has been sparked by work such as that by Thomas Piketty into long-term trends towards inequality. It pointed out that while inequality had increased in many countries outside the G7, within the group of most developed economies it was only in the UK that inequality had risen since the turn of the century.

“Only one of them, the UK, recorded rising inequality over the entire period 2000–2014 and only three show an increase after 2007 – France, Italy and the UK,” the report says.

Of the UK, it says: “Nowadays the pattern of wealth distribution in the UK is very typical for a developed economy. Almost 60% of the population has wealth exceeding $100,000 and there are two million US dollar millionaires”.

Other calculations by the Credit Suisse team “hint at raising global wealth inequality in recent years” and show that overall wealth in the US has grown at a faster pace than incomes. The authors warned it was a trend that could point to recession.

“For more than a century, the wealth income ratio has typically fallen in a narrow interval between 4 and 5. However, the ratio briefly rose above 6 in 1999 during the dotcom bubble and broke that barrier again during 2005–2007. It dropped sharply into the “normal band” following the financial crisis, but the decline has since been reversed, and the ratio is now at a recent record high level of 6.5, matched previously only during the great Depression. This is a worrying signal given that abnormally high wealth income ratios have always signaled recession in the past,” the report said.

China now has more people in the top 10% of global wealth holders than any other country except for the US and Japan, having moved into third place in the rankings by overtaking France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.

Posted in UKComments Off on Richest 1% of people own nearly half of global wealth, says report

Crusaders and Zionists


By: Uri Avnery

Young Jerusalem Day

Young Jerusalem Day

It is getting late. We must decouple ourselves from the Crusaders, ancient and modern. 132 years after the arrival of the first modern Zionists in Palestine, it is high time for us to define ourselves as we really are: a new nation born in this country, belonging to this region, natural allies of its struggle for freedom.”… Uri

"Every man woman and child." - Better luck next tim Uri.

“Every man woman and child.” – Better luck next time Uri.

Editor’s note:  Good gosh Uri, This was one of your more incredible cover ups for the horrors of Zionism, but I must say this was entertaining. The invaders always claim to be “of the country”, as you say, but enforces his position with the sword.

Thanks for the admission of the no defined borders, but you conveniently left out the no constitution, like you always do.

The Zionist cruelty that you apologize for occasionally would make any modern Crusaders feel validated. They at least believed in their religion in their own murderous way, not unsimilar to Israeli Orthodox Talmudic supremacists today, who live a life of subsidy in Israel from cradle to grave.

The KKK in America was never treated with such honors, despite their similar ideas on supremacy. They weren’t taxpayer supported. Uri — the ISIL, like you and your Zionist buddies, also want “to define themselves as they really are: a new nation born in this country, belonging to this region, natural allies of its struggle for freedom.”  I hope you can see just a bit of irony, or on your part… hypocrisy there.

Sure, they have chopped off some heads, but Israel and the US have had their own head-choppers running around Syria, killing children, raping women, and I have not heard of a single shame suicide over it yet in Washington or Tel Aviv.  As for the winner for the late-summer killing surge, we’re not sure whether the Zios dispatched more in Gaza than the ISIL Jihadis have in the Neo-Caliphate. And yes, both of you claim your victims had it coming.

Abe Foxman once told young Germans that maybe after a few more generations they would be off the reparations hook.

Abe Foxman once told young Germans that maybe after a few more generations they would be off the reparations hook.

You point out how ISIL uses the term Crusader to include all Christian Westerners. It is an obvious collective-guilt manipulation; but, who has exploited that more than so many Jews all over the world who have head-tripped all non-Jews that they are guilty?

That put them on the tab for reparations to the Jewish Crusaders in Jerusalem, paid one way… or another. But you are right to fear the analogy between you and the Crusaders. What all Jihadi Jews fear most is being held accountable for their sins and indiscretions.

You, for example, have never mentioned Israel’s use of WMD and extensive history of state-sponsored terrorism inside and outside of Israel. You remain unrepentant, just like a Crusader.

In that regard, you share a brotherhood with the 9-11 dancing-Israelis jumping for joy watching the World Trade Towers come down, and knowing the two jammers they had placed on top of two buildings would add to the carnage, with poor communication among the first responders. The jammers were made in Israel, Uri. This little missive is national-security classified, as someone feared it might hurt US-Israeli relations.

So yes, the Crusader shoe fits. And as the last Crusader was thrown into the sea off the jetty in Acre, so I wish to see the same thing happen to the last unrepentant Zionist before I die. And I do hope it is righteous Jews doing the heaving — as that will be a fine ending to an old book, and the start of a new… Jim W. Dean ]

Editor’s note:  I want to thank Jim W. Dean.  We are awash with this form of “controlled opposition,” Uri’s lifelong effort to use his considerable writing talent on behalf of childish deflection and intellectual asininity. The civilized world, such as it is, has written off Israel forever.  Nothing can be done about this.  It is as though Uri plans to live forever, endlessly jousting with rationality on behalf of controlling dialog.

Why should the world care about Israel’s Jews?  Anyone come up with a reason?  An over-generalization would be to call Israel a nasty little place filled with hypocrites and fiends but people might think I am talking about Washington or New York.

Israel is the classic welfare state where Jews who can’t make it in the real world enjoy special status, American welfare, genocidal police state privileges and the company of those the rest of the world, Jews included, can do without.g

Israel has a long history of killing children as part of the collective punishment

Israel has a long history of killing children as part of its collective punishment – Of course if Jews anywhere were treated like this they would sing a different tune.

The Civilizing process

The Civilizing process

Lately, the words “Crusaders” and “Zionists” have been appearing more and more often as twins. In a documentary about ISIS I just saw, they appeared together in almost every sentence uttered by the Islamist fighters, including teenagers.

Some sixty years ago I wrote an article whose title was just that: “Crusaders and Zionists”. Perhaps it was the first on that subject.

It raised a lot of opposition. At the time, it was a Zionist article of faith that no such similarity existed, tut-tut-tut. Unlike the Crusaders, the Jews are a nation.

Unlike the Crusaders, who were barbarians compared to the civilized Muslims of their time, Zionists are technically superior. Unlike the Crusaders, the Zionists relied on their own manual labor. (That was before the Six-Day War, of course.)

I have already told the story several times of my attachment to the Crusaders’ history, but I can’t resist the temptation to tell it again. During the 1948 war my commando unit was fighting in the South. When the war ended, a narrow strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea remained in Egyptian hands. We called it the “Gaza Strip” and built outposts around it.

Steven Runciman’s A History of the Crusades

A few years later, I read Steven Runciman’s monumental “A History of the Crusades”. My attention was immediately drawn to a curious coincidence: after the First Crusade, a strip of territory along the sea was left in the hands of the Egyptians, extending a few kilometers beyond Gaza. The Crusaders built a string of fortifications to contain it. They were in almost the same places as our own outposts.

Runciman's History of the Crusades

Runciman’s History of the Crusades

When I finished reading the three volumes, I did something I never did before or since: I wrote a letter to the author. After praising the work, I asked: Did you ever think about the similarity between them and us?

The answer arrived within days. Not only did he think about it, Runciman wrote, but he thought about it all the time. Indeed, he wanted to subtitle the book “A guide for the Zionists on how not to do it”. However, he added, “my Jewish friends advised against it.” If I ever chanced to pass through London, he added, he would be glad if I called on him.

I happened to be in London a few months later and called him. He asked me to come over immediately. The name Runciman was familiar to me: his father, Walter, a viscount, was sent by Neville Chamberlain in 1938 to mediate between Nazi Germany and the Czechs, and scandalized the world by greeting the Germans with “Heil Hitler”.

Steven Runciman

Steven Runciman

Steven Runciman answered the bell himself, a tall British gentleman of about fifty. Being an incurable anglophile, I was enchanted by his courteous aristocratic manner.

After a glass of sherry, we sank into a discussion of the Crusader-Zionist parallel, and lost all sense of time. For hours we compared events and names. Who was the Crusader Herzl (Pope Urban), who the Crusader Ben-Gurion? (Godfrey? Baldwin?), who the Zionist Reynald of Chatillon (Moshe Dayan), who the Israeli Raymond of Tripoli, who advocated peace with the Muslims? (Runciman graciously pointed to me).

Years later, Runciman invited my wife and me to Scotland, where he had moved to live in an old watchtower near Lockerbie, built as a defense against England. Over dinner served by a lone manservant he spoke about the ghosts haunting the place. Rachel and I were astonished when we realized that he really believed in them.

Uri and Rachel

Uri and Rachel

The two historical movements were separated by at least six centuries, and their political, social, cultural and military backgrounds are, of course, totally different. But some similarities are evident.

Both the Crusaders and the Zionists (as well as the Philistines before them) invaded Palestine from the West. They lived with their backs to the sea and Europe, facing the Muslim-Arab world. They lived in permanent war.

At the time, Jews identified with the Arabs. The horrible massacres of the Jewish communities along the Rhine committed by some Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land are deeply imprinted in Jewish consciousness. Upon conquering Jerusalem, the Crusaders committed another heinous crime by slaughtering all Muslim and Jewish inhabitants, men women and children, wading “to their knees in blood”, as a Christian chronicler put it.

Haifa, one of the last towns to fall to the Crusaders, was fiercely defended by its Jewish inhabitants, fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Muslim garrison.

I was brought up hating the Crusaders, but I was not conscious of the abysmal hatred Muslims felt for them until I asked the Arab-Israeli writer Emil Habibi to sign a manifesto for an Israeli-Palestinian partnership over Jerusalem. In it, I had listed all the cultures that had in the past enriched the city. When Habibi saw that I had included the Crusaders, he refused to sign. “They were a bunch of murderers!” he exclaimed. I had to omit them.

When Arabs couple us with the Crusaders, they clearly want to say that we, too, are foreign intruders, strangers to this country and this region. That’s why the comparison is so dangerous. If the Arabs entertain such a deep hatred for the Crusaders after six centuries, how are they ever to become reconciled with us?

On the off chance that we are capable of learning from history…


The last crusaders were literally thrown into the sea from the jetty of the Fortress of Acre

Instead of wasting our time on the debate about whether we are similar or not, we would be well advised to learn from the Crusaders’ history. The first lesson concerns the question of identity. Who are we? Are we Europeans facing a hostile region? Are we “a wall against Asiatic barbarism”, as Theodor Herzl proclaimed? Are we “a villa in the jungle”, according to the famous dictum of Ehud Barak?

In short, do we see ourselves as belonging to this region or as Europeans who accidentally landed on the wrong continent? To my mind, this is the basic question of Zionism, going back to its first day, and dictating everything they have done to this very day. In my booklet “War or Peace in the Semitic Region”, which I published on the eve of the 1948 war, I posed this question in the very first sentence.

For the Crusaders, this was not a question at all. They were the flower of European knighthood and they came to fight the Saracens. They made Hudnas (truces) with Arab rulers, mainly the emirs of Damascus, but fighting Islam was their very raison d’etre. The few advocates of peace and reconciliation, like the aforementioned Raymond of Tripoli, were despised outsiders.

Israel is in a similar situation. True, we never admit that we want war — it is always the Arabs who refuse peace. But from its first day, the State of Israel has refused to fix its borders, being ever ready for expansion by force – exactly like the Crusaders.

Bedouin "Resettlement," by Israel, also known as ethnic cleansing

Bedouin “Resettlement,” by Israel, also known as ethnic cleansing

Today, 66 years after the founding of our state, more than half of the daily news in our media concerns the war with the Arabs, inside and outside Israel. Last week, our Minister of Agriculture, Ya’ir Shamir, demanded that we take urgent measures to limit the birthrate of the Bedouins in the Negev – like Pharaoh in the biblical story.

Israel suffers from a deep-seated sense of existential insecurity, which finds its expression in myriad forms. Since Israel is in many ways a conspicuous success story and a world-class military power, this sense of insecurity often gives rise to wonderment.

I believe that its root is this feeling of not belonging to the region in which we live, of being a villa in the jungle, which really means being a fortified ghetto in the region. It could be said that this feeling is natural, since most Israelis are of European descent. But that is not true. 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs.

At least half of the Jews have come here (they or their parents) from Arab countries, where they spoke Arabic and listened to Arab music. The greatest Sephardi thinker, Moses Maimonides (Rambam in Hebrew) spoke and wrote Arabic and was the personal physician of the great Salah ad-Din (Saladin). He was as much an Arab Jew as Baruch Spinoza was a Portuguese Jew and Moses Mendelssohn a German Jew.

Maimonides the philosopher

Maimonides the philosopher

Were the Crusaders a small aristocratic minority in their state, as Zionist historians always contend? Depends on how you count. When the first Crusaders arrived in Palestine, the majority of the population was still Christian of various Eastern sects. However, the Catholic invaders did look upon them as inferior strangers.

The Poulains, as they were called, were despised and discriminated against. They felt themselves closer to the Arabs than to the hated “Franks”, and did not mourn when these were finally ejected. Most of these Christians later converted to Islam, and were the forefathers of many of today’s Muslim Palestinians.

Another lesson is to treat immigration seriously. In Crusader society, there was a constant coming and going. Just now, a flaming debate about immigration is going on in Israel. Young people, mostly well educated, with their children, are leaving for Berlin and other European and American cities.

Every year, Israelis look anxiously at the balance sheet: how many were driven to Israel by anti-Semitism, how many were driven by war and right-wing extremism back to Europe? This was a tragedy for the Crusaders.

One main reason for the Zionist rejection of the Crusader parallel is their sorry end. After almost 200 years in Palestine, with many ups and downs, the last Crusaders were literally thrown into the sea from the jetty of Acre. As the former underground chief and prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, the father of Ya’ir, was fond of saying: “The sea is the same sea and the Arabs are the same Arabs.” Of course, the Crusaders had no nuclear bombs and no German submarines.

When ISIS and other Arabs use the term Crusaders, they do not mean only the medieval invaders. They mean all American and European Christians. When they speak about Zionists, they mean all Jewish Israelis, and often all Jews.

I believe that this coupling of the two terms is extremely dangerous for us. I am not afraid of ISIS’ military capabilities, which are negligible, but of the power of their ideas. No American bomber is going to eradicate these.

It is getting late. We must decouple ourselves from the Crusaders, ancient and modern. 132 years after the arrival of the first modern Zionists in Palestine, it is high time for us to define ourselves as we really are: a new nation born in this country, belonging to this region, natural allies of its struggle for freedom.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Crusaders and Zionists

ISIL is closing on Baghdad airport


Battle for Baghdad: ISIS now within 8 miles of airport, armed with MANPADS

 … from  Russia Today

Iraqi pretend-a-soldiers about to be executed, even the ones not tied up don't have enough sense to rush the Jihadis and die fighting.

Iraqi pretend-a-soldiers about to be executed, even the ones not tied up don’t have enough sense to rush the Jihadis and die fighting.

[ Editors Note: We are in the middle of a history making event. It appears that the West is letting the situation get so out of hand in the Mideast that blanket authority will be given to make some big moves when things reach a desperate state, which they are.

Iraq has rotted out from the top down from an array of causes, the never ending Sunni-Shia political struggle, massive corruption like the phantom armies where half the troops stay home and get half pay while the officers collect the other half.  This game was played with the ARVN in South Vietnam.

Some of the biggest contractor scams have been the fortunes paid out to well-connected US companies who whizzed away training “paycheck” armies, people who wanted to play soldier standing around at checkpoints and avoiding hard labor or unemployment.

Baghdad’s response early on was sadly comical, beginning with the ridiculous theater of calling for the one million volunteers staged to take press photos, remember that? Where are they? They went home after the photo shoot of course.

Of course there was no money, no training personnel, nor weapons for them. It was all just another lie which is what you get when you have political mobsters running a country, as we are trending ourselves, especially in foreign policy.

Of course the Jihadis can find kids willing to fight for them.

Of course the Jihadis can find kids willing to fight for them.

Nobody in Iraq really wants to fight as they view that as a suckers game. The people have no faith in their government or the military.

Rather than demonstrating they can defend the country, they play tough guy ordering the Kurd around about what they can and cannot do…and putting out calls for Western air power to defeat ISIL. The only real defensive effort you are going to see will be at the provincial level where their home turf is at stake.

As Gordon Duff has written, the effort that Obama foolishly bragged about in his UN speech would take 500 sorties a day, and a drone force that could drop down and kill any moving ISIL forces.

We have what we need to do it, but it is not being deployed. We knew quickly because a lot of the air units are reserve ones and they have to get called up early to prepare to deploy because major air operations are a major logistical job.

Our “Allies” sending in a few token show planes was also just for theater,  creating a Potemkin counter force that every professional up and down the chain knows is insufficient to do the job. Our top brass covered themselves by going on record that boots on the ground would be needed to defeat ISIL…but knowing that Obama would say no.

That left the only real possible way to have any chance of defeating ISIL was to join with the Syrian Army to do it, which of course they will not do. So what we are going to have here is a failure, that is obvious, and that is being allowed for something else that they want that they have to have a crisis to slip by us. It will not remain hidden for long… Jim W. Dean ]

In response to Obama's charge to destroy ISIL, it launches major attacks in two directions

In response to Obama’s charge to destroy ISIL, it launches major attacks in two directions, on the Kurds in Kobani, and Baghdad

Islamic State’s offensive on the Iraqi capital intensified as the jihadist fighters advanced as far as Abu Ghraib, a suburb only 8 miles away from Baghdad’s international airport. The outer suburb of Abu Ghraib is also the site of the infamous prison the US military used to humiliate and torture Iraqi detainees.

There are reports by the Iraqi military that the militants are in possession of MANPAD anti-aircraft missiles. The short-range, shoulder-fired missiles can shoot down airplanes within a range of 15,000 feet.

The Iraqi military, aided by US military personnel, have so far failed in foiling the advance toward Baghdad of the Islamic State militia (also known as ISIS, or ISIL), which has expanded its control of huge swathes of Iraq and Syria despite the increase in US-led airstrikes.

A total of 60,000 Iraqi soldiers are assigned to defend the capital, alongside 12 teams of American advisors, an Iraqi officer told CBS News.

Meanwhile, undercover IS militants active within Baghdad are setting off bombs and carrying out attacks. Swift advances have also been by the jihadist militia in Anbar, where Iraqi officials have made an open plea for military aid, warning the city will soon fall to IS.

The situation in Anbar, a town due west of Baghdad, is “fragile” a US official told AFP. IS has seized army bases in Anbar province, and has been shelling the provincial capital, Ramadi, 75 miles (120 kilometers) from Baghdad. CNN reported that Iraqi troops in Anbar are in danger of being bottlenecked, citing a senior US defense official.

“We do see ISIL continue to make gains in Anbar province and [are] mindful of how Anbar relates to the security of Baghdad,” another senior US defense official said.

How can ISIL sustain the resupply needed for their attack on Kobani with modern airpower over them?

How can ISIL sustain the resupply needed for their attack on Kobani with modern airpower over them?

Anbar province is home to Iraq’s second biggest dam at Haditha, a major source of water and electrical power. The dam is currently controlled by Iraqi forces, and US airstrikes have targeted IS forces in the area .

It has been stated both by the US and Iraq that preventing IS from capturing the area is a key objective, as is holding Baghdad.

In Syria, IS forces are vying for control of Kobani, which they now control 40 percent. Kobani is on the Syria-Turkish border and has a Kurdish majority.

UN envoy Staffan de Mistura warned Friday that if Kobani falls to ISIS, civilians there would “most likely be massacred.”

In June, ISIS insurgents quickly captured Iraq’s second-biggest city, Mosul, north of Baghdad. When they took the city, they seized a large amount of military US equipment originally given to the Iraqi army.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on ISIL is closing on Baghdad airport

ISIS USrael and so on: A Summary


Clearly these swift, substantial military wins over Iraq’s army, including the occupation and control of huge cities, cannot have been achieved solely by ISIS’ limited resources. Neither can their crimes have gained extensive support among the Iraqi people.

But there are indeed people who seriously believe that a few thousand ”Muslim fanatics”, well-armed for their task, could achieve all this, and that their proclamation of a ”caliphate” could have some actual substance, apart from scaremongering for a western audience.

by Lasse Wilhelmson

I wrote this summary just after my trip to Middle East in april this year and my interview with AMSI:s spokesman Al Faidhy. Since then a lot has happened which shows that this ”organization” received more advanced weapons and people. The role of Turkey has also become more clear.


ISIS/IS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is the latest attachment under the AL Qaida umbrella created by the CIA in the 1980s. ISIS is controlled and funded by USrael, Britain and Saudi Arabia for the purpose of creating chaos through terror and false-flag operations. The objective is to weaken and split up the nation states of the Arab world , according to the 1982 Oded Yinon Plan.

USrael have used Al Qaida groups with various fanciful names to initiate or hijack the popular uprisings known as ”The Arab Springs”.


During recent years, experts from CIA and Mossad have trained Islamic extremists in camps in Jordan. Together with hired killers and Jihadists who had experience from other Muslim countries, a military force was formed – ISIS – estimated to consist initially of 5000 – 10000 persons and first used in Syria, and which now seems to have increased. Moreover, there are reports that ISIS’ leader is a Jewish Mossad agent and that the beheading of the English journalist James Wright Foley, was a bluff.

ISIS later played a small part in the uprising against Al Maliki. Peaceful demonstrations in 2013 turned in May 2014 into a long-planned military offensive. Experienced officers from Saddam Hussein’s army were in the lead together with representatives from the tribes that dominate northern and western Iraq – ”The Military Councils for the Revolutionary Tribes”.

Spokespeople for these, such as AMSI (Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq), have rejected ISIS’ crimes and The Baath Party has declared war against ISIS.

Clearly these swift, substantial military wins over Iraq’s army, including the occupation and control of huge cities, cannot have been achieved solely by ISIS’ limited resources. Neither can their crimes have gained extensive support among the Iraqi people.

But there are indeed people who seriously believe that a few thousand ”Muslim fanatics”, well-armed for their task, could achieve all this, and that their proclamation of a ”caliphate” could have some actual substance, apart from scaremongering for a western audience.

ISIS’ main objective has been, through its brutal actions, to discredit Islam and the popular uprisings for the liberation of Iraq, and to boost USraels’ and their allies’ interests in The Arab world. ISIS is, in fact, at present, the foremost weapon to achieve the final battle between the Christian and Muslim worlds that the power elite has been planning for a long time. Reports of ISIS’ attacks on Christians in the Arab world and inflated threats against the US emphasise this.(1)

Failure to inform about the situation has also caused a religious blindfold and to unsuspecting Muslim youths from Europe joining ISIL.

In the middle of August the first act in this political theatre came to an end. It was reported that Al Maliki had resigned and was no longer Iraq’s president, in agreement with the wishes of the US and Iran. A few American bomb raids and some hundred American experts against terrorism had now deflected the alleged threats from ISIS against the Yazidi people. Al Maliki had become a non compliant puppet, as had Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis needed more disruption. The US, and lately Syria’s, ongoing bombing raises the question of what and who is really being bombed?

Will the next step be, with the help of the new puppet in Iraq, to complete partition – a Shia-dominated state in the south, a Sunni-dominated around Baghdad in the west and a Kurdish state in the north? There is increasing evidence of new military activities from the US and its allies in Iraq and Syria – with ISIS as a pretext.


However, the future roll of ISIS is not immediately apparent because its creators and users have slightly different agendas. It is clearly used to achieve diverse aims. There are reports that ISIS has already freelanced as Frankenstein’s Monster – which eventually killed its own creator.

In the meantime, the military is called in to suppress uprisings in the US, Israel has recently learnt that Gaza cannot be beaten with conventional ground troops and thus continue bombing, and increasingly more nations are abandoning the falling dollar. Sweden is without military defence with wide-open borders for mass-immigration.

Things are not looking good.

Täby 25th august 2014

(1) Samuel P Huntington mapped out the guidelines in his book  “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”. 1966. Zbigniew Brzenzinkis describes the geopolitical strategy in his book ”The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives”, 1997. The Power Elite currently works on two fronts – Ukraine and Syria/Iraq.

Nowadays it is clear to the world that the Jewish state, the Jewish lobby, mainly in the US, and Jewish oligarchs and leading politicians in Ukraine play a central part in all of this.

Note: Lasse Wilhelmson travelled in the Middle East last spring and interviewed the spokesperson for AMSI in Jordan. The interview can be found on his blog.

Posted in USA, IraqComments Off on ISIS USrael and so on: A Summary

Two Types of Virulent Anti-Semitism


ADL (Anti Defamation League)  a Zionist agent embedded in the USA, posing as an NGO.

ADL (Anti Defamation League) a Zionist agent embedded in the USA, posing as an NGO.

Israel has long devoted major funding and great effort to deflecting blame for its policies and practices by raising the black flag of anti-Semitism to discredit responsible and deserved criticism.

As the Palestinian solidarity movement grows across the world, it is obvious that this form of hasbara (propaganda) is failing.

by Richard Falk

Contrary to much conventional thinking that treats ‘anti-Semitism’ as exclusively a form of ethnic hatred, there is a second kind of attitude that is alleged to be‘anti-Semitism’ because it is critical, often justifiably so, of Zionism and Israel’s policies and practices. This second type of supposed anti-Semitism is a tactic deployed to discredit critics of Israel by insisting that criticism of Israel and hatred of the Jewish people should not be distinguished. These two distinct types of anti-Semitism actually work at cross purposes, and although there may be situations of overlap, it is a dangerous confusion to lump them together.

It is rather unusual for even the harshest critics of the behavior of the U.S. Government to be castigated as anti-American except sometimes in the midst of international security crises, But even then such accusations usually reflect the outlook of red neck patriots or extremists who identify with the right wing of American politics. Also, such accusations, although unpleasant, lack the sting of anti-Semitism, which carries with it an implicit secondary allegation of indifference to the Holocaust, to the Nazi genocide, and to the long history of persecution directed at the Jewish people. In my view this labeling of Israel’s critics as ‘anti-Semites’ is a short-sighted form of unsavory state propaganda, generally implemented overseas by hard core Zionist groups, and partly responsible for an emergent backlash that is being expressed by hatred and hostility toward Jews. This is a highly sensitive subject matter that is almost certain to be treated emotionally in a manner shaped by strong ideological alignments for or against the way in which Israel has behaved since its contested establishment in 1948 and in relation to attitudes toward close connections between the Zionist movement and the Jewish people.

Type I anti-Semitism is a form of virulent racism, which is characterized by hatred and envy,and leads to manifold forms of hostility toward Jews. It has been often accompanied by strong governmental and societal support for a punitive response to Jews so as to safeguard the dominant religion and ethnicity, and to uphold the values and traditions of the non-Jewish political community that are supposedly under threat as a result of Jewish activities; historically, Type I anti-Semitism traces its historic roots back to the origins and rise of Christianity, reinforced in later centuries by European restrictions on Jewish ownership of land and permissible habitats that led Jews to focus on money and banking, creating a close relationship between Jews and the rise of capitalism, especially finance capital.

Extreme cases of Type I anti-Semitism involve the capture of state power by an anti-Semitic outlook as exemplified by Hitler’s Germany. It is also relevant to observe that anti-Semitism was relatively rare in the Islamic world, which upheld freedom of worship by religious minorities although claiming a hegemonic role for Islam, especially in the era of the Ottoman caliphate. Until the problems generated by Zionism, anti-Semitism was not a serious issue in the Middle East where Jews in most Arab countries were mostly treated as an authentic religion and a respected minority. Throughout modern history Jews suffered mostly from European anti-Semitism with Russia considered part of Europe.

In Germany the Nazi seizure and abuseof state power led by stages to death camps, genocide on a massive scale, given its distinctivehistorical status by becoming known as the Holocaust. This genocidal implementation of anti-Semitism was prepared by Nazi ideology and its ruthless and overtly discriminatory practices, which demonized Jews along with the Roma people and others deemed unfit to propagate Aryans, put forward as the master race. Type I anti-Semitism in post-Nazi Christian societies has generally disappeared beneath a thick cloud of guilt and denial related to the past, although mild patterns of societal prejudice persist.These patterns involve a variety of exclusions and discriminations, ranging from informal and unspoken patterns of discrimination in employment and social life to ethnic profiling that calls public attention to unfavorable aspects of physical appearance or behavior attributed to Jews, and includes jokes that perpetuate stereotypic views of ‘the Jew.’ Such societal attitudes are to some extent offset by the widespread recognition of Jewish achievements and influence disproportionate to their small numbers, and the remarkable resilience of the Jewish people over the centuries despite facing many daunting challenges.

Christian Zionism, so-called, is best viewed as an indirect endorsement of Type I anti-Semitism that hides beneath the veil of ardent support for Israel as a state and Zionism as a movement. Its anti-Semitic animus is directed against Diaspora Jewry, deriving from a reading of the Book of Revelations that anticipates that the Second Coming of Jesus will only occur once all Jews have returned to the Jewish state of Israel. To foster this prophetic claim, Christian Zionist favor taking steps to encourage Jews to emigrate to Israel, and in this respect are in accord with the most influential tendency in Zionist thinking. The further anti-Semitic character of Christian Zionism is directed at a subsequent stage of the Last Judgment, a time of reckoning at which all those who have not embraced the Christian faith would be consigned to permanent damnation.  Despite these anti-Semitic underpinnings, Israel has officially and existentially bonded with Christian Zionism, giving its organization a diplomatic status and welcoming its unconditional support within the American political scene. This connection between Israel and Christian Zionism typifies a Faustian Bargain, and functions to tip the political balance within the United States even further in an Israeli direction than might otherwise have been the case.

Editor’s note: Learn the facts and pity the weak!

O wretched man, wretched not just because of what you are, but also because you do not know how wretched you are! Marcus Tullius Cicero

Reporter: Journalist Max Blumenthal

Type II anti-Semitism comes in two very diverse variants. The first variant is what might be called ‘an Arab branding of anti-Semitism,’ taking the form of condemning Jews and the Jewish people for the implanting of a Jewish state in Israel. Anger is also directed at Israel for granting a right of return to all Jews throughout the world while denying every Palestinian any right of return, withholding such a right even fromthose Palestinians and their descendants who either fled or were expelled from their homes in 1948. This kind of conflation of a state project with the ethnicity of the people involved is unacceptable, and is a form of anti-state propaganda that assumes a hateful form by targeting an ethnicity in addition to a political entity. Most Arabs do not subscribe to such an outlook are careful to draw the distinction between Israel as an illegitimate political phenomenon and Jews as a distinct and geographically dispersed ethnicity.  It is important, as well, not to brand Arabs as ‘anti-Semitic’ because some do cross this line of ethnic hatred.

The second expression of Type !! anti-Semitism oddly enough indirectly endorses Arab anti-Semitism by saying that hostility to the state of Israel cannot be distinguished from hostility to the Jewish people. The central contention is that strong criticisms of Israel as a Jewish state or directed at the Zionist Project or expressing sharp disapproval of the policies and practices of Israel are thinly disguised expressions of hatred toward Jews as a people and Judaism as a religion. Proponents of what might be called ‘the Zionist branding of anti-Semitism’ do their best to make people believe that the two types of concern are not properly distinguishable. In this way critics of Israel are denigrated as ‘anti-Semites’ in its authentic sense of hatred of Jews. If Jews themselves become strong and visible critics of Israel they are branded as ‘self-hating Jews’ or simply lumped together with Type I anti-Semites. This is not to deny that some Jews may actually as a matter of deep psychological outlook hate their Jewish identity, and try hard to escape from it, but criticizing Israel and rejecting Zionism should not be used as evidence of such self-hatred. In fact, some anti-Zionists rest their views on strong convictions that Zionism is a betrayal of Jewish values and tradition, and exhibit great pride in their Jewish heritage.

I recall an encounter in Cyprus more than a decade ago with hasbara specialist, Professor Gerald Steinberg of UN Monitor and the Israeli ambassador to Greek Cyprus at a meeting of the Inter-Action Council devoted to conflict resolution in the Middle East. The Inter-Action Council is composed of former heads of state, and I was invited as ‘a resource person.’ This session was on Israel-Palestine was chaired by Helmut Schmidt, the former German Chancellor. In the discussion, the Israeli participants argued strongly that Israel, Zionism, and Jewish identity were a unity, and any criticism directed at one of three perspectives was an attack on the other two. I intervened to say that I strongly dissented from such a view, and felt as a Jew a critical attitude toward both Israel’s behavior and Zionist claims. Afterwards, several participants, including Mr. Schmidt, thanked me for saying what they believed, but told me they were unable to say because they feared that it would be treated as proof of their anti-Semitism. In contrast, Mr. Steinberg was quite hostile after the meeting, informing me in a peremptory manner that my comments were ‘most unhelpful.’

In my view it is most unfortunate to consider criticism of Israel, even if strongly worded unless amounting to hate speech, as tantamount to anti-Semitism. Type II anti-Semitism has several serious undesirable consequences: it conflates a valid repudiation of ethnic hatred with invalid efforts to ethnicize or discredit criticism of Israel and Zionism;It makes many non-Jews believe that if they are critical of Israel they will be unfairly discredited as anti-Semites and Jews are made to fear that they will be regarded as self-hating, thereby inhibiting criticism of Israel and Zionism. For this reason it allows Israel to hide its criminal policies and practices toward the Palestinian people by invoking the memory of the Holocaust and the long history of Jewish victimization, and thereby inhibit criticism. Also, it leads many people to believe that there is no difference between Jewish identity and Zionist solidarity. This fosters a tendency by some non-Jews to regard Jews as an ethno-religious-political category, even if they have no connection with the state of Israel, and hence responsible as a people for the victimization of the Palestinian people. This insistence that Type II anti-Semitism is a genuine form of anti-Semitism actually encourages Type I anti-Semitic behavior.When Arab youth in the banlieux of Paris throw stones at any Jew they can find on the streets of the city the hateful act is based in most instances on their bitter hostility to Israel. It is clear in such behavior that a symbiotic relationship exists between the equally invalid Arab and Zionist efforts to link Israel/Zionism with hatred of Jews.


American popular culture inscribes this confusion. For instance in an early episode of the TV series House of Cards a U.S. senator is completely discredited as a viable candidate for elected office because his opposition found that he was the author of an unsigned editorial in a student newspaper while an undergraduate that criticized building of settlements in the West Bank. Once his authorship was publicized, it was treated as ‘a no brainer’ that his political career was over without any consideration of his age, or the reasonableness of what he had written, and of the supposed  openness in a constitutional democracy of diverse views. During the recent Israeli attacks on Gaza this same atmosphere in Washington produced a resolution with 100% backing expressing unreserved support for Israel’s right to defend itself. In polarized America to find such unanimity confirms above all the undeniable success of pro-Israel forces to treat Type II anti-Semitism as synonymous with hatred of Jews. As John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have convincingly argued, with ample documentation, this skewing of the political atmosphere has interfered with the rational pursuit of American national interests in the Middle East.

I am sometimes asked if I have any regrets about publishing our book. As of today, my only regret is that it is not being published now. After the humiliations that Obama has endured at the hands of the Israel Lobby and the Hagel circus, we would sell even more copies and we would not face nearly as much ill-informed criticism. — Stephen Walt, co-author of the book.

I am sometimes asked if I have any regrets about publishing our book. As of today, my only regret is that it is not being published now. After the humiliations that Obama has endured at the hands of the Israel Lobby and the Hagel circus, we would sell even more copies and we would not face nearly as much ill-informed criticism. — Stephen Walt, co-author of the book.

A recent example of such the manipulation of such anti-Semitic allegations has been raised by the case of Steven Salaita recently denied a tenure track appointment at the University of Illinois because he sent several ‘uncivil’ tweets during the July/August military onslaughts on Gaza. The university chancellor, Phyllis Wise,wrongly treated these tweets as evidence of Type I anti-Semitism, although she slyly claims to have acted to protect an atmosphere of civility on the campus, and not because Salaita exhibited anti-Israeli views. Chancellor Wise used this (mis)perception, strongly encouraged by off-campus Zionist pressures and threats relating to funding, to justify denying Salaita an academic appointment that he had accepted and relied upon in good faith.He had rented a house near what he reasonably thought would be his new campus in Urbana-Champlain, and had already resigned his position on the faculty at Virginia Tech University. Salaita had outstanding teaching evaluations at Virginia Tech that included student appreciations of a classroom environment that welcomed all points of view. His scholarship in American Indian Studies had been thoroughly vetted by a lengthy recruiting process at Illinois. The lame justification given by Chancellor Wise and her supporters is that Salaita’s tweets were evidence of a lack of civility in relation to sensitive issues that might make his Jewish students uncomfortable or inhibited. The evidence suggests, on the contrary that Steven Saiaita personally rejected and intensely disapproved of Type I anti-Semitism, although as a Palestinian-American, he was understandably deeply disturbed by Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinian people, and responded emotionally in the midst of the crisis.

I do not claim neutrality on these issues. During the past six years, while serving as UN Special Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine on behalf of the Human Rights Council, I have been the continuous target of a sustained defamation campaign spearheaded by a Zionist-oriented NGO, UN Watch, based in Geneva. I was repeatedly accused of anti-Semitism, and my views on other issues were likewise distorted to create an impression of bizarre judgment.I was called a supporter of terrorism, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and the like. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles listed me in 2013 as the third most dangerous anti-Semite in the world, ranking just below the Supreme Leader of Iran and the Turkish Prime Minister. Also on their top ten list were such notable authors as Max Blumenthal and Alice Walker. Interestingly,Wiesenthal  made no effort to distinguish criticisms of Israel from hatred of Jews by entitling their list “Anti-Semitic, Anti-Israel Slurs,’ mixing the two types of orientation on their list.

Because of the atmosphere in North America where demonstrating 100%+ support for Israel has become an indispensable ingredient of political credibility, these defamatory attacks were accepted as valid by several public officials who never bothered to check with me or examine my actual views on such controversial topics. As a result I was attacked by such luminaries as the UN Secretary General, two U.S. ambassadors to the UN (Susan Rice, Samantha Powers), Foreign Minister of Canada, among others, and a favorite target for Fox TV and the Murdock media empire. Additionally, efforts were made to have my lectures cancelled at universities in various places around the world (including McGill and McMaster in Canada, AUB in Beirut, ANU, Melbourne, and Sydney in Australia, Norfolk in the UK, and Princeton, University of Texas, University of Iowa and others in the USA) These universities were warned that unless my campus appearance was cancelled, funding would suffer. On at least one occasion I was informed that a previous offer of a visiting appointment at an overseas university, Kings College London, was reduced from year-to-year to a single year due to my alleged anti-Semitism. Even my wife was defamed by such Zionist zealots who tried to defeat her candidacy in the UN Human Rights Council in 2014 to become Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food. She was accused of writing inflammatory anti-Israeli tracts in collaboration with me, a complete lie as we had never collaborated on this subject-matter, and it was further alleged that she shared my anti-Semitic views, which is a double lie.

This use of anti-Semitism as an ideological weapon, what is being called here Type II anti-Semitism, is having paradoxical effects, including contributing to new outbreaks of Type I anti-Semitism, the real thing. The logic of this development goes like this—if Jews are expected to be supportive of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians to avoid the label of anti-Semitism, then it becomes reasonable to believe that Jews, and not just the government of Israel, are responsible for the crimes being perpetrated against the Palestinian people. If opponents of anti-Semitism are not allowed to be critical of Israel, despite its drastic departures from morality and law, then there is created a deep confusion between the rejection of ethnic hatred and stereotyping that is an unconditional wrong and the repudiation of immoral and unlawful behavior by a government that is subject to challenge as to the facts and its interpretation of law and morality. More pointedly, if Israel invokes the Holocaust to validate its historic claims of victimhood, and then turns around and victimizes another people in an extreme form first by expelling most of them from their homeland and then coercively occupying the land that remains in Palestinian hands and gradually confiscating the territorial remnant, it does seem to implicate the people as well as the state if opposition is silenced or marginalized. To overlook Israel’s crimes against humanity and genocidal conduct or else stand accused of being an anti-Semite compounds the confusion. It is further compounded by Arab and Islamic extremism that insists that Israel’s wrongdoing is a direct result of its claim to be a Jewish state, and not a normal state.

In conclusion, I believe it is in the interest of both Jews and Palestinians that Type II anti-Semitism be unmasked as a toxic propaganda tool that should be repudiated by people of good will regardless of their ethnicity and political persuasion. Speaking from experience, it is hurtful personally, and generates anger among all those who insist that criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people must be opposed in a vigorous manner. Israel has long devoted major funding and great effort to deflecting blame for its policies and practices by raising the black flag of anti-Semitism to discredit responsible and deserved criticism.

As the Palestinian solidarity movement grows across the world, it is obvious that this form of hasbara is failing.


Ed. note: A related article by ADL blogs (Anti-Defamation League) a jewish group in America, that regards any criticism of the state of Israel – however justified, how

ever mild, made by Jews and non-Jews alike – as anti-Semitic):

Iran New Horizon Conference Draws U.S. Anti-Semites, Holocaust Deniers

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Two Types of Virulent Anti-Semitism

Nobel Hypocrisy 101


by Stephen Lendman

Nobel tradition is horrific. Disreputable. Long and inglorious. War criminals win peace prizes. Past honorees include a rogue’s gallery of some of the world’s worst.

Peace advocates are spurned. Ignored. Shut out for doing the right thing. Especially in today’s highly-charged atmosphere.

Selection is politicized. It’s longstanding policy. It’s no surprise.

Nobel Committee members violate their own rules. Alfred Nobel’s will was clear and unequivocal.

It says Peace Prize recipients “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Worthy candidates are routinely passed over. History’s most famous peace advocate never won.

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated five times. Nobel Committee members never recognized his accomplishments. They’re hugely important to this day.

He championed nonviolent resistance. He did so for social change. His October 2 birthday (Gandhi Jayanti) is a national Indian holiday. It’s commemorated worldwide as an International Day of Nonviolence.

Eleanor Roosevelt got three Nobel Peace Prize nominations. She never won.

She received 48 honorary degrees in her lifetime. Harry Truman called her “First Lady of the World.” He honored her humanitarian achievements.

They were notable. “Do what you feel in your heart to be right,” she said. She championed human rights, social justice and peace.

She was perhaps the driving force behind establishing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She submitted its principles to UN General Assembly Member States, saying:

“We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind.”

“This declaration may well become the international Magna Carta for all (mankind) everywhere.”

Anyone can be nominated for Peace Prize recognition. Scoundrels passed over included Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Rush Limbaugh among others.

Henry Kissinger and Obama were perhaps the most notable war criminal winners. They bear responsibility for horrific high crimes against peace.

Millions of deaths. Mass destruction. Unspeakable human misery. Contempt for rule of law principles and democratic values.

It didn’t matter. In awarding Obama its 2009 Prize, Nobel Committee members turned truth on its head.

They cited his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

“His vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” He supports spending over a trillion dollars upgrading America’s arsenal.

He’s a war criminal multiple times over. He deplores peace, stability, equity and justice. He’s beholden to monied interests. He spurns popular ones.

He’s waged war on humanity throughout his tenure. World peace hangs by a thread on his watch.

Nobel Committee members shamelessly claimed he “created a new climate in international politics.”

“Multinational diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions play.”

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

Nobel Committee members long “sought to stimulate precisely the international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman.”

It’s hard imagining more convoluted rubbish. Twisted logic. Nonsense polar opposite truth.

It’s longstanding Nobel Committee reasoning. Politicizing annual awards. Doing so in lieu of choosing individuals most deserving.

Two recipients won this year. Seventeen-year-old Malala Yousafzai is the youngest ever winner.

She’s an activist for women’s education, a blogger, and Sakharov Prize winner. She’s a Pakistan National Youth Peace Prize honoree.

She was a 2013 Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Desmond Tutu nominated her for the International Children’s Peace Prize.

Canada intends granting her honorary citizenship. She’ll receive it in Ottawa on October 22.

Taliban militants shot her in the head two years ago. For advocating female education rights. She survived the ordeal.

She became a human rights/female education activist. Her advocacy became an international movement.

In January 2013, Deutsche Welle called her “the most famous teenager in the world.”

UN Special Envoy for Global Education/former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown launched a UN petition in her name. He used the slogan “I am Malala.”

In its April 29, 2013 issue, Time magazine featured her on its cover. It called her one of “(t)he 100 Most Influential People in the World.”

She won Pakistan’s first National Youth Peace Prize. Nobel Committee members ignored her anti-militarism advocacy.

Her outspokenness against drone attacks. Her calling them responsible for “fueling terrorism.”

Her saying “(i)nnocent victims are killed (by) these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.”

Kailash Satyarthi is a longtime Indian children’s rights activist. He founded Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save the Childhood Movement) in 1980.

It’s the world’s leading civil society campaign of its kind. It protected the rights of about 83,000 children for over three decades.

It rescued them from human trafficking, virtual slavery, and repressive child labor. It helped restore their trust in society. It helps them achieve more promising futures.

Its vision is “creat(ing) a child friendly society, where all children are free from exploitation and receive free and quality education.”

Its mission is “(t)o identify, liberate, rehabilitate and educate children in servitude through direct intervention, child and community participation, coalition building, consumer action, promoting ethical trade practices and mass mobilisation.”

Nobel Committee members awarded Satyarthi and Yousafzai their 2014 Prize. It did so “for their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education.”

Satyarthi “headed various forms of protests and demonstrations, all peaceful, focusing on the grave exploitation of children for financial gain.”

He “contributed to the development of important international conventions on children’s rights.”

Yousafzai fights “for the right of girls to education, and has shown by example that children and young people, too, can contribute to improving their own situations.”

“This she has done under the most dangerous circumstances.Through her heroic struggle she has become a leading spokesperson for girls’ rights to education.”

Imagine if she was a Palestinian human rights/women’s education advocate. Imagine if Israeli soldiers shot her in the head.

Imagine her being passed over. Ignored. In Orwell’s Memory Hole. Consigned there by Nobel Committee Ministry of Truth members.

Imagine if Satyarthi spoke forthrightly against US ruthlessness. Its imperial lawlessness. Permanent wars. Mass slaughter and destruction.

Ravaging and destroying one country after another. Plundering them for profit and dominance. Exploiting their people.

Violating core human and civil rights. Spurning democratic values. Ignoring rule of law principles.

Supporting wrong over right. Believing might is right. Imagine how Satyarthi would be treated.

Spurned for doing the right thing. Ignored. Perhaps eliminated to silence him. Rogue states operate this way. What they say goes.

Opposition voices aren’t tolerated. Especially peace, equity and justice advocates. Longstanding US policy is polar opposite.

Nobel Committee members march in lockstep. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to do the right thing.

They support war. They deplore peace. They’re part of the problem, not the solution. Their awards are politicized.

Nominees most worthy are passed over. They never have a chance. It’s longstanding Nobel tradition.

It mocks what he had in mind. It turns his purpose upside down. It supports what late in life he rejected.

He was a wealthy 19th century chemist, engineer, dynamite inventor, armaments manufacturer war-profiteer.

Perhaps he tried compensating for enormous harm he caused. He remade his image late in life. He did so by establishing awards in his name.

Including one for peace. What’s perhaps more illusive now than ever. At a time it hangs by a thread.

Don’t expect Nobel Committee members to explain. Or say they’re sorry.

Forthrightness isn’t their long suit. It never was. It isn’t now.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, EducationComments Off on Nobel Hypocrisy 101

Shoah’s pages