Archive | February 7th, 2015

Terrorists or “Freedom Fighters”? Recruited by the CIA

Global Research

The barbarous phenomenon we recently witnessed in France has roots that go back to at least 1979 when the mujahedeen made their appearance in Afghanistan. At that time their ire was directed at the leftist Taraki government that had come into power in April of 1978. This government’s ascension to power was a sudden and totally indigenous happening – with equal surprise to both the USA and the USSR.

In April of 1978 the Afghan army deposed the country’s government because of its oppressive measures, and then created a new government, headed by a leftist, Nur Mohammad Taraki, who had been a writer, poet and professor of journalism at the University of Kabul. Following this, for a brief period of time, Afghanistan had a progressive secular government, with broad popular support. As I pointed out in an earlier publication, this government “. . . enacted progressive reforms and gave equal rights to women. It was in the process of dragging the country into the 20th century, and as British political scientist Fred Halliday stated in May 1979 (1), ‘probably more has changed in the countryside over the last year than in two centuries since the state was established.’”

The Taraki government’s first course of action was to declare non-alignment in foreign affairs and to affirm a commitment to Islam within a secular state. Among the much needed reforms, women were given equal rights, and girls were to go to school and be in the same classroom as boys. Child marriages and feudal dowry payments were banned. Labour unions were legalized, and some 10,000 people were released from prisons. Within a short time hundreds of schools and medical clinics were built in the countryside.

The landholding system hadn’t changed much since the feudal period; more than three-quarters of the land was owned by landlords who composed only 3 percent of the rural population. Reforms began on September 1, 1978 by the abolition all debts owed by farmers – landlords and moneylenders had charged up to 45 percent interest. A program was being developed for major land reform, and it was expected that all farm families (including landlords) would be given the equivalent of equal amounts of land. (2)

What happened to this progressive government? In brief, it was undermined by the CIA and the mujahedeen, which triggered a series of events that destroyed the country – and ironically led to the disaster of September 11, 2001 in the USA and to the present chaos and tragedy in Afghanistan.

Even before the CIA got involved, as would be expected, the rich landlords and mullahs objected to not only land reform but to all the reforms. Most of the 250,000 mullahs were rich landlords who in their sermons told people that only Allah could give them land, and that Allah would object to giving women equal rights or having girls go to school. But the reforms were popular, so these reactionary elements left for Pakistan, as “refugees.” With assistance from Pakistan, they proceeded to conduct raids on the Afghan countryside where they burned clinics and schools, and if they found teachers teaching girls, they would kill the teachers, often disembowelling them in the presence of the children – to instill fear and panic in the population.

Although having no right to interfere in another country’s affairs, the USA viewed the new government as being Marxist and was determined to subvert it. At first unofficially, but officially after July 3, 1979 with President Carter’s authorization, the CIA, along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, began to provide military aid and training to the Muslim extremists, who became known as the mujahedeen and “freedom fighters.”

In addition, the CIA recruited Hafizullah Amin, an Afghan Ph.D. student in the USA, and got him to act as a hard-line Marxist. He successfully worked his way up in the Afghan government and in September of 1979 he carried out a coup, and had Taraki killed. With Amin in charge, he jailed thousands of people and undermined the army and discredited the government. To ward off the thousands of well-armed mujahedeen invaders, many being foreign mercenaries, Amin was forced by his government to invite some Soviet troops.(3) Shortly afterwards, Amin was killed and was replaced as president by Babrak Karmal, a former member of the Taraki government who had been in exile in Czechoslovakia. Although still clouded by cold war politics and uncertain history, Karmal “invited” the USSR to send in thousands of troops to deal with the mujahedeen forces. What’s not widely known is that the USA through the CIA had been actively involved in Afghan affairs for at least a year, and it was in response to this that the Soviets arrived on the scene.

As I stated some years ago:

“The advent of Soviet troops on Afghan soil tragically set the stage for the eventual destruction of the country. Zbigniew Brzezinski, president Carter’s National Security Advisor, afterwards bragged that he had convinced Carter to authorize the CIA to set a trap for the Russian bear and to give the USSR the taste of a Vietnam war.(4) Brzezinski saw this as a golden opportunity to fire up the zeal of the most reactionary Muslim fanatics — to have them declare a jihad (holy war) on the atheist infidels who defiled Afghan soil — and to not only expel them but to pursue them and “liberate” the Muslim-majority areas of the USSR. And for the next 10 years, with an expenditure of billions of dollars from the USA and Saudi Arabia, and with the recruitment of thousands of non-Afghan Muslims into the jihad (including Osama bin Laden), this army of religious zealots laid waste to the land and people of Afghanistan.”

Sending in troops to Afghanistan was a colossal blunder on the part of the USSR. If the Soviets had simply provided weapons for the Afghan government, they may have survived the “barbarians at the gates” – because ordinary Afghan people were not fanatics and most of them had supported the government’s progressive reforms.

Being unable to entice enough Afghanis for this war, the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan recruited about 35,000 Muslim radicals, from 40 Islamic countries to conduct the war against the Afghan government and the Soviet forces. The CIA covertly trained and sponsored these foreign warriors, hence the fundamentalism that emerged in Afghanistan is a CIA construct. Although the mujahedeen were referred to as “freedom fighters,” they committed horrific atrocities and were terrorists of the first order.

As reported in US media, a “favourite tactic” of the mujahedeen was “to torture victims [often Russians] by first cutting off their noses, ears, and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another,” leading to “a slow, very painful death.” The article describes Russian prisoners caged like animals and “living lives of indescribable horror.” (5) Another publication cites a journalist from the Far Eastern Economic Reviewreporting that “one [Soviet] group was killed, skinned and hung up in a butcher’s shop”. (6)

Despite these graphic reports, President Reagan continued to refer to the mujahedeen as “freedom fighters” and in 1985 he invited a group of them to Washington where he entertained them in the Whitehouse. Afterwards, while introducing them to the media, he stated, “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” (7)

Surely Soviet soldiers were every bit as human as American soldiers – just suppose it had been American soldiers who had been skinned alive. Would President Reagan in such an instance still refer to the mujahedeen as “freedom fighters” . . . or might he have referred to them correctly as terrorists, just as the Soviets had done? Indeed, how these actions are portrayed depends on whose ox is gored.

The Soviets succumbed to their Vietnam and withdrew their troops in February of 1989, but the war raged on, with continuing American military aid, but it took until April of 1992 before the Afghan Marxist government was finally defeated. Then for the next four years the mujahedeen destroyed much of Kabul and killed some 50,000 people as they fought amongst themselves and conducted looting and rape campaigns until the Taliban routed them and captured Kabul in September of 1996. The Taliban, trained as fanatic Muslims in Pakistan, “liberated” the country from the mujahedeen, but then established an atrocious reactionary regime. Once in power the Taliban brought in a reign of Islamist terror, especially on women. They imposed an ultra-sectarian version of Islam, closely related to Wahhabism, the ruling creed in Saudi Arabia.

The US “communist paranoia” and their policy to undermine the USSR was such that they supported and recruited the most reactionary fanatic religious zealots on the earth — and used them as a proxy army to fight communism and the USSR — in the course of which Afghanistan and its people were destroyed. But it didn’t end there. The mujahedeen metastasized and took on a life of their own, spreading to various parts of the Muslim world. They went on to fight the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, with the full knowledge and support of the USA. But then, ironically, having defeated what they called Soviet imperialism, these “freedom fighters” turned their sights on what they perceive to be American imperialism, particularly its support for Israel and its attacks on Muslim lands.

And so a creation of the USA’s own making turned on them – the progeny of Reagan’s wonderful “freedom fighters” lashed out and America experienced September 11, 2001. But what have the US government and most American people learned from this? From their inflated opinion of themselves as the world’s “exceptional” and “indispensible” nation, as President Obama arrogantly keeps reminding the world, neither the American government nor its people have ever connected the dots. Is there anything in their recent history that could explain 9/11 to them? In a nutshell, it never occurs to them that if the USA had left the progressive Afghan Taraki government alone, there would have been no army of mujahedeen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and hence no September 11 tragedy in the USA.

Instead of reflecting on the possible causes of what occurred, and learning from this, the USA immediately resorted to war, to be followed by a series of additional wars, which brings to mind Marx’s sardonic comment in which he corrected Hegel’s observation that history repeats itself, adding that it does so “the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.”

In response to the USA’s demand for Osama bin Laden, the Afghan Taliban government offered to turn him over to an international tribunal, but they wanted to see evidence linking him to 9/11.(8) The USA had no such evidence and bin Laden denied having anything to do with 9/11.(9) To corroborate bin Laden’s denial, the FBI has in its records that “. . . the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”(10) Right till the present time, the FBI has never changed its position on this.

As became known later, the 9/11 plot was hatched in Hamburg, Germany by an Al-Qaeda cell so the 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and that the USA had no evidence linking Afghanistan or bin Laden to the 9/11 attack, the US launched a war on Afghanistan, and of course without UN approval, so this was an illegal war.

Even if the USA wanted to depose the Taliban government, there was no need for a war. In rare unanimity, all the anti-Taliban Afghan groups pleaded with the US government not to bomb or invade the country. (11) They pointed out that to remove the Taliban government all that the USA had to do was to force Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to stop funding the Taliban, and shortly after the regime would collapse on its own. So the USA could have had its regime change without destroying the country and killing hundreds of thousands of Afghanis as well as thousands of its own troops, and having the war continue from 2001 into 2015 . . . America’s longest war. If this is not farce, what is it?

And the farce continued. Once in war mode, in 2003 the US launched another illegal war, this time on Iraq, a war based on outright lies and deception – a war crime of the first order. This war was even more tragic. It killed over a million Iraqis, basically destroyed the country, and destroyed a secular society, replacing it with on-going religious fratricide. In the course of this war, the Afghan al-Qaeda moved into Iraq and served as a model for young Iraqis to fight the American invaders. Although the American forces conquered Iraq quickly, they were faced with unrelenting guerrilla warfare, which eventually led to their departure in 2011. During these years the Americans jailed thousands of young Iraqi men, and inadvertently turned most of them into fervent jihadists. Prisons such as Abu Ghraib and Bucca had an incendiary effect on the ongoing insurgency, but now these jihadists weren’t called “freedom fighter” – they lost this endearing appellation in Afghanistan when American soldiers replaced Soviet soldiers.

As if the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq weren’t enough, in the spring of 2011 the US surreptitiously launched the beginnings of a further war, long in planning, and this one was on Syria. Somehow “spontaneously” there was an uprising of “freedom fighters” whose objective was to overthrow Syria’s secular government, which displeased the USA. Right from the beginning it was suspected that the USA was behind the uprising, since as early as 2007 General Wesley Clark stated in an interview that in 2001, a few weeks after 9/11, he was told by an American high ranking general about plans “to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” Also in 2007, Seymour Hersh, in a much cited article, stated that “the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad of Syria.”

The so-called “Free Syrian Army” was a creation of the US and NATO, and its objective was to provoke the Syrian police and army and once there was a deployment of tanks and armored vehicles this would supposedly justify outside military intervention under NATO’s mandate of “responsibility to protect” – with the objective of doing to Syria what they had done to Libya. However, with Russia’s veto at the UN this didn’t work out as planned.

To resolve this setback, the CIA, together with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, proceeded to do exactly what had been done in Afghanistan – hordes of foreign Salafist Muslim “freedom fighters” were brought into Syria for the express purpose of overthrowing its secular government. With unlimited funds and American weapons, the first mercenaries were Iraqi al-Qaeda who, ironically, came into existence in the course of fighting the American army in Iraq. They were then followed by dozens of al-Qaeda’s other groups, notably al-Nusra, with its plans to change Syria’s multi-racial secular society into a Sunni Islamic state.

Right from the beginning of the uprising in Syria, the US was telling the world that “Assad had to go” and that they were intervening by helping “moderates” in the Free Syrian Army to overthrow the Syrian “regime.” However, to no one’s surprise, the ineffective “moderate” Free Syrian Army was soon inundated with Salafist Muslim groups who proceeded to launch a series of terrorist attacks throughout Syria. The Syrian government correctly identified these attacks as being the work of terrorists, but this was dismissed by the mainstream media as propaganda. The fact that the country was beset by suicide bombings and the beheading of soldiers, civilians, journalists, aid workers, and public officials was simply ignored.

Despite these reports, the USA insisted it was only providing “assistance” to those who identified themselves as being part of the Free Syrian Army. As reported in June 2012 by the New York Times, “CIA officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government… The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.”

In addition, after the Gaddafi Libyan government was deposed in August 2011 by al-Qaeda forces, supported by NATO bombing, the CIA arranged for the transfer of Libyan weapons to Syrian rebels. As reported in the UK Times and by Seymour Hersh, a Libyan ship docked in Turkey with 400 tonnes of armaments, including forty SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and other munitions. Then in early 2013 a further major arms shipment, known as the Great Croatian Weapons Airlift, consisted of 3,000 tonnes of military weaponry from Croatia, Britain and France, coordinated by the CIA. This was flown out of Zagreb, Croatia, in 75 transport planes to Turkey for distribution to “worthy” Syrian mercenaries. In a further report, the New York Times (March 24, 2013) stated that it was Saudi Arabia that paid for these weapons and that there were actually 160 military cargo flights.

Despite all the efforts of the USA, NATO, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to support the various groups that formed the Free Syrian Army, Syrian government forces continued to rout and defeat them. Moreover, many of these ‘moderate’ forces were defecting and joining militant jihadist groups. Then in early 2014 an apparently unknown military force appeared on the scene, seemingly from “out of nowhere” and began to make spectacular military gains. It had a number of names, one being the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) but then it became simply the Islamic State (IS) or Daesh in Arabic. It got worldwide attention when in a matter of days it took over a quarter of Iraq, including the second largest city, Mosul – caused the Iraqi army to flee and disintegrate, and threatened to attack Baghdad. Shortly after, the beheading of two American journalists baited the US to once again send forces to Iraq and to begin a bombing campaign on ISIS forces in both Iraq and Syria.

Before its attack on Iraq, ISIS already had a strong base in Syria, and then with tanks and artillery captured from the Iraqi army in Mosul, ISIS now controls almost a third of Syria. Hence at present it covers an area almost the size of Britain, with a population of about six million. ISIS does not recognize the borders of Syria and Iraq and considers the area under its control to be the frontiers of a Caliphate state with a militant vision of Islam. This is the direct result of the desert storm of Saudi cash that has been spent on global Wahhabi proselytizing and indoctrination, resulting in a reactionary medieval, toxic “religion” – that has nothing to do with legitimate Islam.

At the beginning, the “Islamic State” was nothing more than an appendage of al-Qaeda – with al-Qaeda itself being directly armed, funded, and backed by stalwart US allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with the full support Turkey. And behind all this was the desire of the USA and NATO to undermine and destroy the secular government of Syria. As Patrick Cockburn stated in a recent perceptive article,

”The foster parents of Isis and the other Sunni jihadi movements in Iraq and Syria are Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.” He cites the former head of MI6 saying that ‘Such things do not happen spontaneously.’ Cockburn states further that “It’s unlikely the Sunni community as a whole in Iraq would have lined up behind Isis without the support Saudi Arabia . . . . Turkey’s role has been different but no less significant than Saudi Arabia’s in aiding Isis and other jihadi groups. Its most important action has been to keep open its 510-mile border with Syria. This gave Isis, al-Nusra and other opposition groups a safe rear base from which to bring in men and weapons. . . . Turkish military intelligence may have been heavily involved in aiding Isis when it was reconstituting itself in 2011.”

Following its policy of trying to have full spectrum dominance in the world, the US has not hesitated to support terrorist groups when it was in their interests, e.g., the creation of the mujahedeen and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. While they fought the Soviets they were “freedom fighters,” but then came the blowback of 9/11 . . . and they instantly became terrorists, resulting in America’s “War on Terror.” The illegal war of aggression on and military occupation of Iraq resulted in the creation of a resistance movement – a new variant of al-Qaeda, viewed of course as terrorists. Then came the “attack” on the Assad government in Syria, launched by American, NATO, Saudi, Qatar and Turkish campaigns. At first it was in the guise of indigenous “freedom fighters”, the Free Syrian Army, but when they made little headway, additional “freedom fighters” appeared, in the form of al-Qaeda, in all its varieties, culminating in ISIS. These erstwhile terrorists now became allies in the campaign to depose Syria’s Assad government. Although Syria viewed them correctly as foreign terrorists, their claims were largely ignored . . . until two American journalists were beheaded.

At about the same time that the American journalists were beheaded there was fierce fighting going on in Syria and wherever Syrian soldiers were captured they were summarily executed, with many being beheaded, all this being meticulously filmed. A large number of websites show this but one in particular, entitled “Syrianfight: Documenting War Crimes in Syria” shows dozens of gruesome execution scenes, including the mass execution in August 2014 of 220 Syrian soldiers near the Tabqa airbase. Just imagine if 220 American soldiers had been executed and beheaded what an outcry there would have been. Instead, the mainstream media concentrated solely on the two beheaded journalists, which indeed was an outrage, but where was the outrage for the hundreds of beheaded Syrian soldiers? Basically, nothing was said about what ISIS was doing in Syria.

Although there was outrage in the USA about what ISIS had done to two American citizens, there was practically no soul searching about the cause of this religious extremism and the possibility that this was just another case of blowback from what the USA had done to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Not surprisingly, the USA’s response was to announce a series of air strikes to “degrade” the capability of ISIS, but there were also to be “no boots on the ground” so actually the military defeat of ISIS was left unresolved – perhaps purposefully. In reality, the sudden military power of ISIS left the West and its regional allies – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – with a quandary: their official policy is to depose Assad, but ISIS is now the only effective military force in Syria so if the Syrian government is deposed, it would be ISIS that would fill the vacuum. So, was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the assault on Syria in 2011 going to result in the creation of a powerful jihadi state spanning northern Iraq and Syria? Under such a fanatic Wahhabi regime, what would happen to the multicultural and multi-religious society of Syria?

In the face of this stark reality, as summed up by Patrick Cockburn:

“. . . the US and its allies have responded to the rise of Isis by descending into fantasy. They pretend they are fostering a ‘third force’ of moderate Syrian rebels to fight both Assad and Isis, though in private Western diplomats admit this group doesn’t really exist outside a few beleaguered pockets.”

Moreover, as soon as such forces are trained and equipped great numbers of them proceed to join al-Nusra or ISIS, e.g., 3,000 of them this past January. But is there method behind this obvious delusion? Is it really the intent of the US and its allies to bumble along and let ISIS proceed to defeat the Syrian army? And once this fanatic Sunni Wahhabi regime takes over Syria, is the next stage to be an attack on Shiite Iran, the next Muslim country to be destroyed? The boots on the ground in such a venture would be those of ISIS.

To counter this Machiavellian possibility, there has recently been evidence that perhaps at some level there is the realization that the permanent establishment of a fanatic Caliphate state with a militant vision of Islam is perhaps not such a good idea. What until recently has seemed to be a matter beyond the realm of possibility, there now appears evidence the US may be prepared to actually deal with President Assad of Syria. As reported in the New York Times (Jan. 15 and Jan. 19, 2015) the UN envoy for the crisis in Syria is trying to convince the Syrian government and ISIS to “freeze” the fighting on the ground, in area by area, and then somehow try to end the war. President Assad has been receptive to the idea, but there has been no response from ISIS. Also, on Russia’s initiative, a meeting is taking place in Moscow to prepare for a conference that will try to resolve the Syria crisis. The good news is that the US has become supportive of both courses of action.

Another sign of encouragement has been the publication in Foreign Affairs (Jan 27, 2015) of a lengthy wide-ranging interview with President Assad. This is important for both the members of the US government and the American public in general. Assad has stated that he would be prepared to meet with anyone but not with “a puppet of Qatar or Saudi Arabia or any Western country, including the United States, paid from the outside. It should be Syrian.” Also he stated that any resolution that comes from a conference would have to “go back to the people through a referendum” before it would be adopted. What could be more democratic than such a procedure? Through such a course of action Syria could retain its secular status and evolve into a true democratic state.

Hence despite the viciousness of the ongoing war in Syria, these events offer a glimmer of hope that might end this foreign-inspired conflagration that has left over 220,000 dead, a million wounded and millions more displaced. But if it turns out that ISIS will refuse to end its attacks on Syria, the rational thing for the US to do would be to stop its campaign to overthrow the Syrian government and to then cooperate with Syria to defeat the ISIS forces. With coordinated US and Syrian air strikes, the Syrian army would provide the necessary “boots on the ground” to defeat Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi gift to this area. But is this simply beyond the realm of possibility?

A short summary is in order. First, to what extent are the US and its allies responsible for the creation of ISIS and its co-partner al-Qaeda as well as its various spin-off groups? At the very beginning, we must recall that it was the USA that created the mujahedeen and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, and later got the blowback of 9/11. It was the US invasion of Iraq that created al-Qaeda as a resistance movement. It was the USA that fomented the uprising in Syria and when their Free Syrian Army was facing defeat, to the rescue came Iraqi al-Qaeda, with unlimited financial support and direction from the USA’s allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and tactical assistance from Turkey. And it’s this al-Qaeda that metastasized into ISIS. Also, the US has generated additional enemies through its drone campaign, especially in Yemen and Pakistan.

But is this all there is to this story? An offshoot from it is the recent attack in Paris on Charlie Hebdomagazine that left 12 people dead, including its editor and prominent cartoonists. It was apparently done by men connected to al-Qaeda who had been outraged by the magazine’s derogatory cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad. The attack sparked a massive outcry, with millions in France and across the world taking to the streets to support freedom of the press behind the rallying cry of “Je suis Charlie,” or “I am Charlie.”

It’s instructive to put this matter in historical context. In Nazi Germany, there was an anti-Semitic newspaper called Der Stürmer, noted for its morbid caricatures of Jews. Its editor, Julius Streicher, was put on trial at Nürnberg and hanged because of his stories and cartoons about Jews. In 1999 during its bombing campaign on Serbia, NATO deliberately bombed a Radio/TV station in Belgrade, killing 16 journalists. The US bombed the Al Jazeera headquarters in Kabul in 2001 and in 2003 Al Jazeera was bombed in Baghdad, killing journalists. In its attacks on Gaza, Israel has deliberately killed a large number of journalists.

The issue of “freedom of the press” was hardly raised in the above instances – certainly there were no mass street protests. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, this was not a model of freedom of speech. In reality,Charlie Hebdo’s political pornography of Muslims is hardly any different from the way Jews were portrayed in Der Stürmer.

The US and its various allies have launched wars, death and destruction in many Muslim countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Gaza, Yemen, Syria. To add to this, Saudi Arabia has apparently spent more than $100 billion trying to propagate its fanatical Wahhabism, a relatively small sect that is despised in the Muslim world at large, but which has nevertheless tarnished the Muslim image. And because of this, for some people in the West it’s somehow become acceptable to degrade, demean, humiliate, mock and insult Muslims. It was in this spirit that the cartoonists chose to mock Mohammad, under the guise of freedom of expression. It’s noteworthy that Charlie Hebdo had once fired a journalist because of one line he had written that was criticized by a Zionist lobby, but when it comes to Muslims, it was open season on them. In a judgment issued by US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, freedom of speech does not give one the right to “falsely shout fire in a crowded theater.” Also there is a provision in the US constitution that prohibits publishing “fighting words” which could result in violence. All this was ignored by the editors and publishers of Charlie Hebdo. The penalty should not have been death but they bear considerable responsibility for what happened. Sadly, the West’s uncritical embrace of the Charlie Hebdocaricatures was because the drawings were directed at and ridiculed Muslims. There is no question that the “desperate and despised people” of today are Muslims.

When ISIS beheaded two American journalists, there was outrage and denunciation throughout the West, but when the same ISIS beheaded hundreds of Syrian soldiers, and meticulously filmed these war crime, this was hardly reported anywhere. In addition, almost from the very beginning of the Syrian tragedy, al-Qaeda groups have been killing and torturing not only soldiers but police, government workers and officials, journalists, Christian church people, aid workers, women and children, as well as suicide bombings in market places. All this was covered up in the mainstream media, and when the Syrian government correctly denounced this as terrorism, this was ignored or denounced as “Assad’s propaganda.”

So why weren’t these atrocities reported in the western media? If this was reported it would have run counter to Washington’s proclaimed agenda that “Assad has to go,” so the mainstream media followed the official line. There is nothing new in this. History shows that the media supported every Western-launched war, insurrection and coup – the wars on Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and coups such as those on Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, and most recently in Ukraine.

And so when terrorist acts are carried out against “our enemies” they are often viewed as the actions of “freedom fighters”, but when the same types of acts are directed at “us” they are denounced as “terrorism.” So it all depends on whose ox is gored.

John Ryan, Ph.D., Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg.[email protected]


  1. Fred Halliday, “Revolution in Afghanistan,” New Left Review, No. 112, pp. 3-44, 1978.
  2. I was in Afghanistan in November 1978 working on an agricultural research project while on sabbatical leave and all these reforms and government measures were explained to me at considerable length by the Dean of Agriculture and some of the professors during a lengthy session at Kabul University. Halliday (cited above) also reported on the land-redistribution program.
  3. Washington Post, December 23, 1979, p.A8. Soviet troops had started arriving in Afghanistan on December 8, to which the article states: “There was no charge [by the State Department] that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan, since the troops apparently were invited.”
  4. “How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen”: Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76
  5. Washington Post, January 13, 1985.
  6. John Fullerton, The Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan, (London), 1984.
  7. Eqbal Ahmad, “Terrorism: Theirs and Ours,” (A Presentation at the University of Colorado, Boulder, October 12, 1993); Cullen Murphy, “The Gold Standard: The quest for the Holy Grail of equivalence,” Atlantic Monthly, January 2002
  8. “Taliban repeats call for negotiations,”, October 2, 2001, includes comment:“Afghanistan’s ruling Taiban repeated its demand for evidence before it would hand over suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Ladin.”; Noam Chomsky, “The War on Afghanistan,”Znet, December 30, 2001
  9. “Bin Laden says he wasn’t behind attacks,”, September 17, 2001.
  10. Ed Haas, “FBI says, it has ‘No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’,” Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006.
  11. Noam Chomsky, “The War on Afghanistan,” Znet, December 30, 2001; Barry Bearak, “Leaders of the Old Afghanistan Prepare for the New,” NYT, October 25, 2001; John Thornhill and Farhan Bokhari, “Traditional leaders call for peace jihad,” FT, October 25, 2001; “Afghan peace assembly call,”FT, October 26, 2001; John Burns, “Afghan Gathering in Pakistan Backs Future Role for King,”NYT, October 26, 2001; Indira Laskhmanan, “1,000 Afghan leaders discuss a new regime,BG, October 25, 26, 2001.

Posted in USA1 Comment



They say if you keep your mouth agape, all the evils of this world will make it their nest for incubation and proliferation.

The Board of Trustees of Syrian Perspective (at a plenary session), the Cultural Outreach Department at the Mercury News Service in New York City, the readers and contributors to Syrian Perspective, (the world’s most renowned source for news on the war against Jihadist terrorism in Syria), are proud to announce the winner of last year’s 2014 Zionist Tony Blair Liar of the Year Award.  The winner for 2013 was Public Broadcasting’s most prolific prevaricator, Judy Woodruff.  Another miscreant by the name of Brian Williams may walk away with the award for 2015.

Winning this award is not a simple task.  No way.  It requires Rabelaisian exaggeration, deceit, concealment and finesse on a scale rarely seen amongst even the most adept pickpockets in Naples or Cairo.  You have to have nerves of steel as you espouse, declare, aver or sputter the most nonsensical folderol before a gullible audience – and all this with barely a grin to break the solemnity of your lying.  Romans say a poet is born, not made. (Poeta nascitur, non fit).  And so it apparently is with the profession of lying. It is as though one were born to it as an obligation of fraudulent nobility.

The winner of the 2014 prize is no stranger to the wellspring of Satan’s most powerful craft.  He has suckled from it since a child in the arms of his English mother, Antoinette Avril Gardiner.  He has sipped it’s nectar as the son of the former Zionist Hashemite king of Jordan, no slouch himself when it came to bamboozling an entire Arab World.  He scarfed it – nay – wolfed it down – as he became America’s “partner” in the war against terrorism.

He is none other than the Master of Medacity and the Prince of Profligacy, HIS HIGHNESS, KING ‘ABDULLAH II of the ZIONIST HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN.  (Wild applause)


(Image: JohnCoxart caricatures)

When one of your air force pilots is brutally burned to death by savages you helped to train and foster, it’s hard to keep a straight face when consoling the family of the poor aviator.  But, that is exactly what this Lilliputian monarch is all about.  He was even seen with the pilot’s father, managing to produce a tear of anguish as he bussed the old man in the traditional Arab manner on both grizzled cheeks.  Most touching.  Some witnesses swore they could detect a subtle snicker as the king moved away from the grieving parent.

From the day the unrest in Der’ah started, Zionist ‘Abdullah II was training agents provocateurs on Jordanian soil with the assistance of Zionist Robert Ford whose own plan to rock Syria was already in full blossom.  This Zionist king, a toad-like blunt instrument of the same Western World and World Zionism which insure his longevity on the throne of a country so ineptly cobbled together by the British as a consolation prize to the cuckolded Zionist Hashemites that it reeks of Chad, Somalia or Mali, makes no secret of the fact he is ready to hire on as a chamberlain for any visiting English fusspot.

He chastises the Zionists for anti-Islamic acts in Jerusalem, but, arrests anyone who actually goes out into the street to enunciate exactly the same grievance.  He smiles benignly at the cameras, while – all the while – the screams of detainees at the General Security HQ outside Amman infuse the air with hair-raising horror, no different than those same sounds his father enjoyed so much during the days of Muhammad Rasool Kaylaani.

He has instructed his representatives to deny any role for Jordan in assisting the terrorists.  In doing this, he has entrapped his own ministers in a web-work of deceit so convoluted it smacks of an Ealing Comedy.  How many times have we delighted in seeing and listening to Jordanian politicians speak into the camera to say that “Jordan is neutral” or “Jordan will not play a role in the crisis in Syria”.  But the best is: “Jordan cherishes the brotherly relations between our two countries”.  It’s camp at its best.  Tasteless, yet, pungent with the aroma of sewer humor.  Some of us have suffered left inguinal hernias as we laughed ourselves silly listening to these Jordanians denying any relationship to the terrorists who are murdering innocent Syrians on a daily basis with so many coming in from Al-Mafraq, Al-Ramtha or Al-Zarqaa`.


In this photo from psychnews, another professional fibber can’t control his laughter as he listens to King Abdullah denying any terrorist bases on Jordanian soil.  When the Great Satan laughs, you know you’ve got a real whopper of a lie.     

And so, with his Zionist affinities bursting from the seams of an ancient overused divan of feathery mendacities, he denies any coordination with the Zionist allies to whom he looks for support whenever somebody suggests he start looking for a palazzo in the English countryside.  He is unique among liars.  He spends his entire life denying the lies everyone knows he’s telling.  His tenacity is mind-bending.

Posted in Syria1 Comment





1 IDLIB: The Turks have not stopped permitting terrorists to enter Syrian land.  While they claim to have arrested or deported 12,000 Jihadists, the figure is an outright lie based on information that has arrived on our desk here from Syria.  Erdoghan is obsessed with Dr. Assad’s durability.  Given his Ottoman mentality, no different, really, than the British frame of mind, he persists in viewing the world through the eyes of an emperor or sultan.  But, there is a bright side. The SAA has been able to blunt much of the Turk effort to push rats into Syria as the army continues to approach the borders of the country which is now most responsible for the mayhem in the Middle East.

Jabal Al-Arba’een area:  At Ma’artab’iy Village on the eastern slope, the SAA crushed a Nusra attack killing an estimated 10 rodents.  No names as the area is too unstable for a precise assessment.

Kafr Najd: This area is infested by Suqoor Al-Shaam (Falcons of Syria, yawn) and Nusra.  A firefight resulted in many terrorists killed and wounded.  But, the most important factor here was the willingness of the terrorists to leave behind much of their weaponry in order to escape.  This is becoming an increasingly frequent phenomenon.

Biroomaa Village Farms:  The SAA killed this rodent:

Mustafaa Samee’ (Nusra rat leader)


army 3Jabal Al-Akraad:  Right on the Turk border, the SAA is sealing off both traditional and unorthodox pathways into the country.  Yesterday, the army killed 2 smugglers who were notorious for facilitating the injection of Jihadist rats into Syria.  Their names have not been released.

The Idlib Front is taking on a massive dimension as far as the size of the operations conducted by the SAA.  As I wrote some months ago, the Popular Defense Committees (f/k/a NDF) have multiplied considerably.  One report I’ve read claimed that 50,000 more fighters had been added. This might account for the stunning appearance of so many units in Idlib at the Turk border.

Saraaqib:  2 rat nests were attacked simultaneously on February 6, 2015 at dawn.  17 rodents were killed and many were wounded.  Here are the only ones identified from the Nusra group:

‘Aqeel Muhammad Nooreddeen

Hassan Suhayl Al-Madani

‘Issam ‘Ali Baayirli

Muhammad Fu`aad Al-‘Ajwa

‘Azzaam Saadiq Shoofaani

No other names arrived.  The rest are believed to be non-Syrian.

Khaan Shaykhoon:  Contested town on the verge of falling to SAA.  On the 6th of February, the SAA killed an estimated 9 Nusra rats and wounded scores.  It is believed that all medicines in areas controlled by the terrorists have been spent.

Abu Dhuhoor Airbase:  The rats have given up trying to overrun this base.  They remain, however, in pockets around it and have planted mines.  The SAA has to be careful moving around the perimeter.

Fighting heavy in all these areas:  Qumaynaas, Sikeek Village east of Khaan Shaykhoon, Al-Tamaani’ah, Al-Baarra, Madaayaa, Sarja, Tal Tooqaan, Jarjanaaz, Kafr Laataa, Al-Shaykh Yusuf, Al-Nayrab Village, Tal Salmu, Al-Majaass, Umm Jareen, Al-Shughur, Qastoon, Zayzoon


The European Unity against Russia Has Its Limits

Adelina Marini

What could be heard very often last week after the extraordinary foreign affairs council of the EU was “unity”. However, under the surface it becomes clear that this unity has limits. At the extraordinary meeting of the EU foreign ministers, called on the occasion of the deteriorating situation in eastern Ukraine and more specifically the rocket attacks in Mariupol, it was possible to see very clearly where the border of unity in EU lies. That border has been revealed with the different interpretation of the European Council conclusions from March last year regarding what could trigger new sanctions against Russia. The foreign affairs council from 29 January, although not saying much in its conclusions, in fact says a lot about how difficult the task to reach unanimity among the 28 member states is for common actions against Putin’s aggression.

Last year, after Russia annexed the Ukrainian peninsula Crimea, the leaders of the member states agreed during their spring summit that “any further steps by the Russian Federation to destabilise the situation in Ukraine would lead to additional and far reaching consequences for relations in a broad range of economic areas between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other hand”. Since then, there were two serious cases that could have been interpreted as “further steps” to destabilise by Russia. Those are the gunning down of flight MH17 over Ukraine in the summer and the rocket attacks in Mariupol in January.

The gunning down of MH17, which killed almost 200 people, failed to lead to expansion of the range of the economic sanctions against Russia but only to the inclusion of new persons to the EU black list. The attacks in Mariupol, in which tens of civilians died, also seems unable to achieve this. From the statement of the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Federica Mogherini after the end of the several-hour long meeting on 29 January it becomes clear that the meeting was demanded by several member states in agreement with European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, “to not only assess the situation on the ground that is extremely worrying and negative, but also to decide on our reaction to that. And on the further steps to be taken at the European Union level”, said Italy’s former top diplomat.

The outcome of the meeting, however, reveals how strong the division in the EU is in terms of the perception of Russia and its actions. To some it is an aggressor, to others it is simply a trade partner who has gone crazy for a bit and a third group prefer to stay neutral. Against the background of the emotional statements about a really strong consensus and constructivism, the product of the meeting shows quite the opposite. The consensus is lacking and that is why the difficult decision for further measures is left for later. The Council strongly condemns, as all the previous times, the developments in eastern Ukraine and in order not to seem that it has no teeth the council decided to extend the agreed in March last year economic sanctions with another six months. In addition, the ministers agreed at their next meeting on 9 February to approve an updated ban list.

The reason is that to some the attacks in Mariupol are a sufficient reason to expand the range of sanctions, while to others it is not. Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius, who usually speaks the strongest and the clearest on the issue, said that the developments in Mariupol are exactly the case that represents further steps to destabilise the situation. He went even further asking “how many people have to die before we all say Je suis Ukrainian?”. UK’s state minister for Foreign Office David Lidington shares the same opinion. “The loss of life that we saw in Mariupol was the worst loss of life, with the single exception of MH17, that we have seen throughout this conflict”, he said and added: “It is the EU duty to prepare options for the future including, I think it’s now necessary, the possibility of further restrictive measures”.

However, Italy’s Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni did not at all share that opinion. He said before the meeting that the ministers should not haste with new sanctions and after the meeting, at a briefing for the Italian journalists in Brussels he added that Italy defended the position that it is too early to undertake new sanctions in other economic sectors. According to him, a justification for new sanctions could be a direct Russian military interference in Ukraine, not just indirect. The news about the lack of unity among the 28 foreign minsters was practically stolen by Greece which dominated the media attention before and after the meeting because of the first reaction of the new Greek government against the EU statement about the attacks in Mariupol. The reason was that the EU did not request the agreement of the new government in advance. Greece has always had good relations with Russia but after the convincing victory of the far left party SYRIZA, the fears that Russia will have another Trojan horse in the EU have grown. After the passions subsided, it became clear that Greece is neither the biggest problem for the European unity toward Russia nor is it the only one.

Bulgaria wants to make an omelette without breaking the eggs

The extraordinary council of the EU foreign ministers confirmed that the current government of Bulgaria is strongly pro-European. A well informed source from the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs told euinside that Bulgaria will support new sanctions against Russia if it comes to that in order not to destroy the consensus. Bulgaria is one of the most vulnerable member states. This is one of the reasons why it sends mixed signals. It both wants to be pro-European, which means to defend common European positions, but on the other hand Prime Minister Boyko Borissov said many times that the country is very dependent economically on Russia. At the December EU summit he said that he does not view Russia as a strategic problem and explained that Bulgaria is suffering from the economic sanctions much more than Russia itself.

But Bulgaria is one of the countries that support the establishment of a European medium in Russian which is to “correct” the Kremlin misinformation and propaganda. This has emerged another issue which failed to gather sufficient unity among the ministers. The idea of the foreign ministers of Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and UK to undertake a decisive response to the Russian propaganda is welcomed coldly but it is a good sign that there is a consensus to work on “improving the strategic communication”. At their extraordinary meeting, the ministers have given a mandate to highrep Mogherini to work together with the European institutions and the member states on the creation of a special team for the new strategic communication. The main task of this team will be “proactive communication of EU policies, correcting misinformation when it appears, and support for the further development of independent media throughout the region”.

There is no doubt that the very fact that there is a consensus to work in this direction is a good news. The problem is, however, what will be the final result. Italy’s Foreign Minister Gentiloni said quite directly that the Russian media have influence only on a minority of countries. I understand the sensitivity of the Baltic states, he said, but in Italy the Russian propaganda is not a big threat. It is, however, a problem not only for the Baltic states but for the entire eastern periphery of the EU and for the countries in the post-Soviet space. Russia will dominate the EU summit on 12 February. Moscow has already signalled that new sanctions on behalf of the EU would be a mistake which is a direct threat that Russia will retaliate.

It is worth noting, however, that the most vulnerable countries are the most unanimous that Russia must be stopped even if the price is severe economic consequences. It has to be clear, though, that when you have a dictator against you it is hard to talk about right decisions. Whatever you do or not do could have heavy consequences. But it is important the EU not to betray its values and purpose which sometimes cost dearly. But after all, it is easy to stick to your values in peaceful times. The big test is to defend them in turbulent periods.

Posted in Europe1 Comment

Christians Have Been Duped by Zionists



Christian Zionism has led millions of so-called Christians to support war rather than peace, and the merciless killings of millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine.

What a horrendous perversion of the Gospel of Love! How can people who claim to follow Christ be so misled?! Because they have been fooled into believing the Bible teaches something it does not teach: Christian support of Israel. Israel is, in fact: antichrist, because Israel denies both the Father and the Son: “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22).

by A.J. Macdonald Jr. 

The 100 Year-Old Duping of American Evangelical Christianity – Christian Zionism
Walk into any Christian bookstore in America and you will see how virtually everyone who calls themselves a follower of Jesus Christ in this nation has been tricked into believing a false theology, which leads them to believe, erroneously, that the Bible commands them to support the Jewish nation of Israel.

The driving force behind this error was the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible, which was the first Bible printed by Oxford University Press that included theological reference notes that guide the reader as to how to “properly” understand, or interpret, the biblical text.


It’s no coincidence that the rise of Zionism, that is: the impulse of the Jews to seek a homeland for themselves, began not long before the Scofield Reference Bible was published. In the late 1800’s, England is where Zionism first found political support. England was already awash with the erroneous “Christian” doctrine of British-Israelism, wherein the British Christians were taught that they were one of the lost tribes of Israel; therefore they should support the Zionist Jews venture to create a Jewish state: Israel.

With the advent of World War I, England began the push to create a Zionist homeland for the Jews in Palestine. This served two functions: it would ensure safe passage through the Suez Canal and trade with India; and it would placate the Zionist Jews and the British Christians who, due to British-Israelism, had been fooled into thinking they should support Zionist Jews in obedience to God and the Bible.

Fast forward 100 years and we find that American Evangelical Christians have, long ago, been fooled into believing they should support Jewish Zionism, because they mistakenly believe the Bible teaches this, and that God will curse them and America if they/we don’t. Thus we have never-ending support from the American Evangelical Christian Right for endless wars on behalf of Israel.

This duping of American Evangelical Christians is mostly due to the fact that the Scofield Reference Bible and its footnotes, which explains the biblical text in a way that convinces its unsuspecting readers to support Zionist Jews. Its complimentary theology: Dispensationalism, has been instrumental in influencing American Evangelical Christians to support Israel, because the theology of Dispensationalism has been pervasive throughout virtually every American Evangelical Bible school and theological seminary for the past 100 years.



This erroneous doctrine, Dispensationalism, has resulted in the Judaizing of American Evangelical Christianity and has been successful in converting Evangelical Christian Americans into Christian Zionists, who are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ, the New Testament, or traditional orthodox Christianity at all. In fact, these millions of well-meaning people have adopted a false theology, based upon a twisting of and a re-interpretation of the Scriptures and have become a part of America’s largest and most influential non-Christian, even anti-Christian, cult: Judeo-Christianity.

“Judeo-Christianity is less than 200 years old. The Jewish Zionism movement has played the key part in assuring its growth.  We see the result in the creation of a new “Christianity” which in its extreme form is known as Christian Zionism. It was first fed by Oxford University Press’s Scofield Reference Bible published in New York in 1908, and updated several times. Bible editors, including Oxford, have failed to correct obvious changes in common usage of words, such as “Jew” and “Israel” that provide misleading, Zionist friendly inferences.”

“Oxford sold a new 20th Century theology to evangelical seminaries.  The Scofield usage has become a standard in most study or reference Bibles used by a wide range of evangelicals, and even penetrating into mainline church bible studies and broadcast media.  These books are the subject of many articles by this author and others.” (See: Source:

It should not come as a surprise to any Bible-believing Christian that false teachings and false teachers will use the Bible to convince well-meaning believers to believe a lie rather than the truth, because the Bible itself, through St. Paul, warns us of this danger:

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.” (1 Cor. 11:13-15).


Judaized Christians, or Christian Zionists, are fond of turning the discipline of Bible study on its head by allowing the Old Testament to interpret and to clarify the New Testament when, in fact, the proper method of Christian Bible study is to do the opposite: allow the New Testament to shed light on and interpret the Old Testament. Thus these “Christians”, rather than following the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, which is found in the New Testament, will force the words of Christ and the Christian New Testament to comply with the Old Testament, especially regarding Israel.

Whereas Jesus himself cursed Israel and proclaimed its soon abandonment by God, in Matthew 23, especially verse 38, as well as its destruction at the hands of the Roman armies (see Luke 21:20) within the lifetimes of those who heard his words (see Matt. 24:34), Judaized Christians, or Christian Zionists will appeal to the teachings of the Old Testament, especially Genesis 12:3, in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ found in the New Testament, and they will insist that all Christians must support and bless Israel in order to be faithful to God and the Bible. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

This theological and hermeneutical error has led millions of so-called Christians to support war rather than peace, and the merciless killings of millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Rather than being peacemakers, as Christ commanded his followers to be (see Matt. 5: 9) these  Christian Zionists have, instead, adopted the Old Testament principle of waging war upon the enemies of Israel, at America’s expense (e.g., lives, broken bodies, and tax monies).

Those who claim to be Christians but who do not follow Christ in love lie and do not have the truth: “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.” (1 John 2: 3-6).
Don writesThe Incredible Scofield and His Book by Joseph M. Canfield (1988) provides a thoroughly documented account of how Zionist banksters sponsored a wolf in shepherd’s clothing to deceive the evangelical church. Scofield’s distortions of scripture have been exposed and corrected by Robert Van Kampen, Marvin Rosenthal, H. L. Nigro, Joseph Lenard and Donald Zoller, and many others. But truth is suppressed when the big money, power and prestige goes to those who repeat lies.


Christians: Zionism’s Useful Idiots 
How Gullible Christians Became Zionists 

First Comment from Jim Perloff:

It’s bad enough that many mainstream denominations have adopted Rockefeller-financed Modernism (rejecting the authority of their own Bible, rejecting the divinity & miracles of Jesus, going pro-gay/abortion, etc).  If one is fortunate enough to find a church that is still theologically conservative, even most of THESE have been duped into embracing the “Christian Zionism” which Mr. MacDonald so accurately describes.

I have found that a good many 9-11 Truthers reject Christianity. One reason is the Pavlovian flag-waving of Christian pastors who throw their support behind war after war that is slaughtering the people of the Middle East. These pastors have abandoned the love of Christ for a revived book of Joshua, believing it is their “Christian duty” to support the Zionists’ bloody conquest of Palestine. They IGNORE that Zionism was financed by the Rothschilds (who also financed Communism, which exterminated Christians by the million). They IGNORE that most calling themselves Jews today are descended from Khazaria, NOT Abraham, and have no conceivable “Biblical” claim to the land whatsoever.

Jesus Christ said he came to tell us TRUTH.  The church should therefore be in the forefront of the Truth Movement. Instead it has swallowed a cyanide pill of lies, committing suicide as it cuts off any hope of meaningful dialogue with both Truthers and Muslims worldwide.

Cyrus Scofield was a member of New York’s exclusive Lotos Club, where he met Samuel Untermeyer and other powerful Zionists. They financed his trips to England, where Oxford University Press agreed IN ADVANCE to publish his proposed Bible, which he spent months working on in Switzerland – an unlikely place to research a Bible commentary, but long the nerve center of Masonic, banking and revolutionary activity.  An excellent reference on Scofield is Joseph Canfield’s THE INCREDIBLE SCOFIELD AND HIS BOOK.
– See more at:

Posted in ZIO-NAZI1 Comment

Book: “Race Traitor” Proves Governments Sponsor Terror



From 1988-1994  Canadian taxpayers unwittingly funded a terrorist group.

The neo Nazi “Heritage Front” was financed by the Canadian Security
and Intelligence Service (CSIS) and led by its agent, Grant Bristow.

It was brought down by a gutsy 18-year-old street waif, Elisa Hategan.
“Race Traitor” is her story. The Canadian government and
Canadian publishers don’t want you to hear it.

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

“Race Traitor” was the epithet thrown at Elisa Hategan,18, by her former Nazi friends after she defected from the Heritage Front and testified against its leaders. 

When Elisa was 16, she joined the group and was quickly recognized for her writing and speaking talents. A Romanian immigrant with an abusive mother, the poverty stricken Toronto street kid found a surrogate family in the motley group of neo Nazis.

She was trusted by its leader Grant Bristow and friends like Ernst Zundel to perform a variety of confidential tasks. But when Bristow launched a terrorist campaign against anti racist activists, ranging from psychological harassment (eg. telling employers and landlords they are pedophiles) to vicious beatings, kidnappings and rapes, Elisa defected to the other side. Her testimony was instrumental in putting some leaders (not Bristow) in jail and in later disbanding the group. 

hf.PNGWith more than 2000 members, the Heritage Front was a potent subversive organization responsible for vicious beatings, arson and bombings. Its members dressed in the popular skinhead costume, accumulated an arsenal of illegal weapons and planned for a Day of Reckoning when all “race traitors” would have their throats slit. Their inspiration was Hitler’s takeover of Germany. 

Toronto in the early 90’s began to resemble Berlin in the 1920’s with street battles between neo-Nazi skinheads and their anti racist opponents.

Toronto police actually collaborated with the Heritage Front. The head of the “hate crimes” unit met with a Heritage Front leader to identify anti racist activists from pictures. Some cops were Heritage Front members.

The Heritage Front also infiltrated and provided security for the Canadian Reform Party, the forerunner of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party. Its leader at the time, Preston Manning has since spoken out against this government operation.


When Hategan and her anti-racist supporters provided enough information to arrest Heritage Front leaders and members, the police mysteriously refused to act. After testifying, Hategan went underground but she was stalked by a power far more capable than Bristow, a former strip club comedian turned private detective.

In 1994, Toronto Sun reporter Bill Dunphy revealed that Bristow was a CSIS agent, and that the Heritage Front was a CSIS operation known as “Governor.” 

Since Bristow was not responsible for a single arrest, one can only speculate on the purpose of this operation. Governments initiate 90% of terrorism. It’s a pretext for a police state apparatus. It promotes fear and division, prerequisites for control. ISIS is a bogeyman like the Heritage Front was.

The Canadian government has stonewalled inquiries into its sponsorship of the Heritage Front. Grant Bristow has been given a new identity and a large pay-off and pension. Canadian Jewish organizations have honored him for his work! 


(left, SIRC, the government committee that oversees CSIS whitewashed the operation.)

Meanwhile Elisa Hategan struggled not just for subsistence, but to be heard. She self-published Race Traitor in 2014 but Canadian publishers, like their police counterparts, won’t touch the story. It implicates the federal government in all terrorist activities.  

Race Traitor is gripping and poignant testimony to the resistance of the human spirit to tyranny.
Elisa Hategan should have been honored and rewarded. Instead she has been marginalized. Her treatment proves that the political, economic and cultural elite constitutes a colonial administration.

They don’t represent the people. They represent the Masonic Jewish (Illuminati) central banking cartel and its agenda for world government tyranny.
. – See more at:

Posted in Canada, LiteratureComments Off on Book: “Race Traitor” Proves Governments Sponsor Terror




الجيش يبدأ عملياته بشرق البلاد.. ونداءات استغاثة لإرهابيي داعش في الحسكة

During the last 48 hours SyrPer has confirmed the total delousing of these areas in Al-Hasaka Province. Estimated number of ISIS vultures killed is not at 120+:

Radd Shaqra




Abu Sa’ad Farms

Al-Watwaatiyya (There’s bats in their belfries)


Jammu Farms

East Baab Al-Khayr South of the city 20kms

Tal Hamees (A formerly important HQ for ISIS now under total artillery control south of Qaamishly)



Al-Asadiyya Dam on the Euphrates:  The SAAF annihilated a convoy of trucks killing over 20 rodents from ISIS. No other details.

Al-Badraan Village:  South of the city by about 20kms, the SAA vaporized 6 vehicles driven by ISIS rodents and killed an undisclosed number of their rats.

Be advised, the campaign to liberate the east of the country is in full swing.  To Hell with all the Western corporate gangster and Zionist media. It has started. 

DAMASCUS:  Johny sent us this photo showing the capture of a disgusting grub leader of Nusra at Zabadaani:




A Solomon Decision by the ICJ on Croatia and Serbia Genocide Claims

Adelina Marini

The UN International Court of Justice in the Hague has closed a 15-year old page of the post-Yugoslav history with a Solomon-type of a decision. According to the legend, two women asked King Solomon to resolve their dispute over who is the real mother of the baby. The king suggested that they split the child in two with a sword. One of the women said, however, that she would rather give up on the child than let it be killed and then Solomon ruled that she is the real mother and should take the child. Something like that happened with the mutual accusations between Croatia and Serbia. Croatia is accusing the predecessor of Serbia – the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) – of genocide perpetrated during the war on Croatia’s independence from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) in the period 1991-1995. During that period SFRY and its successor FRY occupied one third of Croatia’s territory. Now the question is which “mother” will admit that it had committed crimes and will apologise for the sake of the bright European future.

Croatia filed an application to the International Court of Justice in the Hague in 1999 against Serbia accusing the country of genocide perpetrated by the FRY in the period 1991-1995. In 2010, Serbia filed a counter application accusing Croatia of genocide perpetrated during the “Storm” operation in August 1995. An operation the aim of which was to liberate the occupied territories. After almost two-hour long readout of the court ruling in the Hague the court established that the two parties do not have legal grounds to claim that a genocide was committed. The court gives five criteria for genocide: 1. killing of the members of an ethnic, national, racial or religious group; 2. inflicting serious bodily or mental harm on the members of the group; 3. deliberately causing such life conditions for the group with the aim its physical partial or overall destruction; 4. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

According to the court Croatia’s claim and Serbia’s counter claim lacks a firm intention for genocide. The court establishes that the committed crimes can be described as genocide according to the first two criteria (killing of members of the group and inflicting serious bodily or mental harm), but is not persuaded that these actions were genocide according to criteria 3 and 4. In this way, the court is practically equally sharing the blame between the two countries, calling in the meantime on them to cooperate for the finding of the people who disappeared during the conflict.

Equal sentences, parallel universes

The first reactions in Belgrade and Zagreb were very modest but entirely opposite. In Serbia, the reactions were of a victory and “triumph of justice”. According to President Tomislav Nikolic, the sentence has a huge significance for Serbia and the Serbian people because it changed the stereotypes of the international community about the events that unfolded on the territory of former Yugoslavia. It is curious that he made this statement in the company of the leader of the Bosnian Serbs Milorad Dodik who pointed out that the feeling of the Serbs that a crime was perpetrated against them will remain. “Not to mention the facts from the Second World War”, the President of Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina added. The Serbian Justice Minister Nikola Selakovic was happy with the ruling because it shows that Serbs left Croatia as a result of military action (operation Storm). This operation was aimed at expelling the Krajina Serbs from their territory, Selakovic said and called on Croatia to treat them too as displaced.

In Zagreb, the reactions were of disappointment. Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic said the ruling was disappointing but that Croatia would respect it in a civilised way. The outgoing President Ivo Josipovic, who in 1999 was part of the team that prepared the application to the ICJ, also expressed regret but underscored that, still, the sentence firmly rejects the thesis that Croatia intended to perpetrate genocide during operation Storm. He added that the sentence reveals that during this operation were committed crimes by the Croatian side which could have been prevented. Hissuccessor Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, although not satisfied, reacted much more modestly than during the election campaign. She reiterated that she would focus her efforts as president on resolving the issue with the disappeared persons and the return of the Croatian cultural valuables and promised she will work all countries from South-Eastern Europe to adopt the European values and future.

Croatia’s Minister of Justice Orsat Miljenic said that the crimes committed by Serbia must be persecuted at the highest level. It is not only Milosevic and the others who are currently being prosecuted. There are many others. In addition, these crimes have to be condemned at the highest possible level. Serbia must continue to consistently persecute the perpetrators of war crimes. His Serbian counterpart said Serbia would do that but called on Croatia to do the same. Boris Tadic, ex-president of Serbia, told Croatian Nova TV that Serbia and Croatia would make a big mistake if they continued with the mutual accusations. However, he is also of the opinion that forgiveness must be sought for the past at the highest level. He himself is the first Serbian president who apologised for the war and visited, as president, one of the places Croatia claims genocide was committed – Ovcari. Mr Tadic called on Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic and Tomislav Nikolic to continue the policy of reconciliation initiated by himself and Ivo Josipovic.

Naturally, the ruling is a ruling and everyone are unanimous that it needs to be respected. This is encouraging and gives hope that the two parties will finally turn their backs to the past and will face the future. In precisely this direction are the first reactions by western European politicians. However, this ruling cannot be viewed for itself but should be put in a context because it will not have any legal consequences but it could have political impact. Several are the areas where it could have political impact. First of all, thus articulated, it removes or at least reduces Serbia’s responsibility for the war. Secondly, this ruling raises the question if it is at all possible to get justice for war crimes, especially when the perpetrators or those who support them are aware how broad for interpretations the international law is. Third, this ruling could have a fuelling effect on nationalistic sentiments in both countries but especially in Croatia. It could also have an impact on the relations in the entire region of the Western Balkans.

Without condemnation of the sick past there cannot be a healthy future

On the first aspect, it is important to take into account that at the time the ruling is pronounced Serbia is ruled by people who directly or indirectly participated in the events in the beginning of the 1990s. President Tomislav Nikolic was a member of the People’s Radical Party during the war on the breakup of former Yugoslavia. He is one of the founders of the Serbian Radical Party together with Vojislav Seselj, who is accused by the International Crimes Tribunal for former Yugoslavia of war crimes but has recently been released for health reasons. Nikolic denied two years ago that a genocide was committed in Srebrenica. He also said that Vukovar was a Serbian city. This severely tightened the relations between Zagreb and Belgrade. Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic was for a long time a secretary general of the Serbian Radical Party and a member of parliament. He was also a minster of information under Milosevic. According to available information, during his term as minster of information huge fines were imposed on journalists who were against the Milosevic’s regime. During that period he was on the EU black list of people who were banned to enter the Union.

Aleksandar Vucic still has problems with the media, as because of their freedom he even clashedwith the EU. During a debate in the foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament on Serbia’s progress report, MEP Tanja Fajon (Slovenia, S&D) said that the media situation in Serbia looked very much like the one during Milosevic. Vucic’s first deputy and Minister of Foreign Affairs Ivica Dacic was a spokesman of the Socialist Party, led by Milosevic, in the period 1990-2000. Dacic is the only one from the current government of Serbia who apologised for crimes committed during the war, although partially. More specifically, he apologised last year for the bombing of Dubrovnik which is under the cultural protection of UNESCO.

But the three have refused to comment on the militaristic and xenophobic statements by Seselj or to condemn the former regime they were part of. The position of Vucic’s government is that those are things from the past that should be buried. It is important to look ahead. We know well, though, that when you look ahead without making a proper analysis of the past and without admitting the sins it is impossible to build a healthy society. An example for this is Russia where we see the return of some models we thought have been rejected with the fall of the Wall and have long been abandoned. Vladimir Putin not only never condemned the USSR crimes but he even regretted the breakup of the Soviet empire.

His actions in Ukraine today, are very similar to what led to the wars in former Yugoslavia. And therefore, the ruling of the UN court could have a political impact on the way the conflict in Ukraine will unfold. At this stage, it is visible from President Putin’s actions that he is moving on the edge of law conducting a proxy war where it is very difficult to establish the facts and the perpetrators. The facts are, in their majority, oblique. If in the future there is a trial, it is very likely the ruling to be similar to that for Serbia and Croatia. It contains a very odd element. The international court refuses to review the crimes committed before 27 April 1992 when the FRY was legally established and when the FRY inherited from SFRY the convention on preventing genocide. According to the ruling, Croatia’s genocide claim is inadmissible because FRY cannot be held accountable for something that happened before it was established as a state. And the period before 1992 covers some of the cruelest crimes in Ovcari, Vukovar, etc. This creates a freeling that the crimes committed then will remain unpunished.

The possibility the sentence to fuel the newly awaken nationalistic sentiments in Croatia should also not be ruled out as well. This, for its part, could have an impact on the policy of Croatia toward Serbia’s accession process and that affects the EU as a whole because the Union wants Serbia to remain in the Euro-Atlantic orbit. The task is getting harder with the deepening of the conflict in Ukraine because Serbia is a strong ally of Russia. Croatia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Vesna Pusic reiterated yesterday that no additional conditions will be put forward to Serbia. The country has to go through the same demanding process as Croatia did, she added. But it is not clear whether this position will remain unchanged if in the end of the year the Croats elect a government led by Tomislav Karamarko’s Croatian democratic Union which in the past two years has significantly hardened the rhetorics and has worked to arouse nationalistic feelings among the Croats.

In the EU, there are already strong voices against a single member state using its veto right as a leverage to resolve old bilateral issues. Nevertheless, the practise is still going on. The most vivid example that affects the region is Greece’s veto against the start of accession negotiations with Macedonia. Bulgaria, too, in the past years significantly changed its position and is now putting a condition on Macedonia to sign a friendship agreement. Taking into account the example of Macedonia, it can be assumed that a possible blockade of Serbia’s accession could lead to much harder consequences because this is the biggest country in the region and has a very strong and aggressive ally behind its back – Russia – which, moreover, has already pronounced the Balkans as its influence

zone. It is important to again note the fact that Serbia’s President Tomislav Nikolic commented on the ICJ ruling in the presence of the leader of the Bosnian Serbs Milorad Dodik.

The fact that he hinted also about the crimes from World War II fall entirely in the framework of the policy the Kremlin is pursuing – to point a finger at the Nazis for their crimes. In this sense, it was very telling that Serbia invited President Putin to attend the celebrations of the liberation of Belgrade from the Nazis. The EU is facing a tough challenge to both keep Serbia in its influence zone and to avoid this being for the sake of the Union’s fundamental values. This is important because the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 for ensuring the peace on the continent. But peace was possible thanks to the duly condemned crimes during the First and the Second World wars. So, Serbia should be aware that there is no way to join the Union without condemning the crimes it committed not only those it suffered from.

The ruling of the court in the Hague leaves sufficient ground for interpretations which is rather a bad news than a politically correct neutrality aimed at boosting the reconciliation process. In this way, the crimes are left to the conscience of the political elites at the moment or in the future in the region but also in the EU which was a direct observer of the events in the beginning of the 1990s and a participant in finding a peaceful solution. So, apart from insisting all countries in the region to persecute the war crimes, the EU should also demand from the political elites to condemn the crimes of the former regimes.

Posted in EuropeComments Off on A Solomon Decision by the ICJ on Croatia and Serbia Genocide Claims

Why I$raHell-Palestinian Peace Failed


TEL AVIV — I sat down with Tzipi Livni, Israel’s lead negotiator with the Palestinians during months of talks that collapsed last April, to get a sense of how she viewed that failure and to take Israel’s pulse in the run-up to the March election. She wanted to make one thing clear on the difference between her and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud Party:

“Written on my wall is: Jewish Democratic State, two states for two peoples,” she said. “Written on Likud’s wall is: Jewish State, Greater Israel.”

Livni heads a small centrist party called Hatnua that has allied with Labor to confront Netanyahu. (Under Livni’s alliance with Labor’s leader, Isaac Herzog, the post of prime minister would rotate between them every two years if they are elected.)

She uses the phrase “Greater Israel” to refer to all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. As she negotiated between July 2013 and the acrimonious end to the talks, Jewish settlement growth continued — a major irritant to Palestinians and a reflection of Netanyahu’s dependence on the extreme nationalist camp. When Palestinians see settlements growing, they wonder where their state is supposed to go.

I asked Livni if she would be prepared to freeze settlement growth in the event of any renewed negotiations, a distant prospect. She said she would, at least outside major blocs, because she did not believe settlement expansion served the goal of two states for two peoples.

Her frustration at the breakdown of negotiations was still evident. As always, each side has blamed the other. American officials have suggested that in the end neither side wanted an accord enough to make the sacrifices required. Livni acknowledged that dealing with Netanyahu on the talks had always been difficult, but from her perspective the Palestinians caused their failure at a critical moment.

On March 17, in a meeting in Washington, President Obama presented Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, with a long-awaited American framework for an agreement that set out the administration’s views on major issues, including borders, security, settlements, Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem.

Livni considered it a fair framework, and Netanyahu had indicated willingness to proceed on the basis of it while saying he had reservations. But Abbas declined to give an answer in what his senior negotiator, Saeb Erekat, later described as a “difficult” meeting with Obama. Abbas remained evasive on the framework, which was never made public.

This, in Livni’s view, amounted to an important opportunity missed by the Palestinians, not least because to get Netanyahu’s acceptance of a negotiation on the basis of the 1967 borders with agreed-upon swaps — an idea Obama embraced in 2011 — would have indicated a major shift.

Still, prodded by Secretary of State John Kerry, talks went on. On April 1, things had advanced far enough for the Israeli government to prepare a draft statement saying that a last tranche of several hundred Palestinian prisoners would be released; the United States would free Jonathan Pollard, an American convicted of spying for Israel more than 25 years ago; and the negotiations would continue beyond the April 29 deadline with a slowdown or freeze of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Then, Livni said, she looked up at a television as she awaited a cabinet meeting and saw Abbas signing letters as part of a process to join 15 international agencies — something he had said he would not do before the deadline.

She called Erekat and told him to stop the Palestinian move. He texted her the next day to say he couldn’t. They met on April 3. Livni asked why Abbas had done it. Erekat said the Palestinians thought Israel was stalling. A top Livni aide, Tal Becker, wrote a single word on a piece of paper and pushed it across the table to her: “Tragedy.”

No Palestinian prisoner release; no freeing of Pollard; no hold on settlement growth. But, in Livni’s account, it might easily have been otherwise.

Talks limped on around the idea of a settlement freeze and other confidence-building measures. Then, on April 23, a reconciliation was announced between Hamas and Abbas’s Fatah — something since proved empty. That, for Netanyahu and Livni, was the end: They were not prepared to engage, even indirectly, with Hamas. A long season of negotiation gave way to recrimination and, soon enough, the Gaza war, with nearly 2,200 Palestinians dead and about 70 Israelis.

Livni met Abbas in London on May 15. “I said to him, the choice is not between everything and nothing. And your choice in the end was to get nothing.”

Abbas is now pursuing a policy of gaining international support for the cause of a Palestinian state in the United Nations and elsewhere as leverage against Israel, but although this policy may deliver moral satisfaction it shows no sign of delivering statehood.

Another opportunity in the Holy Land has been lost. The waste is unconscionable, tragedy indeed.

Livni said: “For me, any day that goes by without a solution is another lost day. For those believing in the idea of Greater Israel another day that passes without an agreement is another day of victory and taking more land.”


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Why I$raHell-Palestinian Peace Failed

Naziyahu finally speaks his mind


Benjamin Naziyahu

At his Friday press conference, the prime minister ruled out full Palestinian sovereignty, derided the US approach to Israeli security, and set out his Middle East overview with unprecedented candor. His remarks were not widely reported; they should be

These are fundamental questions — questions you’d think Israelis and the watching world would long since have been able to answer, especially given that Netanyahu is Israel’s second-longest serving prime minister ever. In fact, though, while many pundits claim to have definitive answers, most Israelis would acknowledge that they’ve never been entirely sure how Netanyahu sees a potential resolution of the Palestinian conflict, which concessions he’s truly ready to make, what his long-term vision looks like.

But now we know.

The uncertainties were swept aside on Friday afternoon, when the prime minister, for the first time in ages, gave a press conference on Day Four of Operation Protective Edge.

He spoke only in Hebrew, and we are in the middle of a mini-war, so his non-directly war-related remarks didn’t get widely reported. But those remarks should not be overlooked even in the midst of a bitter conflict with Gaza’s Islamist rulers; especially in the midst of a bitter conflict with Gaza’s Islamist rulers. The prime minister spoke his mind as rarely, if ever, before. He set out his worldview with the confidence of a leader who sees vindication in the chaos all around. He answered those fundamental questions.

Netanyahu began his appearance, typically, by reading some prepared remarks. But then, most atypically, he took a series of questions. And while he initially stuck to responses tied to the war against Hamas, its goals, and the terms under which it might be halted, he then moved — unasked — into territory he does not usually chart in public, and certainly not with such candor.

For some, his overall outlook will seem bleak and depressing; for others, savvy and pragmatic. One thing’s for sure: Nobody will ever be able to claim in the future that he didn’t tell us what he really thinks.

He made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. He indicated that he sees Israel standing almost alone on the frontlines against vicious Islamic radicalism, while the rest of the as-yet free world does its best not to notice the march of extremism. And he more than intimated that he considers the current American, John Kerry-led diplomatic team to be, let’s be polite, naive.

Perhaps most reporters switched off after he’d delivered his headlines, making plain that “no international pressure will prevent us from acting with all force against a terrorist organization (Hamas) that seeks to destroy us,” and that Operation Protective Edge would go on until guaranteed calm was restored to Israel. If they did, they shouldn’t have.

Netanyahu has stressed often in the past that he doesn’t want Israel to become a binational state — implying that he favors some kind of accommodation with and separation from the Palestinians. But on Friday he made explicit that this could not extend to full Palestinian sovereignty. Why? Because, given the march of Islamic extremism across the Middle East, he said, Israel simply cannot afford to give up control over the territory immediately to its east, including the eastern border — that is, the border between Israel and Jordan, and the West Bank and Jordan.

The priority right now, Netanyahu stressed, was to “take care of Hamas.” But the wider lesson of the current escalation was that Israel had to ensure that “we don’t get another Gaza in Judea and Samaria.” Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

Earlier this spring, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sparked a storm in Israel-US ties when he told a private gathering that the US-Kerry-Allen security proposals weren’t worth the paper they were written on. Netanyahu on Friday said the same, and more, in public

Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. This is not merely demanding a demilitarized Palestine; it is insisting upon ongoing Israeli security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state. A less-than-sovereign entity? Maybe, though this will never satisfy the Palestinians or the international community. A fully sovereign Palestine? Out of the question.

He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He wassaying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance.

Naming both US Secretary of State John Kerry and his security adviser Gen. John Allen — who was charged by the secretary to draw up security proposals that the US argued could enable Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley — Netanyahu hammered home the point: Never mind what the naive outsiders recommend, “I told John Kerry and General Allen, the Americans’ expert, ‘We live here, I live here, I know what we need to ensure the security of Israel’s people.’”

Earlier this spring, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sparked a storm in Israel-US ties when he told a private gathering that the US-Kerry-Allen security proposals weren’t worth the paper they were written on. Netanyahu on Friday said the same, and more, in public.

Netanyahu didn’t say he was ruling out all territorial compromise, but he did go to some lengths to highlight the danger of relinquishing what he called “adjacent territory.” He scoffed at those many experts who have argued that holding onto territory for security purposes is less critical in the modern technological era, and argued by contrast that the closer your enemies are, physically, to your borders, the more they’ll try to tunnel under those borders and fire rockets over them.

It had been a mistake for Israel to withdraw from Gaza, he added — reminding us that he’d opposed the 2005 disengagement — because Hamas had since established a terrorist bunker in the Strip. And what Hamas had been doing in Gaza — tunneling into and rocketing at the enemy — would be replicated in the West Bank were Israel so foolish as to give the Islamists the opportunity.

“If we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria, like they tell us to,” he said bitterly — leaving it to us to fill in who the many and various foolish “theys” are — “there’d be a possibility of thousands of tunnels” being dug by terrorists to attack Israel, he said. There were 1,200 tunnels dug in the 14-kilometer border strip between Egypt and Gaza alone, he almost wailed, which Egypt had sealed. “At present we have a problem with the territory called Gaza,” the prime minister said. But the West Bank is 20 times the size of Gaza. Israel, he said flatly, was not prepared “to create another 20 Gazas” in the West Bank.

Beyond Israel’s direct current confrontation with Hamas, and the eternal Palestinian conflict, Netanyahu also addressed the rise of Islamic extremism across the Middle East — covering the incapacity of affected states to resist it, and Israel’s unique determination and capacity to stand firm. He said Israel finds itself in a region “that is being seized by Islamic extremism. It is bringing down countries, many countries. It is knocking on our door, in the north and south.”

But while other states were collapsing, said Netanyahu, Israel was not — because of the strength of its leadership, its army and its people. “We will defend ourselves on every front, defensively and offensively,” he vowed.

And in a passage that was primarily directed at Israel’s Islamist enemies, but might equally be internalized by those he plainly regards as Israel’s muddle-headed self-styled friends, he added: “Nobody should mess with us.”


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Naziyahu finally speaks his mind

Shoah’s pages


February 2015
« Jan   Mar »