Archive | October 20th, 2015

Towards a Third Intifada? Britain’s Support of I$raHell Atrocities Despite Electoral Disapproval


In little more than the last four weeks, 560 Palestinians have been arrested by Israel in the Occupied Teritories and within Israel.

The storming of Al-Aqsa mosque by police with cover provided by heavily armed military led to the mosque itself being damaged and subsequently closed to worshippers has only led to a further escalation of hostilities.

This is a serious escalation from the first six months of this year where Israeli occupation forces reportedly killed 1 Palestinian and wounded a further 41 in the Gaza Strip.

During January-June, there were eight recorded military incursions – when Israeli forces entered Gaza then withdraw having conducted 93 shooting attacks.

Israel’s illegal appropriation of land, aggression and apartheid regime leave the Palestinians with no security or rights. The consequence are that conditions have only got worse, which is spurring some Palestinian factions to make threats and resume attacks against Israeli targets in response.

On September 4, Labour MP Alex Cunningham asked “how many times the Israeli military have opened fire into Gaza since August 2014; and what steps his Department is taking to prevent future such incidents.”

Answering a week later, Tobias Ellwood, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, citing UN agency figures stated;

“We are aware of Israeli forces responding to illegal rocket fire from Gaza with 29 strikes since the 26 August 2014 Gaza ceasefire agreement. According to figures from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Israeli forces have opened fire into the Gaza Access Restricted Areas on land and sea on at least 696 occasions since then”.

However, these attacks are in addition to the 29 strikes Israel has conducted  on Gaza specifically in response to rocket fire. So the answer is – there have been 696 unprovoked attacks on Gaza in the last four weeks.

Ellwood added that British officials in Tel Aviv have

“raised our concerns over the Israel Defence Force’s use of live fire in Gaza with the Israeli Government. We are continuing to urge the parties to prioritise progress towards reaching a durable solution for Gaza.”

As TruePublica reported on the 9th September While The World Looks The Other Way – Israel Destroys Goat Herding Communities it appears that Israeli forces continue their attacks on peaceful farmers, fisherman and unarmed civilian protestors.

The continuing blockade of the sea and implementation of the ‘no-go’ buffer zone only make matters worse.

On September 17, Israeli forces permitted Palestinian farmers to access their land close to the border fence for the first time in 15 years. However, on September 21, Israeli forces crossed the fence again and bulldozed agricultural land.

Some analysts are brushing aside the language of a Third Intifada. Meanwhile, independent Palestinian MP Mustafa Barghouti believes the Third Intifada “has already begun”.

This increased wave of violence has both the Palestinians and Israelis preparing for what many now consider an inevitable start of a third Palestinian uprising against Israel’s continued occupation.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called last month on the international community to protect the holy Muslim and Christian sites in Jerusalem and to ensure freedom of worship as it had been until June 1967, especially with regard to prayer at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. His comments followed his warning to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s actions there could trigger a third intifada.

Senior Palestinian officials have said that the Palestinians have no expectation that the U.S. administration or international community will present a new peace plan of any sort.

You might even think Israel is provoking an Intifada as the end result in the past has been seen as somewhat successful. Under Ariel Sharon, Israel removed its fairly small population of Gaza settlers at the end of the second Intifada in 2005, only to step up its populating of the West Bank. The intervening decade seeing that number rocket from around 250,000 to more than 350,000, with another 300,000 in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem.

As Haaretz reported today – there is no easy solution to lone-wolf’ Palestinian attackers and would a deluge of raids and arrests really help when the ‘terrorist infrastructure’ consists of teenagers armed with kitchen knives?

It cannot help that Netanyahu, who was re-elected in March this year having been in office since 2009 had already declared his opposition to a binational state. He has done nothing to eliminate the threat from Palestinians with anything but continued aggression; he prefers to deal with the unrest as a “natural disaster that is out of his control”.

Meanwhile, Europe continues to stand back and do little to pressure both sides in any meaningful way to stop the carnage. Even though the European parliament voted in principle last December to recognise Palestinian statehood and the two state solution, as did individual countries such as France, Italy and Germany not much progress has been made.

In Britain, it was the same as the House of Commons voted 274-12 in favour of a motion that stands as an initial stage of UK recognition of a Palestinian state. That was back in November last year. As it turned out 108 MP’s have been identified as wholly supporting Israel’s actions in the past and presumably still do, including the Zionist PM David Cameron.

This meant was that over half of MP’s abstained from the vote, presumably because they were fearful of their constituents reaction had they voted against. Few would have sat on the fence on such a vote, therefore abstentions prevailed for no other reason than political self preservation.

Contrary to enormous public support in Britain of the Palestinian people and the unchallenged House of Commons vote, the Government has since quietly lifted all remaining restrictions on arms sales to Israel following a year-long review of 12 export licences for weaponry which it fully admitted was used in last year’s bombardment of Gaza.

This shameful act is supposed to support a ban of any sale of arms where there is a “clear risk” that they may be used to commit serious breaches of human rights. Back in July, Business Secretary Zionist Sajid Javid’s department said it was now satisfied that the licences meet the UK’s export criteria.

Just over a year ago, a YouGov poll revealed that nearly two thirds of the British public (62%) believed that the Israeli government had committed war crimes in their actions in the summer offensive of Gaza and another 26% thought the British government had done so. The wishes of the public are continually ignored by government – a government voted for by just 37% of the electorate.

Last years attack by Israel in Operation protective Edge left 2,310 Gazans dead and nearly 11,000 wounded, including 3,374 children, of whom over 1,000 were left permanently disabled. 66 Israeli soldiers, 5 Israeli civilians, including one child were killed. 469 IDF soldiers and 261 Israeli civilians were also injured.

Given the contribution of weapons and technology provided, Britain was complicit in an act of genocide. The fact that it was against the Palestinian people despite strong electoral support of their struggle, only demonstrates the self-serving interest of Britain’s politicians and their corporate paymasters, in this case, the weapons manufacturers and their lobbyists.

The 1987 and 2000 Intifadas claimed more than 5,000 Palestinian and Israeli lives, most of them civilians on both sides. It appears that Intifada number three is emerging.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Towards a Third Intifada? Britain’s Support of I$raHell Atrocities Despite Electoral Disapproval

Elections 2015. Voter Suppression in Canada


: Conversations with Lesley Hughes and Michael Keefer. Global Research News Hour Episode 117

Global Research

If for eight years this group has flouted other equally precious rules of the democratic game, aren’t we rash to assume that this same group will see a transparent, fair election as sacrosanct?…History and current events around the world – Nigeria, Turkey, Ukraine, the Phillipines – show many examples of leaders in weak or weakening democracies who were able to “coordinate” the civil bureaucracy with their cronies; they then tamper with the vote, and sully the outcome of elections.” -Naomi Wolf, from The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot [1]



Length (59:17)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

As this entry is being written, Canadians are on their way to the polls to register their choice to lead their country.

The current standing in the polls suggests that the Opposition Liberal Party under fledgling leader Justin Trudeau is poised to take power. [2]

However, polls have been known to be inaccurate. More to the point, polls do not account for the possibility of voters not making it to the polling station. Or other forms of electoral interference.

On the morning of October 19, Canada’s Election Day, reports are coming in of pre-marked ballots, delays and some confusion. [3]

During the advance polling period two weekends previous, several pre-marked ballots appeared with marks appearing next to the names of Conservative and Green Party candidates. When brought to the attention of Elections Canada, the ballots were listed as ‘spoiled’ and discarded.

If Canadians had chosen to vote with these ballots, would their vote have been discarded?

Elections Canada is on record as saying these marked ballots were a result of  ’printing errors’ and that no malfeasance was intended. But should Canadians receiving these ballots use them to vote with, will their ballots be discarded as ‘spoiled’?

Could these flawed ballots turn out to be the hanging chads of the 2015 Canadian election campaign?

This is all supposition at this point, but notable in light of documented electoral interference in previous election campaigns.

Michael Keefer is an Emeritus Professor of Literary Studies from the University of Guelph. He has been researching and analyzing electoral interference in the 2011 Canadian Federal election and in a multi-part essay posted at, he establishes that between telephone fraud and under-investigation by Elections Canada and the RCMP, a State Crime Against Democracy may well have taken place. Professor Keefer joined us in the second half hour to elaborate on what he has uncovered and implications for the state of democracy in Canada. 

A further concern with regard to the integrity of Canadian elections is the phenomenon of candidate ejection. A number of candidates have been ejected on the heels of problematic past statements emerging at late stages of the campaign. This is what happened to journalist, and columnist Lesley Hughes when she ran as a candidate in the 2008 election. She is the author of an upcoming memoir, The Naked Canadian: A Dead Candidate’s Report. In the first half hour of the program, Lesley Hughes shares her thoughts about how these candidate dismissals, in conjunction with the amplifying power of social media can ultimately serve to subvert democracy.



Length (59:17)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 


The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at .

The  show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CFUV 101. 9 FM in Victoria. Airing Sundays from 7-8am PT.

CHLY 101.7 FM in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario – Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the  North Shore to the US Border. It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.



  1. Naomi Wolf, 2007; p. 143, The End of America:Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot; Chelsea Green Publishing Company

Posted in CanadaComments Off on Elections 2015. Voter Suppression in Canada

Using Refugees: Angela Merkel’s “Turkish Gambit”

Global Research

The frontline in Europe’s refugee movement is shifting.  In some cases, there is more of the same: the Hungarian approach entailing closures, followed by a brief easing and more closures. Closing the border with Croatia saw an inevitable movement towards Slovenia, whose government has now announced restrictions of 2,500 people a day.

Now, the next stage of the refugee problem is coming to the fore: their use as bargaining chips on the European political stage.  While Germany cannot be blamed for trying to find some measure of easing the enormous numbers even as other states fudge their obligations, the “keep them away” approach had to come sooner or later. In the absence of any unified policy on refugees in Europe, it is each country to its selfish own.

Even German authorities are hardening in their approach, though it is not a stance favoured by the Merkel government.  Police union chief Rainer Wendt expressed his rather forward views in the Welt am Sonntagthat Germany should get busy building a fence along its border with Austria.  “I we close borders this way, Austria will also close its borders with Slovenia, and that’s exactly the effect we need.” State solidarity, in other words, in the face of refugee desperation.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s approach may well have resisted an approach closing borders – so far. Instead, in the face of considerable disquiet within her own ranks, she has hit upon another approach: keeping the problem closer to the source by bribing Turkey.

This, it would seem, is Ankara’s moment: a key figure in the European security stakes; an eager participant in talks gaining accession to the European Union; and a meddler in the Syrian conflict keen in removing the Assad regime.

Merkel’s suggestion is that Turkey’s integration into the EU can be speeded up, using refugee management as a bargaining chip.  “How can we organise the accession process more dynamically?” she posed at a press conference in Istanbul.  “Germany is ready to open chapter 17 this year, and to make preparations for [chapters] 23 and 24.  We can talk about the details.”

Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu is certainly keen on driving a hard bargain on this one, pressing for a resolution to the Syrian conflict even as EU talks are set to take place. On Sunday, he stressed the urgency of the talks, given another round of potential refugees stemming from Aleppo.  “It is our priority that steps will be taken to prevent an increase of refugees from Aleppo due to the offensive [there] by Iranian militia, Isis and Russian attacks.”  So far, Ankara’s insistence on a northern Syrian “safe zone” has not gotten serious traction.

There are other sweeteners layering the offer.  These, for Turkey, had to come, after the initial rejection coming from its foreign minister, Feridun Sinirlioğlu.  On Friday, the words were uncompromising on the scope and value of what was offered.  “There is a financial package proposed by the EU and we told them it is unacceptable.”[1]

The tune changed over the weekend, both in terms of the amount offered, and in various other structural adjustments to Turkey’s engagement with Europe.  Germany would be insisting on pushing for visa-free travel for Turkish nationals, bringing the timetable forward by a year to July 2016.  This argument on mobility is hardly surprising, given Turkey’s own efforts to reform its immigration system to bring it more into line with EU standards.

This has, according to the Migration Policy Institute, “limited Turkish authorities’ capacity to manage the Syrian inflows, and, as a result, management of the crisis was left largely in the hands of national organisations working on the ground, in camps, without larger policy guidance.”[2]

As Merkel revealed over the weekend,

“A working group between Turkey and Germany is carrying out talks on these matters and this group will convene again in the coming days.  We can facilitate some of these matters by holding bilateral talks.”[3]

The message from Ankara: expect us to keep refugees in tow, and maintain the current population – but at a substantial price.  Turkey has its own staggering refugee presence, with more than 2 million Syrian refugees costing in the order of $7.5bn since the crisis unfolded.  Much of this accrued because of a gamble, that the conflict in Syria would have been resolved over a matter of a few years.  Now, with its prolongation, the German offer here will entail $3.4 bn to assist footing the bill to keep the refugees put.

Andrew Garner, whose research portfolio at Amnesty International comprises Turkey, finds the whole talks unpalatable. “Talks between the EU and Turkey on ‘migration management’ risk putting the rights of refugees a distant second behind border control measures designed to prevent refugees from reaching the EU.”

The picture here remains, as it has been from the start, not one of rights but infringements, not one of duties to assist within international law covenants, but sovereign obligations to protect states from being swamped. And wealthy states bribing not so wealthy ones has become a stock-standard response that reduces refugee problems to matters of financial distribution and bean counting.




Posted in GermanyComments Off on Using Refugees: Angela Merkel’s “Turkish Gambit”

The tide is turning against Zionist extremism


These changing perceptions are the result of the rise of alternative forms of media, which have broken through the mainstream media’s imbalanced and inaccurate portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What the Zionist lobby fears most is free speech. (via Aljazeera)What the Zionist lobby fears most is free speech. (via Aljazeera)

by Mark LeVine

Poor Sheldon Adelson. Even fellow billionaire Haim Saban has had enough. So toxic has the self-described pro-Israel conservative become that Saban, a major supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,can no longer bring himself to deposit his millions with Adelson, even when the goal is to combat the latest mortal threat to Israel’s existence (or, rather, unchallenged legitimacy): the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

Sheldon Adelson is a Republican and Haim Sabbah is a Democrat.

Sheldon Adelson is a Republican and Haim Sabbah is a Democrat.

Saban had reportedly pledged support for Adelson’s $50 million effort to oppose the growing BDS movement against the Israeli occupation at U.S. universities. The movement’s focus on academic and cultural activities directly challenges Israel’s portrayal of itself as a modern, liberal democracy. It has thus touched a raw nerve across academia and U.S. politics and has led many university administrations to adopt strong stands against it as a way of demonstrating their support for academic freedom.

Saban won’t be donning a keffiyeh anytime soon, but it’s clear that the increasingly politically conservative mainstream American Jewish leadership bears closer resemblance to the current Republican presidential field than to the broad base of American Jewry, which remain among the most strongly liberal demographic groups in the country. American Jewish college students in particular tend to be progressive, which is why college campuses have become ground zero in the battle over Israel’s image.

The tide is turning against Zionist extremism.

The tide is turning against Zionist extremism.

For decades, the one issue that has been the exception to the broadly progressive streak within American Judaism has been Israel. The Jewish state has received unchallenged support by most Jews despite its decades-long occupation of the West Bank and the pursuit of policies toward Palestinians that, were they practiced by any other country, would be overwhelmingly opposed by American Jews.

This support has rested on three conditions. First, American Jews have seen Israel as under a constant and mortal threat by the surrounding Arab and Muslim world. The 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982 wars had to be successfully depicted as defensive and necessary to prevent the destruction of the Jewish state.

In 1948 the recent memory of the Holocaust naturally gave such threats particular salience. But the passing of the Holocaust generation and the ever-widening body of research challenging the argument that Israel’s wars have always with wars of no choice (in Hebrew, ein breira) have gradually weakened the claim that Israel has always been the victim of others’ aggression.

Second, the occupation has been portrayed and understood as primarily about security. Most American Jews would not support an occupation based on conquest and displacement, while one based on security leaves open the possibility for a land-for-peace compromise once Israel’s legitimate security needs are met.

Palestine being wiped off the Map by Israeli Aggression

Palestine being wiped off the Map by Israeli occupation and aggression

But it is increasingly clear that the occupation has never been about security — if it were, Israel could legally have maintained a military occupation without moving a single settler into the occupied territories.

Now, with the majority of Israeli political elites openly declaring their desire to annex most of the West Bank and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state under any circumstances, the security argument for maintaining the occupation no longer holds much water.

Third, Palestinians have been portrayed as irrational, hate-filled others who cannot be reasoned with. As long as Palestinian anger and violence leave no partner for peace, then there is no reason to examine Israel’s policies too closely. Palestinian terrorism, whether by the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1960s and 1970s or Hamas in the decades since, has legitimized this discourse.

Anti-BDS initiatives are doomed to fail, particularly when they attempt to bully universities and even Jewish students into muting criticism.

BDS - solidarity waves London

BDS – solidarity waves London

However, the renunciation of violence by the PLO in 1988, the Palestinian participation in the Oslo peace process and the low level of Palestinian violence in recent years have all weakened this argument. Moreover, Israel’s response to Palestinian violence has been so disproportionate that even many of Israel’s supporters have questioned its motives.

These changing perceptions are the result of the rise of alternative forms of media, which have broken through the mainstream media’s imbalanced and inaccurate portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the same time, a new generation of very assimilated, media-savvy young Arab-Americans has emerged on college campuses, often participating in the very same progressive activities and clubs as their Jewish-American peers.

Coalitions bringing both groups of students into contact have become far more common, creating new relationships and deeper mutual understanding despite and ultimately in place of hostility and mutual recriminations. Even where conflicts have been particularly intense, professors and administrators have over time come together to create platforms, such as the Olive Tree Initiative, that have brought the two sides together on campuses and even in Israel and the Palestinian territories for open and critical discussions.

BDS - The New York Campaign

BDS – The New York Campaign

Into this mix has come the BDS movement against the occupation. Its growing popularity among many academic professional societies is matched by an increasing willingness among American Jewish students to discuss and openly support the movement. Groups such as Open Hillel and Jewish Voices for Peace — the fastest-growing Jewish group in the U.S., which openly supports full BDS — are pushing the boundaries of acceptable criticism of Israel on campuses and beyond.

It is precisely this dynamic that led conservative Jewish leaders such as Adelson and initially Saban to fund an opposition campaign. But such initiatives are doomed to fail, particularly when they attempt to bully universities and even Jewish students into muting criticism.

Sen Dianne Feinstein  along with her husband Richard Blum (left )

Sen Dianne Feinstein along with her husband Richard Blum (left )

For example, Richard Blum — an investment banker, a University of California regent and the husband of California Sen. Diane Feinstein — recently threatened the University of California with his wife’s wrath if it didn’t enact a new speech code that would silence most speech critical of Israel. No sooner had he made his threat thanJewish Voices for Peace and the Palestine Legal and the Center for Constitutional Rights released simultaneous reports that document a relentless and completely unethical campaign of attacks and intimidation of students and faculties across the country to suppress all serious criticism of Israel.

Even a decade ago, such reports would have had a hard time reaching a wide audience, in or outside the Jewish community. Today they quickly go viral, becoming impossible to ignore. And their arguments are amplified by the almost daily videos from the occupied territories that show Israeli soldiers and settlers attackingarrestingand beating children,shooting Palestinians and even pouring concrete into homes. Sooner or later, the weight of reality becomes so overwhelming that any attempt to deny it only makes those in power look worse.

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

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

This is the moment Israel and its supporters have reached, not just with the world at large but with an increasing number of American Jews as well.

As the inherent contradiction between Israel’s self-image as a modern, democratic and progressive country and the reality of a half-century-long brutal occupation become clear to all, the erosion of support for Israel by the emerging generation of American Jews will continue and likely increase, with profound consequences not just for Israel but also for the future of the American Jewish community.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The tide is turning against Zionist extremism

Public Services Under Attack through TTIP and CETA Atlantic Trade Deals


EU trade deals with Canada and the US could endanger citizens’ rights to basic services like water and health, as negotiators are doing the work of some of the EU’s most powerful corporate lobby groups in pushing an aggressive market opening agenda in the public sector.

Access PDF of full report in English.

Read the executive summary in EnglishFrench, and German.

Public services in the European Union (EU) are under threat from international trade negotiations that endanger governments’ ability to regulate and citizens’ rights to access basic services like water, health, and energy, for the sake of corporate profits. The EU’s CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) agreement with Canada, the ratification of which could begin in 2016, and the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) treaty under negotiation with the United States are the latest culmination in such efforts. In a worst case scenario, they could lock in public services into a commercialisation from which they will not recover – no matter how damaging to welfare the results may be.

A new report released today by an international group of NGOs and trade unions (“Public services under attack) sheds some light on the secretive collusion between big business and trade negotiators in the making of the EU’s international trade deals. It shows the aggressive agenda of services corporations with regards to TTIP and CETA, pushing for far-reaching market opening in areas such as health, cultural and postal services, and water, which would allow them to enter and dominate the markets. And it shows how those in charge of EU trade negotiations are rolling out the red carpet for the services industry, with both the consolidated CETA agreement published in September 2014, as well as drafts of TTIP chapters and internal negotiation documents that reflect the wishlists of corporate lobbyists.

Key findings of the report:

  1. TTIP and CETA show clear hallmarks of being influenced by the same corporate lobby groups working in the area of services that have been built over the past decades during previous trade talks, such as the EU’s most powerful corporate lobby group BusinessEurope and the European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together business associations as well as major companies such as British Telecommunications and Deutsche Bank.
  2. The relationship between industry and the European Commission is bi-directional, with the Commission actively stimulating business lob- bying around its trade negotiations. This has been characterised as ‘reverse lobbying’, ie “the public authority lobbies business to lobby itself”. Pierre Defraigne, former Deputy Director-General of the European Commission’s trade department, speaks of a “systemic collusion between the Commission and business circles”.
  3. The business lobby has achieved a huge success as CETA is set to become the first EU agreement with the ‘negative list’ approach for services commitments. This means that all services are subject to liberalisation unless an explicit exception is made. It marks a radical departure from the positive lists used so far in EU trade deals which contain only those services which governments have agreed to liberalise, leaving other sectors unaffected. The negative list approach dramatically expands the scope of a trade agreement as governments make commitments in areas they might not even be aware of, such as new services emerging in the future. The same could happen in TTIP where the Commission is pressuring EU member states to accept the same, risky approach, meeting the demands of the business lobby.
  4. Big business has successfully lobbied against the exemption of public services from CETA and TTIP as both agreements apply to virtually all services. A very limited general exemption only exists for services “supplied in the exercise of governmental authority”. But to qualify for this exemption, a service has to be carried out “neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more economic operators”. Yet nowadays, in virtually all traditional public sectors, private companies exist alongside public suppliers – often resulting in fierce competition between the two. This effectively limits the governmental authority exemption to a few core sovereign functions such as law enforcement, the judiciary, or the services of a central bank. Similar problems apply to the so-called ‘public utilities’ exemption, which only reserves EU member states’ right to subject certain services to public monopolies or to exclusive rights: it contains so many loopholes that it cannot award adequate protection for public services either.
  5. Probably the biggest threat to public services comes from the far-reaching investment protection provisions enshrined in CETA and also foreseen for TTIP. Under a system called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), thousands of US and Canadian cor- porations (as well as EU-headquartered multinationals structuring their investments through subsidiaries on the other side of the Atlantic) could sue the EU and its member states over regulatory changes in the services sector diminishing corporate profits, potentially leading to multi-billion euro payouts in compensation. Policies regulating public services – from capping the price for water to reversed privatisations – have already been targets of ISDS claims.
  6. The different reservations and exemptions in CETA and TTIP are inadequate to effectively protect the public sector and democratic decision-making over how to organise it. This is particularly true as the exceptions generally do not apply to the most dangerous investment protection standards and ISDS, making regulations in sensitive public service sectors such as education, water, health, social welfare, and pensions prone to all kinds of investor attacks.
  7. The European Commission follows industry demands to lock in present and future liberalisations and privatisations of public services, for instance, via the dangerous ‘standstill’ and ‘ratchet’ mechanisms – even when past decisions have turned out as failures. This could threaten the growing trend of remunicipalisation of water services (in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Hungary), energy grids (in Germany and Finland), and transport services (in the UK and France). A roll-back of some of the failed privatisations of the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) to strengthen non-profit healthcare providers might be seen as violations of CETA/TTIP – as might nationalisations and re-regulations in the financial sector such as those seen during the economic crisis.
  8. Giving in to corporate demands for unfettered access to government procurement could restrict governments’ ability to support local and not-for-profit providers and foster the outsourcing of public sector jobs to private firms, where staff are often forced to do the same work with worse pay and working conditions. In CETA, governments have already signed up several sectors to mandatory transatlantic competitive tendering when they want to purchase supplies and services – an effective means for privatisation by gradually transferring public services to for-profit providers. US lobby groups such as the Alliance for Healthcare Competitiveness (AHC) and the US government want to drastically lower the thresholds for transatlantic tendering in TTIP.
  9. Both CETA and TTIP threaten to liberalise health and social care, making it difficult to adopt new regulations in the sector. The UK’s TTIP services offer explicitly includes hospital services. In the CETA text and recent TTIP drafts no less than 11 EU member States liberalise long-term care such as residential care for the elderly (Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the UK). This could stand in the way of measures protecting the long-term care sector against asset-stripping strategies of financial investors like those that lead to the Southern Cross collapse in the UK.
  10. The EU’s most recent draft TTIP services text severely restricts the use of universal service obligations (USOs) and curbs competition by public postal operators, mirroring the wishes of big courier companies such as UPS or FedEx. USOs such as daily delivery of mail to remote areas without extra charges aim at guaranteeing universal access to basic services at affordable prices.
  11. TTIP and CETA threaten to limit the freedom of public utilities to produce and distribute energy according to public interest goals, for example, by supporting renewables to combat climate change. Very few EU member states have explicitly reserved their right to adopt certain measures with regard to the production of electricity (only Belgium, Portugal, and Slovakia) and local energy distribution networks (amongst them Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia) in the trade deals.
  12. The US is eyeing the opening up of the education market via TTIP – from management training, and language courses, to high school ad- mission tests. US education firms on the European market such as Laureate Education, the Apollo Group, and the Kaplan Group could benefit as much as German media conglomerate Bertelsmann, which has recently bought a stake in US-based online education provider Udacity. The European Commission has asked EU member states for their “potential flexibilities” on the US request relating to education services.
  13. The US film industry wants TTIP to remove European content quotas and other support schemes for the local film industry (for example, in Poland, France, Spain, and Italy). Lobby groups like the Motion Picture Association of America (MPPA) and the US government have therefore opposed the exclusion of audiovisual services from the EU’s TTIP mandate, fought for by the French Government. They are now trying to limit the exception as much as possible, for example, by excluding broadcasting from the concept of audiovisual services – seemingly with the support of EU industry groups like BusinessEurope and the European Commission.
  14. Financial investors such as BlackRock engaged in European public services could use TTIP and CETA provisions on financial services and investment protection to defend their interests against ‘burdensome’ regulations, for example, to improve working conditions in the long term care sector. Lobby groups like TheCityUK, representing the financial services industry based in the UK, are pushing heavily for a “comprehensive” TTIP, which “should cover all aspects of the transatlantic economy”.
  15. US services companies are also lobbying for TTIP to tackle ‘trade barriers’ such as labour regulations. For example, US company Home Instead, a leading provider of home care services for seniors operating franchises in several EU member states, wants TTIP to address “inflexible labour laws” which oblige the firm to offer its part-time employees “extensive benefits including paid vacations” which it claims “unnecessarily inflate the costs of home care”.

What is at stake in trade agreements such as TTIP and CETA is our right to vital services, and more, it is about our ability to steer services of all kinds to the benefit of society at large. If left to their own course, trade negotiations will eventually make it impossible to implement decisions for the common good.

One measure to effectively protect public services from the great trade attack would be a full and unequivocal exclusion of all public services from any EU trade agreements and negotiations. But such an exclusion would certainly not be sufficient to undo the manifold other threats posed by CETA and TTIP as many more provisions endanger democracy and the well-being of citizens. As long as TTIP and CETA do not protect the ability to regulate in the public inter- est, they have to be rejected.

Posted in USAComments Off on Public Services Under Attack through TTIP and CETA Atlantic Trade Deals

I$raHell: ‘The Worst State on the Planet’


Palestinian Minister Ziad Abu Ein killed by Israeli police Altagreer

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

On September 21, 2013, the Bilzerian Report, published as investigative study, calling Israel; The Worst Nation On the Planetbased on the following facts.

1. Between 2001 and 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council sanctioned Israel more than any other nation on the planet.

2. Racism against native Muslims, Christians and even fellow Jews. When black African Jews returned to Israel in 1969 under the Right of Return Act, the government ruled that they were not real Jews and therefore did not qualify for citizenship or any legal status. The black Hebrews were also denied state benefits and work permits. To this day black Jews are still not accepted by the Jewish community in Israel. Racial slurs, insults, and discrimination in housing rentals are commonplace.

3. In Israel, it is against the law for a gentile to marry a Jew. Amnesty International has condemned their marriage policy as discriminatory towards Arabs. Under the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, Israel bars the immigrant reunification for family members of citizens of Israel and residents of Israeli-occupied territories in Palestine. Meaning that Palestinian families can be separated, legally.

4. The Zionist regime has initiated wars, massacres and have used chemical weapons against its neighboring Arab nations. In 1982, the Israeli government allowed the massacre of more than 800 Palestinians in two refugee camps in occupied Beirut. In 2008, the Israeli government fired white phosphorous weapons into civilian areas in Gaza.

5. Israeli leaders have no shame in lying to the world. For example, in 1992, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu falsely claimed that Iran was 3-5 years away from a nuclear weapon. Then in 2002, he publicly lied to America’s Congress about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. Then in 2012, Netanyahu lied to the American people once again by claiming that Iran was only months away from nuclear weapons.

6. Today, the Jewish Lobby is at its old tricks again by publicly pushing America to war with Syria. In fact, the push is so one-sided that many are now calling this an Jewish-lobby war. Almost every major Jewish group in America supports the invasion, and Obama actually recruited more than 250 Israel lobbyists to force undecided congressmen to vote for war.

7. The Zionist entity is America’s greatest enemy. The US government has labeled Israel one of its greatest spy threats on numerous occasions, and for good reason. Israel has been caught spying on America, stealing US secrets, attacking American targets, and stealing US nuclear technology and equipment several times.

8. Israel, the world’s loudest proponent of holocaust awareness, is actually a holocaust denier of non-Jewish people.

9. Even though Israel receives more foreign aid than any other nation on the planet, it is one of the stingiest developed countries in the world. Israel is one of the richest countries in the world with 10,000 millionaires, but gives nearly 10 times less than the world average and gives the 4th least of any developed nation per capita, only barely beating out much poorer countries like Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. So while Israel took $12-17 billion in US aid, it only gave $141 million in foreign aid to nations in need of assistance in 2010.

10. The 9/11 was an Israeli project meant to increase American support for Israel against the Muslim world.

“The above mentioned instances of Israeli racism, terrorism, subterfuge, etc… just scratch the surface of the totality of the destruction that the state of Israel has brought to this world. In fact, Israel’s founding was marred by Jewish terrorist attacks against British and European targets, and the massacre and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. At least repressive nations such as North Korea and Iran, which do far less international and domestic harm than Israel, do not claim to be the only free democracies in their region that shares Western values. The hypocrisy and lies of Israel almost surpass its devastation,” concluded the report.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on I$raHell: ‘The Worst State on the Planet’

Zionist Politics of Fragmentation

by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr
Background  If the politics of deflection exhibit the outward reach of Israel’s grand strategy of territorial expansionism and regional hegemony, the politics of fragmentation serves Israel’s inward moves designed to weaken Palestinian resistance, induce despair, and de facto surrender. In fundamental respects deflection is an unwitting enabler of fragmentation, but it is also its twin or complement.
 The British were particularly adept in facilitating their colonial project all over the world by a variety of divide and rule tactics, which almost everywhere haunted anti-colonial movements, frequently producing lethal forms of post-colonial partition as in India, Cyprus, Ireland, Malaya, and of course, Palestine, and deadly ethnic strife elsewhere as in Nigeria, Kenya, Myanmar, Rwanda. Each of these national partitions and post-colonial traumas has produced severe tension and long lasting hostility and struggle, although each takes a distinctive form due to variations from country to country of power, vision, geography, resources, history, geopolitics, leadership.
 An additional British colonial practice and legacy was embodied in a series of vicious settler colonial movements that succeeded in effectively eliminating or marginalizing resistance by indigenous populations as in Australia, Canada, the United States, and somewhat less so in New Zealand, and eventually failing politically in South Africa and Namibia, but only after decades of barbarous racism.In Palestine the key move was the Balfour Declaration, which was a colonialist gesture of formal approval given to the Zionist Project in 1917 tendered at the end of Ottoman rule over Palestine. This was surely gross interference with the dynamics of Palestinian self-determination (at the time the estimated Arab population of Palestine was 747,685, 92.1% of the total, while the Jewish population was an estimate 58,728, which amounted to 7.9%) and a decisive stimulus for the Zionist undertaking to achieve supremacy over the land embraced by the British mandate to administer Palestine in accordance with a framework agreement with the League of Nation.
The agreement repeated the language of the Balfour Declaration in its preamble: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”(emphasis added) To describe this encouragement of Zionism as merely ‘interference’ is a terribly misleading understatement of the British role in creating a situation of enduring tension in Palestine, which was supposedly being administered on the basis of the wellbeing of the existing indigenous population, what was called “a sacred trust of civilization” in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, established for the “well-being and development” of peoples ”not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.”  The relevance of the politics of fragmentation refers to a bundle of practices and overall approach that assumed the form of inter-ethnic and inter-religious strife during the almost three decades that the mandate arrangements were in effect.*At the same time, the British was not the whole story by any means: the fanatical and effective exploitation of the opportunity to establish a Jewish homeland of unspecified dimensions manifested the dedication, skill, and great ambition of the Zionist movement; the lack of comparable sustained and competent resistance by the indigenous population abetted the transformation of historic Palestine; and then these  developments were strongly reinforced by the horrors of the Holocaust and the early complicity of the liberal democracies with Naziism that led the West to lend its support to the settler colonial reality that Zionism had become well before the 1948 War.
The result was the tragic combination of statehood and UN membership for Israel and the Nakba involving massive dispossession creating forced refugee and exile for most Palestinians, and leading after 1967 to occupation, discrimination, and oppression of those Palestinians who remained either in Gaza and West Bank or in the 22% of original Palestine. It should be recalled that the UN solution of 1947, embodied in GA Resolution 181, after the British gave up their mandatory role was no more in keeping with the ethos of self-determination than the Balfour Declaration, decreeing partition and allocating 55% of Palestine to the Jewish population, 45% to the Palestinians without the slightest effort to assess the wishes of the population resident in Palestine at the time or to allocate the land in proportion to the demographic realities at the time.
The UN solution was a new rendition of Western paternalism, opposed at the time by the Islamic and Middle Eastern members of the UN. Such a solution was not as overbearing as the mandates system that was devised to vest quasi-colonial rule in the victorious European powers after World War I, yet it was still an Orientalist initiative aimed at the control and exploitation of the destiny of an ethnic, political, and economic entity long governed by the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians (and their Arab neighbors) are often told in patronizing tones by latter day Zionists and their apologists that the Palestinians had their chance to become a state, squandered their opportunity, thereby forfeiting their rights to a state of their own by rejecting the UN partition plan. In effect, the Israeli contention is that Palestinians effectively relinquished their statehood claims by this refusal to accept what the UN had decreed, while Israel by nominally accepting the UN proposals validated their sovereign status, which was further confirmed by its early admission to full membership in the UN. Ever since, Israel has taken advantage of the fluidity of the legal situation by at once pretending to accept the UN approach of seeking a compromise by way of mutual agreement with the  Palestinians while doing everything in its power to prevent such an outcome by projecting its force throughout the entirety of Palestine, by establishing and expanding settlements, the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, and by advancing an array of maximalist security claims that have diminished Palestinian prospects.
That is, Israel has publicly endorsed conflict-resolving diplomacy but operationally has been constantly moving the goal posts by unlawfully creating facts on the ground, and then successfully insisting on their acceptance as valid points of departure. In effect, and with American help, Israel has seemingly given the Palestinians a hard choice, which is tacitly endorsed by the United States and Europe: accept the Bantustan destiny we offer or remain forever refugees and victims of annexation, exile, discrimination, statelessness.Israel has used its media leverage and geopolitical clout to create an asymmetric understanding of identity politics as between Jews and Palestinians. Jews being defined as a people without borders who can gain Israeli nationality no matter where they live on the planet, while Palestinians are excluded from Israeli nationality regardless of how deep their indigenous roots in Palestine itself. This distinction between the two peoples exhibits the tangible significance of Israel as a ‘Jewish State,’ and why such a designation is morally and legally unacceptable in the 21st century even as it so zealously claimed by recent Israeli leaders, none more than Benyamin Netanyahu.  
 Modalities of Fragmentation
The logic of fragmentation is to weaken, if not destroy, a political opposition configuration by destroying its unity of purpose and strategy, and fomenting to the extent possible conflicts between different tendencies within the adversary movement. It is an evolving strategy that is interactive, and by its nature becomes an important theme of conflict. The Palestinians in public constantly stress the essential role of unity, along with reconciliation to moderate the relevance of internal differences. In contrast, the Israelis fan the flames of disunity, stigmatizing elements of the Palestinian reality that are relevantly submissive, and accept the agenda and frameworks that are devised by Tel Aviv refusing priorities set by Palestinian leaders.
Over the course of the conflict from 1948 to the present, there have been ebbs and flows in the course of Palestinian unity, with maximum unity achieved during the time when Yasir Arafat was the resistance leader and maximum fragmentation evident since Hamas was successful in the 2006 Gaza elections, and managed to seize governmental control from Fatah in Gaza a year later. Another way that Israel has promoted Palestinian disunity is to favor the so-called moderates operating under the governance of the Palestinian Authority while imposing inflicting various punishments on Palestinians adhering to Hamas.–Zionism, the Jewish State, and the Palestinian Minority. Perhaps, the most fundamental form of fragmentation is between Jews and Palestinians living within the state of Israel. This type of fragmentation has two principal dimensions:
pervasive discrimination against the 20% Palestinian minority (about 1.5 million) affecting legal, social, political, cultural, and economic rights, and creating a Palestinian subjectivity of marginality, subordination, vulnerability. Although Palestinians in Israel are citizens they are excluded from many benefits and opportunities because they do not possess Jewish nationality. Israel may be the only state in the world that privileges nationality over citizenship in a series of contexts, including family reunification and access to residence.
It is also worth observing that if demographic projections prove to be reliable Palestinians could be a majority in Israel as early as 2035, and would almost certainly outnumber Jews in the country by 2048. Not only does this pose the familiar choice for Israel between remaining an electoral democracy and retaining its self-proclaimed Jewish character, but it also shows how hegemonic it is to insist that the Palestinians and the international community accept Israel as a Jewish state.This Palestinian entitlement, validated by the international law relating to fundamental human rights prohibiting all forms of discrimination, and especially structural forms embedded in law that discriminate on the basis of race and religion. The government of Israel, reinforced by its Supreme Court, endorses the view that only Jews can possess Israeli nationality that is the basis of a range of crucial rights under Israeli law. What is more Jews have Israeli nationality even if lacking any link to Israel and wherever they are located, while Palestinians (and other religious and ethnic minorities) are denied Israeli nationality (although given Israeli citizenship) even if indigenous to historic Palestine and to the territory under the sovereign control of the state of Israel.   A secondary form of fragmentation is between this minority in Israel and the rest of the Palestinian corpus. The dominant international subjectivity relating to the conflict has so far erased this minority from its imaginary of peace for the two peoples, or from any sense that Palestinian human rights in Israel should be internationally implemented in whatever arrangements are eventually negotiated or emerges via struggle. As matters now stand, the Palestinian minority in Israel is unrepresented at the diplomatic level and lacks any vehicle for the expression of its grievances. 

–Occupied Palestine and the Palestinian Diaspora (refugees and enforced exile). Among the most debilitating forms of fragmentation is the effort by Israel and its supporters to deny Palestinian refugees and Palestinians living in the diaspora) their right of return as confirmed by GA Resolution 184? There are between 6.7 million and 7.8 million Palestinians who are either refugees or living in the diaspora, as well as about 2.345.000 million resident in the West Bank and 1.816.379 million in Gaza.

The diplomatic discourse has been long shaped by reference to the two state mantra. This includes the reductive belief that the essence of a peaceful future for the two peoples depends on working out the intricacies of ‘land for peace.’ In other words, the dispute is false categorized as almost exclusively about territory and borders (along with the future of Jerusalem), and not about people. There is a tacit understanding that seems to include the officials of the Palestinian Authority to the effect that Palestinians refugee rights will be ‘handled’ via compensation and the right of return, not to the place of original dispossession, but to territory eventually placed under Palestinian sovereignty.

Again the same disparity as between the two sides is encoded in the diplomacy of ‘the peace process,’ ever more so during the 30 years shaped by the Oslo framework. The Israel propaganda campaign was designed to make it appear to be a deal breaker for the Palestinian to insist on full rights of repatriation as it would allegedly entail the end of the promise of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Yet such a posture toward refugees and the Palestinian diaspora cruelly consigns several million Palestinians to a permanent limbo, in effect repudiating the idea that the Palestinians are a genuine ‘people’ while absolutizing the Jews as a people of global scope. Such a dismissal of the claims of Palestinian refugees also flies in the face of the right of return specifically affirmed in relation to Palestine by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 194, and more generally supported by Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Two Warring Realms of the Occupation of Palestine: the Palestine Authority versus Hamas. Again Israel and its supporters have been able to drive an ideological wedge between the Palestinians enduring occupation since 1967. With an initial effort to discredit the Palestine Liberation Organzation that had achieved control over a unified and robust Palestine national movement, Israel actually encouraged the initial emergence of Hamas as a radical and fragmenting alternative to the PLO when it was founded in the course of the First Intifada. Israel of course later strongly repudiated Hamas when it began to carry armed struggle to pre-1967 Israel, most notoriously engaging in suicide bombings in Israel that involved indiscriminate attacks on civilians, a tactic repudiated in recent years.

Despite Hamas entering into the political life of occupied Palestine with American, and winning an internationally supervised election in 2006, and taking control of Gaza in 2007, it has continued to be categorized as ‘a terrorist organization’ that is given no international status. This terrorist designation is also relied upon to impose a blockade on Gaza that is a flagrant form of collective punishment in direct violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Palestine Authority centered in Ramallah has also, despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, refused to treat Hamas as a legitimate governing authority or to allow Hamas to operate as a legitimate political presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem or to insist on the inclusion of Hamas in international negotiations addressing the future of the Palestinian people.

This refusal has persisted despite the more conciliatory tone of Hamas since 2009 when its leader, Khaled Meshaal, announced a shift in the organization’s goals: an acceptance of Israel as a state beside Palestine as a state provided a full withdrawal to 1967 borders and implementation of the right of return for refugees, and a discontinuation by Hamas of a movement based on armed struggle. Mashel also gave further reassurances of moderation by an indication that earlier goals of liberating the whole of historic Palestine, as proclaimed in its Charter, were a matter of history that was no longer descriptive of its political program.In effect, the territorial fragmentation of occupied Palestine is reinforced by ideological fragmentation, seeking to somewhat authenticate and privilege the secular and accommodating leadership provided by the PA while repudiating the Islamic orientation of Hamas. In this regard, the polarization in such countries as Turkey and Egypt is cynically reproduced in Palestine as part of Israel’s overall occupation strategy. This includes a concerted effort by Israel to make it appear that material living conditions for Palestinians are much better if the Palestinian leadership cooperates with the Israeli occupiers than if it continues to rely on a national movement of liberation and refuses to play the Oslo game.The Israeli propaganda position on Hamas has emphasized the rocket attacks on Israel launched from within Gaza. There is much ambiguity and manipulation of the timeline relating to the rockets in interaction with various forms of Israeli violent intrusion. We do know that the casualties during the period of Hamas control of Gaza have been exceedingly one-sided, with Israel doing most of the killing, and Palestinians almost all of the dying. We also know that when ceasefires have been established between Israel and Gaza, there was a good record of compliance on the Hamas side, and that it was Israel that provocatively broke the truce, and then launched major military operations in 2008-09 and 2012 on a defenseless and completely vulnerable population.

Cantonization and the Separation Wall: Fragmenting the West Bank. A further Israeli tactic of fragmentation is to make it difficult for Palestinians to sustain a normal and coherent life. The several hundred check points throughout the West Bank serious disrupt mobility for the Palestinians, and make it far easier for Palestinians to avoid delay and humiliation. It is better for them to remain contained within their villages, a restrictive life reinforced by periodic closures and curfews that are extremely disruptive. Vulnerability is accentuated by nighttime arrests, especially of young male Palestinians, 60% of whom have been detained in prisons before they reach the age of 20, and the sense that Israeli violence, whether issuing from the IEA or the settlers enjoys impunity, and often is jointly carried out.

The Oslo framework not only delegated to the PA the role of maintaining ‘security’ in Palestinian towns and cities, but bisected the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C, with Israeli retaining a residual security right throughout occupied Palestine. Area C, where most of the settlements are located, is over 65% of the West Bank, and is under exclusive control of Israel. This fragmentation at the core of the Oslo framework has been a key element in perpetuating Palestinian misery.

The fragmentation in administration is rigid and discriminatory, allowing Jewish settlers the benefits of Israel’s rule of law, while subjecting Palestinians to military administration with extremely limited rights, and even the denial of a right to enjoy the benefit of rights. Israel also insists that since it views the West Bank as disputed territory rather than ‘occupied’ it is not legally obliged to respect international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. This fragmentation between Jewish settlers and Palestinian residents is so severe that it has been increasingly understood in international circles as a form of apartheid, which the Rome Statute governing the International Criminal Court denominates as one type of ‘crime against humanity.’  

The Separation Wall is an obvious means of separating Palestinians from each other and from their land. It was declared in 2004 to be a violation of international law by a super majority of 14-1 in the International Court of Justice, but to no avail, as Israel has defied this near unanimous reading of international law by the highest judicial body in the UN, and yet suffered no adverse consequences. In some West Bank communities Palestinians are surrounded by the wall and in others Palestinian farmers can only gain access to and from their land at appointed times when wall gates are opened.

Fragmentation and Self-Determination  The pervasiveness of fragmentation is one reason why there is so little belief that the recently revived peace process is anything more than one more turn of the wheel, allowing Israel to proceed with its policies designed to take as much of what remains of Palestine as it wants so as to realize its own conception of Jewish self-determination. Just as Israel refuses to restrict the Jewish right of return, so it also refuses to delimit its boundaries. When it negotiates internationally it insists on even more prerogatives under the banner of security and anti-terrorism. Israel approach such negotiations as a zero-sum dynamic of gain for itself, loss for Palestine, a process hidden from view by the politics of deflection and undermining the Palestinian capacity for coherent resistance by the politics of fragmentation.

* There are two issues posed, beyond the scope of this post, that bear on Palestinian self-determination emanating from the Balfour Declaration and the ensuing British mandatory role in Palestine: (1) to what extent does “a national home for the Jewish people” imply a valid right of self-determination, as implemented by the establishment of the state of Israel? Does the idea of ‘a national home’ encompass statehood? (2) to what extent does the colonialist nature of the Balfour Declaration and the League mandate system invalidate any actions taken?

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionist Politics of Fragmentation

Video: Martyr Huda Darwish suffocation due to tear gas and checkpoints


Mother Palestine New Year 2015 Altagreer


JerusalemHundreds of Jerusalemites participated on Monday in the funeral of the 65-year old Huda Mohammad Darwish who passed away after delaying her arrival to the hospital.Darwish left her home on Monday early morning after suffering a shortness of breath due to inhaling poisonous gas from tear gas canisters fired by the occupation forces in the village of Esawyeh and towards her house. While attempting to head to the hospital for treatment, the forces delayed her and prevented the vehicle from going through the checkpoint until the young men and vehicle were searched.Huda’s son explained: “Last night at 9:30, the forces raided the village and randomly fired tear gas canisters towards out house. My mother inhaled gas. We brought her water and told her to rest. Around 3:30 a.m. My brother called me and told me to quickly come because my mother can’t breathe. We headed towards the hospital and stopped at the checkpoint in the village of Esawyeh. The soldier refused to let us go through even though I begged him.”

He added: “I started yelling and I told him my mother is dying and I want to take her to the hospital but to no avail. Finally, the soldier next to him told him to go check and see if I am telling the truth. He saw my mom and how she was very sick. We waited for more than half an hour at the checkpoint. After the doctors checked her, they told us we came very late, we’re sorry but your mother has passed away”.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Human RightsComments Off on Video: Martyr Huda Darwish suffocation due to tear gas and checkpoints

The occupation places a wall between Jabal Al-Mukabber and the settlement of Armon Hanatziv

JerusalemNazi occupation authorities placed on Sunday a separating wall in the village of Jabal Al-Mukabber to isolate it from the Nazi Jewish settlement of Armon Hanatziv that established on the village’s lands.Witnesses explained to Wadi Hilweh Information Center that a truck unloaded parts of the separation wall and placed them in the area of “Mountain Top” in the village of Jabal Al-Mukabber. They were placed in the street that separates the village from the settlement of Armon Hanatziv.

Nazi  occupation police said that the wall is “mobile” and will be moved as needed.

الجدار 2

الجدار العازل



Posted in Palestine Affairs, Human RightsComments Off on The occupation places a wall between Jabal Al-Mukabber and the settlement of Armon Hanatziv


A petition to release the bodies of 12 Martyrs
JerusalemThe lawyers’ staff submitted on Sunday a petition to release the bodies of 12 Martyrs detained by the Nazi occupation authorities.The staff which includes, Al-Dameer organization lawyer Mohammad Mahmoud, Ministry of Prisoners’ lawyer Tarek Barghouth and lawyer Midhat Deebeh requested the occupation authorities to release the Martyrs’ bodies after they have been delaying and refusing to release them for more than a week. A copy of the petition was submitted to the legal advisor of the Nazi government and another copy to the Nazi Intelligence.The staff confirmed in the petition that detaining the bodies and delaying the release process is a non-democratic matter, unethical and considered revenge from their family members.

The staff also explained that the occupation authorities are detaining 12 bodies. They are: Thaer Abu Ghazaleh, Ishaq Badran, Mohammad Mohammad Ali, Mustafa Khatib, Hasan Manasra, Ala’ Abu Jamal, Baha’ Alayan, Basel Sider, Ahmad Abu Sha’ban, Mu’taz Aweisat, Mohammad Shamasneh and the child Bayan Ayman Assaileh.





Posted in Palestine Affairs, Human RightsComments Off on NAZI ORGAN HARVESTING PALESTINIAN MARTYRS ‘2’

Shoah’s pages