Archive | May 1st, 2016

Nazi Politicians Visiting Hebron Urge Annexation of West Bank


Senior Nazi politicians in the ruling coalition government called for the annexation of the Occupied West Bank, during a Passover event in Hebron on Monday.

According to reports, “tens of thousands” of Nazi, including lawmakers and rabbis, visited Hebron on the third day of the Passover festival.

Those in attendance included Agriculture Minister Nazi Uri Ariel, Justice Minister Nazi Ayelet Shaked, Deputy Defense Minister Nazi Eli Ben Dahan, Deputy Minister of Regional Cooperation Nazi Ayoub Kara, and Nazi Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Nazi Rabbi David Lau.

Senior Israeli politicians visiting Hebron urge annexation of West Bank

Nazi Ayelet Shaked

During speeches, deputy minister and Jewish Home parliamentarian Nazi Ben-Dahan declared: “We have to impose Israeli law in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank].” He added: “We have returned to our land, so that we will never again have to leave it.”

Hebron lies inside the West Bank, under Nazi military occupation since 1967. Over the last 49 years, more than 200 Nazi Jewish settlements have been established across the territory, in contravention of international law.

Justice Minister Nazi Ayelet Shaked described the issue of the Hebron Nazi Jewish settlers not as one of “real estate”, but “rather an ideological act driven by love for the Jewish people and their land.”

Likud MK Nazi Oren Hazan, meanwhile, reportedly urge Nazi Prime Minster Benjamin Naziyahu to expand the settler population in Hebron. “The time has come to populate Hebron,” he told the crowds, “just as the time has come to populate every hilltop in Judea and Samaria and in all of Israel.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Politicians Visiting Hebron Urge Annexation of West Bank

Occupy Wall Street

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and “The Arab Spring”: Who’s Funding the Protest Movement? Who’s Behind it?

Potent News Interview with Michel Chossudovsky


Author’s Note

This interview was first published in November 2011.

Who is behind the protest movements in the US?

Who is behind the “colored revolutions” in The Middle East and Latin America?

The Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS) was launched by Adbusters, a Vancouver based NGO.

Adbusters is funded by the Tides Foundation. The latter is in turn funded by a large number of corporate foundations and charities, including the Ford Foundation, Gates Foundation  and the Open Society Institute. Ford is known to have links to US intelligence. 

While Tides makes its name by facilitating large pass-through grants to outside groups, many of Tides’ grantees are essentially activist startups. Part of Tides’ overall plan is to provide day-to-day assistance to the younger groups that it “incubates.


Wall Street foundations support the protest movement against Wall Street? How convenient. 

We are dealing with a network of corporate funding of so-called “progressive” organizations including protest movements. This networking of funding dissent is a powerful instrument. It constitutes the basis whereby the economic elites retain control over the protest movement.

Michel Chossudovsky, May 1st 2016

*      *      *

[Potent News] We’re here with Michel Chossudovsky, and we’re having a little chat. I believe we were talking about, basically, the protests that are happening here that were started up by the Adbusters initially. I’ve got a couple of questions. Are you encouraged by what you see happening with the protests?

[Michel Chossudovsky] Well, I’m encouraged by the fact that people across the United States and Canada are rising up against an economic and political agenda. And they are the victims of the neo-liberal agenda. I’m not encouraged by the way this Occupy Wall Street movement is proceeding, because it was initiated by a couple of organizations: Adbusters, which is a magazine in Vancouver, and the other one was Anonymous, a social media hactivist website, which does not reveal its identity in any way.

I think the problem is that these promoters of the Occupy Wall Street movement have been actively planning a whole network of activities across America with social media, websites, and so on, for several months. In fact, the Occupy Wall Street website was launched back in, I think, in July [2011]. We don’t know who these people are. When we go to their websites, there’s no contact information. We don’t know who the leaders are. These are shadow leaders.  [scroll down for complete transcript of interview]



Transcribed from the videos by Tara Carreon, American Buddha Online Librarian

[Potent News] We’re here with Michel Chossudovsky, and we’re having a little chat. I believe we were talking about, basically, the protests that are happening here that were started up by the Adbusters initially. I’ve got a couple of questions. Are you encouraged by what you see happening with the protests?

[Michel Chossudovsky] Well, I’m encouraged by the fact that people across the United States and Canada are rising up against an economic and political agenda. And they are the victims of the neo-liberal agenda. I’m not encouraged by the way this Occupy Wall Street movement is proceeding, because it was initiated by a couple of organizations: Adbusters, which is a magazine in Vancouver, and the other one was Anonymous, a social media hactivist website, which does not reveal its identity in any way. I think the problem is that these promoters of the Occupy Wall Street movement have been actively planning a whole network of activities across America with social media, websites, and so on, for several months. In fact, the Occupy Wall Street website was launched back in, I think, in July. We don’t know who these people are. When we go to their websites, there’s no contact information. We don’t know who the leaders are. These are shadow leaders.

“Leaderless Movement”: Occupy Wall Street WS  Confronts “Organized Wall Street”

Now what’s coming out of the Movement is, “We don’t need leaders; we are the leaders.” But in effect, any organization that challenges Wall Street, and wants to yield some form of concrete results, has to have a very solid organizational structure. You don’t go and fight against Wall Street, because Wall Street is organized. Wall Street is a whole structure: institutions, banks, insurance companies, linked up to intelligence, and then linked up to the U.S. government. So if you want to change the tide, you have to organize, and you have to organize in a very solid way.You have to have a program.

Unseat the Leaders Who are Supporting Wall Street

You can’t just have a program that says, “Please Mr. Bush, or Mr. Obama, or whoever happens to be in power, could you be more gentle, have less wars, could you tax the rich?” You don’t demand of a system which is in crisis, and should be replaced and reformed, you don’t ask the leaders to act on your behalf. That’s rule no. 1.

Those leaders have to be unseated because they are the problem. They are not the solution. And it’s no use presenting a shopping list of demands, and then submitting it to the U.S. government, or to Wall Street, or to Warren Buffett.

Wall Street Supports Occupy Wall Street

Now, what troubles me in this Movement is that there is a covert element with organizations such as Anonymous and Adbusters, as well as their main websites. Who is behind it? Who is financing it? I recall that immediately when the Movement got going, that several prominent personalities came to the support of Occupy Wall Street. And these were people like Warren Buffett, Howard Buffett, Ben Bernanke, and Al Gore. Now these people, from my standpoint, do not constitute the solution to the crisis, they are the cause. They are the actors behind this crisis. Warren Buffett is the third richest man on planet earth, and his sympathy for the Movement should be viewed with some suspicion. That’s the way I see it.

Now I should also mention another organization which is OTPOR! OTPOR! was an organization involved in Serbia in the year 2000. It was not a pro-democracy organization, it was actually an organization which shunted the 2000 elections in which Kostunica, who was the runner-up together with Milosevic, would have won in any event. But they prevented the second round of elections from occurring. And they essentially established the conditions for regime change. That was a colored revolution.

And OTPOR! subsequently became a consulting firm, which is called CANVAS. It’s non-violent forms of action which were implemented in a large number of countries. CANVAS, it’s logo is the clenched fist. And they were involved in Georgia; they were involved in various former Soviet republics; they were involved in Iran; they were involved in Egypt, and in Tunisia. They’ve provided consulting to so-called revolutionary groups. But they are also backed by Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy, which are U.S. foundations closely allied both with the State Department on the one hand, the U.S. Congress, as well as U.S. Intelligence. So that in effect, CANVAS is really acting as a consulting arm of the U.S. Intelligence apparatus supporting a training program of CANVAS.

Now we know that the Egyptian leaders of the protest movement of the so-called Arab Spring, they were trained in Belgrade. They were trained by OTPOR! And it should come as no surprise that the clenched fist was used also in Egypt. And it was used in a number of countries. It’s of interest that the name of the resistance movement in Georgia was “Enough.” And in Egypt, the Kifaya movement, also in Arabic, means “Enough.” So that in fact, you find the same names, the same logos, the same catch phrases in several countries. And this is no coincidence, because CANVAS is operating as a professional consulting arm assisting the movements in various countries.

Now what this suggests is that this movement, at least the grassroots of this movement, who are committed people — we have to acknowledge that; these are people we should support, people in the street, people who are unemployed, students who can’t pay their tuition fees, people who are committed to social change — we must support them. But they are being manipulated by a framework which from the very outset is pernicious, because it’s based on links to the seat of power. In other words, if its linked to the National Endowment for Democracy, or to Freedom House, or to the CIA, it cannot have an independent stance in challenging Wall Street.

And then the question is, “Who is funding this undertaking?” You cannot challenge Wall Street, and then ask Wall Street to pay for your travel expenses. And that is not something that is not limited to these events in New York City and around the United States. It’s something that has characterized progressive movements for a long, long time.

Trade unions have been infiltrated, their leaders invited to the World Economic Forum in Davos, then you also have other organizations such as those that joined the World Social Forum, or the People’s Summits. All those organizations are funded by tax-free foundations.

The World Social Forum

I’ve been looking into the World Social Forum, which was created some ten years ago. It started off in Brazil. And the World Social Forum was in effect funded by the Ford Foundation. Now we know that the Ford Foundation has links to the CIA. And many of the organizations didn’t realize that by being funded by the Ford Foundation, their hands were tied. The Ford Foundation would set the outer limits of dissent. And this is what I call “manufactured dissent.” It’s when the elites, through their tax-free foundations, will go in, and they will support limited forms of dissent which do not threaten their fundamental interest, which is the interest of making money and enriching themselves and so on.

So you have an expression of support to this Occupy Wall Street Movement which is coming from various corners, and which is also supported by Establishment figures, and which is receiving a fair amount of media coverage. I recall events where you had mass rallies in Washington, D.C., and anti-war movements against the U.S. government, and there was a total media blackout. There was simply absolutely no coverage. And also in Egypt, there was coverage initially of the events at Tahrir Square when people were getting rid of Mubarak, but once they started mobilizing against the new regime, which in effect was Mubarak without Mubarak, because the same military establishment were calling the shots, well then the media simply didn’t cover those events.

Egypt and The Arab Spring

And what I also noticed in the case of Egypt was that at no time were the main organizations, which consisted of Kifaya, the April 6th movement, and the Muslim Brotherhood, at no time did they actually challenge the macro-economic reforms of the IMF and the World Bank, the neo-liberal agenda, which were imposed on Egypt starting in 1991 at the height of the Gulf War. And I so happened to be in Egypt at that very moment. I was in the Minister of Finance’s office. And that was imposed. And you had that whole period, over a period of 20 years, when the country was subject to these deadly macro-economic reforms, leading to the destruction of agriculture, and the massive unemployment in the public sector.

And that framework remains today. It hasn’t changed. In fact, it’s gotten worse, because in effect, in the wake of Tahrir Square, the Egyptian economy ran into certain difficulties, particularly with increased levels of external debt. And so the clenched fist of the IMF and the World Bank is still there. And the protest movement did not, from my standpoint, change the fundamental relationship which exists within Egyptian society, which is the whole state apparatus that is controlled by external creditors, as well as by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Military. That we know.

So Tahrir Square cannot be presented as a model of pro-democracy protest, because essentially they have achieved virtually nothing. And they have achieved nothing precisely because the main groups — Kifaya, April 6 and Muslim Brotherhood — are controlled precisely by the U.S. Government. U.S. and British Intelligence in relation to the Muslim Brotherhood — that relationship is well established — and the links between the April 6th Youth Movement and the U.S. Embassy are well-documented. So you cannot run a revolution against the Empire — which is Washington — and then ask the Empire to give you money through its various foundations to fund your resistance against the Empire. It doesn’t make sense.

And Occupy Wall Street is in a very similar situation. First of all, it is using Egypt and Tunisia as a model. They are not a model. They are failures. They are colored revolutions which have manipulated the grass roots, and which have led these countries into coup de sac, into a status quo. So the end game of the protest movement is the status quo. It’s a semblance of democratization, but in effect, what happens is that the people in power who are in positions of government are replaced by other people who are in effect playing the same role on behalf of the U.S. and the external creditors of those countries.

Now there was one thing which disturbed me in a statement by Occupy Wall Street. I recall that there was a statement by a number of personalities, including Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, and Vandana Shiva among others. And part of the statement was alright. But then they said they had to fight against “a global al-Assad, a global Gaddafi”, and that these dictators personified the IMF and the World Bank. They said the IMF and the World Bank are behind this agenda, and they are treating us in the same way Gaddafi and al-Assad are treating their people. Now that kind of comparison is totally misleading because it is demonizing the IMF and the World Bank through the image of a political personalities, rather than focusing on the IMF and the World Bank as economic demons in their own right. [In fact the objective of this misleading comparison is to demonize Assad and Gadaffi, M.Ch.]

[Potent News] A two-part question here. First, how can we keep this movement as pure as possible as opposed to a media spectacle that is coopted? And what would you advise for people whose hearts are in the right place, and want to make a difference?

Organized Protest. Confronting Wall Street requires a Strong Organizational Structure

 [Michel Chossudovsky] Well, I think a movement which is confronting the World Economic Order, the New Economic Order, has to be organized across the land not solely in terms of street events, it has to have an organizational structure in towns, and cities, and villages, and workplaces, and parishes, in universities and colleges. In other words, all the various entities of civil society. It also has to permeate mainstream organizations such as trade unions and human rights organizations. It has to have a very strong organizational structure which can confront the corporate agenda. Corporations are very well organized, but they still constitute a minority. Now if the 99% want to ultimately reverse the tide, they have to organize. They have to have strong leadership. They have to have a program. And they are not there to make demands. They are there to question the legitimacy of the corporate agenda. They are there to unseat these powerful actors whose legitimacy actually is sustained by a very crooked and fraudulent apparatus. So that’s what you have to tackle.

The Tobin Tax: Taming the Speculators

I recall many years ago when the World Social Forum started up, there was another movement which was called ATTAC, which was one of implanting a tax on speculative transactions. It was called the TOBIN tax. And everybody joined the bandwagon of the TOBIN tax. saying we have to put a tax on speculative activities, and use the proceeds of this tax to help the poor.

I was opposed to that for various reasons, but more fundamentally, if you want to get rid of highway robbery, you don’t put a tax on highway robbery. If you want to get rid of speculation, which is ultimately the instrument for transferring wealth, you do not provide legitimacy to the speculators by taxing him 1%, or whatever, of his transactions. You freeze those transactions. And that is something that can be achieved. In other words, their whole series of speculative instruments on Wall Street which affect, let’s say the price of food, the price of oil and which are impoverishing people worldwide.

Putting a Freeze on Derivative Trade

Now, how do you reverse the tide? You put a freeze on derivative trade. You don’t tax the speculator. The speculators were the first people to endorse the TOBIN tax. Why? Because they’re stealing from the 99% by using very complex financial instruments. And if a tax is imposed, the legitimacy of their undertakings is not questioned. They pay the 1% tax that is used to compensate the people who have been expropriated and impoverished as a result of their actions, and it provides a human face to the speculative onslaught. That is what is behind this complicity of people like Warren Buffett and Ben Bernanke in this Occupy Wall Street movement. You do not reverse the tide by taxing the rich. You have to tax the rich, but ultimately you have to address the broader question of how do these people enrich themselves at the expense of the 99%.

NATO Atrocities in Libya

[Potent News] So one last question. Apparently, yesterday at the conference at the university [St Mary’s University, Halifax] there, apparently was someone doing the video that was actually shedding light on what’s actually happening in Libya. I heard that one of the people there cried and walked out. How important do you think it is to be able to gain the strength to face what is being done in our world and often in our name?

[Michel Chossudovsky] Well, I think in Libya, atrocities have been committed by NATO. Thousands of people have been killed. The media is not reporting those atrocities. It has a responsibility as media, as journalists, to report the facts on the ground. But that is not happening. In fact, it’s the reverse: they are obfuscating. They are acting as a camouflage, as a cover-up. And they are providing a human face to the rebels, which are in large part are made up of al-Qaeda militia. This is not a pro-democracy movement. And what has happened is that the media has supported this war.

NATO: “We are running out of bombs”

Without the media, they could not have run this war, because they would not have been able to camouflage the impacts of those bombings. Anyone who has a minimal understanding of fighter aircraft knows that if you have 10,000 strike sorties, with a dozen missiles on each of these fighter planes, you’re going to kill a lot of people. You’re talking above 50,000 bombs. And it’s certainly worth noting that already in the month of April [20111], after one month of bombing, NATO has said, “We’re running out of bombs.” They’re running out of bombs?! That’s an incredible observation against a country of 6 million people. And then they would make the same statement, “We haven’t killed anybody.”

So people don’t analyze necessarily that data which comes out from NATO. Every week they will publish the number of strike sorties. But the military analysts working for the mainstream media, who know the planes, who have an understanding of war, and of the impacts of advanced weapon systems, they have a responsibility to report those, to analyze them. They are not doing it.

Killing Gaddafi. Destroying an Entire Country  

And yes, atrocities are being committed. But what I find disturbs me is that when you go to Occupy Wall Street, they say we must implement pro-democracy following the example of our brothers and sisters in Libya. And they are referring to the transitional counsel which is made up of a bunch of criminals, and which does not represent the Libyan population.And then they present Gaddafi as the enemy of democracy.

I’m not particularly a fan of Gaddafi, but Gaddafi is not the enemy of democracy, it’s the United States of America, which in the course of the last 100 years has supported dictatorships all over the world. And now they say we’re pro-democracy. The fact is, if they don’t like a particular head of state, or head of government in the case of Gaddafi, they go in and they kill him, and they kill the members of his family, and his grandchildren. And that is not the way you implement democracy. You implement democracy by respecting the sovereignty of countries, and the rights of people in those countries to decide on how they want to run their own affairs.

Libya Had the Highest Standard of Living in Africa

And I think it’s important for the record that Libya was one of very few countries in the world that did not obey the diktats of Washington and the IMF. And as a consequence of that, whether we like Gaddafi or not, the figures published by the United Nations, UNICEF, and the World Health Organization, confirm that the standard of living in Libya is the highest in Africa. There’s full employment, there’s almost 100% literacy, 50% of students who graduate from high school go to university, and it is by African standards an advanced welfare state. Whether we like the political regime or not, we have to acknowledge that.

And what has happened with the bombings over a period of several months since March [2011], is the destruction of a country, of its water system, of its food supplies, of its schools, its hospitals, its universities. Because these are being bombed, and we have evidence that they are being bombed. And if the Occupy Wall Street movement is a significant pro-democracy movement in the USA, Canada, and the Western world, it should take a stance against those NATO bombings. It should not present NATO as the role model, and all the rebels as the role model.

And that is precisely what was implied in some of those statements made by Occupy Wall Street that ultimately we should support our brothers and sisters in Libya who are fighting against Gaddafi. Those brothers and sisters are essentially al-Qaeda. They don’t represent the majority of the population, which ironically was supportive of the government. I mean, there’s opposition within all of those societies, but broadly speaking that society, that country had a project, had a high standard of living, had an educated population, and the result of this seven months of bombing has been to destroy a country. And it’s certainly not a role model for Occupy Wall Street.

Occupy Wall Street Must Take a Stance against War

And so Occupy Wall Street has to take a stance not only against Wall Street, but against all the wars which are led by Wall Street, by the oil companies, by Washington, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Palestine, in Libya, and in other parts of the world where they come in, in the Congo, in Rwanda, in Somalia, which is characterized by The Agenda. It’s the Agenda of going off the terrorists, going off to al-Qaeda. But then we discover that al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA, and that al-Qaeda in effect are the foot-soldiers of NATO in Libya. It’s the Libya Islamic Fighting Group which constitutes the main paramilitary force.

And then we discover that in Syria, the gunmen involved in the confrontation with the government forces are paid mercenaries who are Selafists, al-Qaeda-affiliated, and they are also supported by Western Intelligence. And this is an insurgency which purports to destabilize a sovereign country. Whether we like al-Assad or not, I respect the right of the Syrian people to decide on their own future without the intrusion of armed gunmen paid by foreign powers. And that is what is happening.

And the media also has the responsibility of reporting what’s going on in Syria. And when they have protesters armed with heavy machine guns, they have the responsibility to acknowledge that; because that’s not a protest movement, that’s an insurgency.

[Potent News] Thank you for joining us and donating your time Professor Michel Chossudovsky. Thank you very much.

[Michel Chossudovsky] Thank you very much. Delighted.

Posted in USAComments Off on Occupy Wall Street

Palestine and Zionism: The whole truth

Busting Israel's lies

By Alan Hart

The following is the text of a presentation I made last week to audiences in Sardinia on the occasion of the publication of Volume One of the Italian edition of my book, Zionism: The real Enemy of the Jews. (It and the German edition are being published by Zambon, a publishing house owned and led by a very brave and courageous German Jewish gentlemen. Giuseppe Zambon.) Brainwashed and idiotic Zionists in Sardinia tried and failed to have some of my lectures and debates cancelled by accusing me of being an anti-Semite who is inciting anti-Semitism. They knew nothing about my book and its contents and were reading from Zionism’s script. Their efforts resulted in increased sales of my book!

In response to the leading brainwashed Zionist idiot (he was not present), I pointed out that the first picture in Volume One of my book is of Prime Minister Golda Meir inscribed in her own hand: “To a good friend, Alan Hart.” And I asked if all Zionists who accuse me of anti-Semitism believed she was so stupid that she could not have seen through me if I was anti Jew.

Some and perhaps very many of you have had the pleasure of listening to my very dear friend Ilan Pappe, the “revisionist” (which means honest) Israeli historian and author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. It was Ilan who explained to me why the Zionist lobby puts so much effort into causing my book and discussion of what it reveals to be suppressed to the maximum possible extent throughout the entire Western world. Ilan said to me:

Zionism is more frightened of your book than any other because of its title. Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews is the truth in seven words.

In Italian the title is the truth in six words!

In my presentation to you today I will explain in summary why Zionism and notthe Arabs is the real enemy of the Jews; but first I want to offer you my take on what I regard as Zionism’s three biggest propaganda lies.

Zionism’s three biggest propaganda lies

Lie 1: The right of all Jews to Palestine

The first is the assertion that all the Jews of the world have a right to Palestine. That is complete nonsense.

The truth is that very, very few Jews have any biological/ancestral connection with the ancient Hebrews. The Jews are peoples (not a people) from many different homelands; and back in time many converted to Judaism long after the relatively brief rule of the ancient Hebrews, the Israelites. What I am saying boils down to this. The notion that there are two peoples with a valid claim to Palestine is rubbish. (There is even a case for believing that more Arabs than Jews may be descendants of the ancient Hebrews.)

Lie 2: Israel’s existential danger

Zionism’s second biggest propaganda lie is in its assertion that poor little Israel has lived in a danger of annihilation, the “driving into the sea of its Jews”. As I document in detail through the three volumes of my book, the truth is that Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab force. Not in 1948. Not in 1967. And not even in 1973.

In 1948, when elements of five Arab armies crossed into Palestine, their intention was not to destroy the unilaterally declared state of Israel; it was to prevent Israel taking the territory that had been assigned to the Palestinians for a state of their own by the UN Partition Plan.

There are incidentally three things about the Partition Plan that many Westerners are not aware of.

The first is that the UN had no right to assign any part of Palestine to incoming alien Jewish immigrants without the consent of the Palestinian people.

The second is that the Partition Plan would never have been approved if Zionism, assisted by 26 American senators and White House insiders, had not bullied and bribed a number of nations to change their “No” votes to “Yes” and/or abstain. When President Truman learned of Zionism’s campaign of intimidation and threats to bend the UN to its will, he wrote in a memorandum that it was perfectly clear that “pressure groups will succeed in putting the United Nations out of business if this sort of thing is continued”.

The third is that the Partition Plan was vitiated, became invalid, because Truman was not prepared to use force to impose it. When he decided against the use of force, he ordered his diplomats to return to the UN and continue discussions about how to solve the Palestine problem. It was while those discussions were continuing in the General Assembly that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence, in defiance of the will of the organised international community as it then was.

As to the actual fighting in 1948, here is the key to a complete understanding. Early on there was a month-long truce. When the fighting resumed it was 20,000 Arab soldiers, poorly trained and equipped, lacking motivation and badly led, against 80,000 Israeli forces, well trained and equipped, highly motivated and well led. As David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister knew, there was always only going to be one winner on the battlefield.

When Israel closed the Palestine file with its victory in 1948 the Arab regimes secretly shared the same hope as Zionism and all the major powers. It was that the Palestinians would accept their lot as the sacrificial victims on the altar of political expediency and that the Palestine file would remain closed for ever.

To give you a real indication of how little things have changed over the years, I’ll tell you now about an amazing conversation I had some years ago with a major Saudi royal. In an hour-long exchange of views I had with him alone in London, I made what I thought he would regard as two very contentious points.

The first was this. “Nothing is going to change in the Arab world until your bloody regimes are more frightened of their own people than they are of Israel and America.”

He replied: “You’re right.”

My second point was this. “If tomorrow the Israelis exterminated the Palestinians, your bloody regimes would raise a glass of whisky behind closed doors and say ‘Thanks’”

He replied: “You’re right.”

The essence of the truth about the Six Days War of June 1967 can be simply stated. For Israel’s leaders it was the unfinished business of 1948. They set a trap (fully explained in my book) for Egypt’s President Nasser. He was naive enough to walk right into it and give Israel’s leaders the pretext they wanted for war.

As it happened I was the first Western correspondent to reach the banks of the Suez Canal with the advancing Israelis. Just before I left Tel Aviv for the Sinai I had another amazing conversation, this one with then retired Major-General Chaim Herzog, one of the founding fathers of Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence who went on to become Israel’s ambassador to the UN and eventually its president. During the course of this conversation on day one of the war Herzog said the following.

If Nasser had not been stupid enough to give us a pretext for war we would have invented one in a year to 18 months.

In summary, what happened in June 1967 was a war of Israeli aggression, not as Zionism asserted a war of self-defence. Years later some Israeli leaders acknowledged this truth. In the first chapter of Volume Three of my book – subtitled “Conflict Without End?” – I quote a number of them. Here are just four examples.

In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this:

I do not believe Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.

On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordechai Bentov, a member of Israel’s wartime national government:

The entire story of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.

On 4 April 1972, General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations during the 1967 war, said the following in an article in Maariv:

There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.

And in an unguarded public moment in 1982, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said this:

In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

In the light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary, including the on-the-record statements of some of Israel’s own former leaders, it is truly astonishing that still today, when they make reference to the 1967 war, almost all Western politicians and mainstream media people continue to peddle the nonsense that Israel’s existence was in danger.

The short, true story of the 1973 war can be simply stated.

It was the consequence of a degree of collusion between Egypt’s President Sadat and Henry Kissinger who had just became President Nixon’s secretary of state. Kissinger was frustrated because the Israeli government of Prime Minister Golda Meir would not make even the smallest concession to allow him to push Sadat into making a separate peace with Israel. So he, Kissinger, sent word to Sadat that “a little heating up would be in order”.

Sadat’s battle plan, of which Kissinger was fully aware, was to cross the Suez Canal and stop. Which is exactly what Egypt’s forces did. Sadat had absolutely no intention of advancing further; and he was confident that Syria’s forces would stop their attempt to recapture some if not all of the Israeli occupied Golan Heights when Kissinger blew the whistle and convened a session of the Security Council to get a peace process going.

In Kissinger’s pre-war vision Sadat would be hailed by his own masses as a conquering hero for taking back the Suez Canal and he, Kissinger, would then give the Israelis a couple days to strike back at Egyptian and Syrian forces before blowing the whistle.

It all went badly wrong for Sadat and Kissinger (and the Syrians) for two main reasons.

One was that Israel’s armed forces were not war ready. And that was because Defence Minister Moshe Dayan believed there would never be war unless Israel started it. Because of this lack of war readiness Israel suffered heavy losses, of tanks especially, when Sadat launched his attack to cross the Suez Canal. And that led to a real crisis in Israel’s relationship with the Nixon administration and Kissinger in particular.

I became aware of this crisis in a telephone conversation with Prime Minister Golda.

As some of you may know, I enjoyed on the human level a very special relationship with Golda. That was because whenever I went to Israel I always sent her three dozen red roses. From the moment she became prime minster that guaranteed me the first interview with her at moments of crisis. To cut a long story short:

I arrived in Israel on the second day of the 1973 war. I discovered that Golda was holding a war cabinet in the kitchen of her Tel Aviv home and I sent the roses there. Two hours later I had a telephone call from Lou Kiddar, Golda’s personal assistant and lifelong best friend. She said, “Golda thanks you for the flowers and will try to call you this evening.”

When Golda did call me it was to say that on this occasion she could not give me the first interview. There was, she said, a compelling reason why she had to give the first interview to the American networks. I asked her what the reason was. She said:

We are in desperate need of a resupply of weapons from America, tanks especially. Kissinger is sitting at Nixon’s elbow telling him to delay the resupply and make us sweat until we are ready to make concessions.

Golda went on to tell me that she was ready to fly to Washington for one hour with President Nixon to clear the blockage.

As it happened it was Dayan who cleared the blockage and got the resupply going. He did it by ordering the arming of two nuclear missiles, one targeted on Cairo, the other on Damascus. That was enough to terrify Nixon and he ordered a massive resupply of weapons to Israel without further delay.

Years later I told the story of Dayan’s nuclear blackmail to an audience in America. After my presentation I was approached by a Jewish gentleman who had abandoned Israel and was making a new life in America. He said to me the following:

Alan, what you said about Dayan’s nuclear blackmail is true. I know because I was the officer responsible for overseeing the arming and the targeting of the two nuclear missiles.

The second main reason why it all went badly wrong for Sadat, Kissinger (and the Syrians) is that Ariel Sharon and other Israeli generals decided that when they were resupplied they would have to teach Kissinger (as well as Sadat and the Syrians) a lesson. Sharon and other Israeli generals were convinced that, in the immediate countdown to the war, Kissinger had ordered American intelligence indicating that Sadat was about to attack to be denied to Israel.

When Kissinger realised that Israel’s generals were going to pursue the war to the point of totally humiliating Sadat and himself he went to Moscow. The outcome of that visit was a statement that American forces around the world had been placed on a red (nuclear) alert because of the danger that the Soviet Union would become engaged in the war to prevent Sadat being totally defeated and humiliated. Prime Minister Golda Meir then received urgent appeals from Kissinger and Nixon. They told her she had to bring Sharon under control – he was intending to wipe out the trapped Third Egyptian Army – in order to prevent World War III and a nuclear holocaust.

And that was enough to cause her to act.

In her last conversation with me a few months before she died, Golda put it this way:

Still in my slippers, I climbed into a helicopter. I flew to Egypt – imagine that, Golda Meir in Egypt – and there I confronted Sharon. I stood in front of him and I said, “I am your prime minister and I order you not to move against the Third Army.

And that, more or less, was how the 1973 war ended. The trapped Third Egyptian Army was saved and with it Sadat’s face. And that left Kissinger with enough, just about enough, to begin the process that would lead to Egypt’s separate peace with Israel. Kissinger knew that if Egypt could be taken out of the war equation the Arabs would never be able to confront Israel militarily.

As a verbal footnote, I’ll add this. In that last conversation with Golda I asked her if she had believed that the threat of Soviet intervention and a superpower confrontation was real. She said that at the time she did believe it was.. “Do you still think so?” I asked. The length of her pause for thought suggested it was not a question she had previously considered. Eventually she said, “I’m not sure.” I took that to mean that she was open to the idea that Kissinger and the Soviets had put on a warning show to frighten her into confronting Sharon.

In that same conversation I asked Golda how much she had trusted Kissinger. She gave me two answers.

One was a gesture. She opened the index finger and thumb of her left hand to the widest possible extent, forming a complete right angle. Then, slowly, she lowered the index finger until it was just about touching her thumb. Then she said, “That much!”

Her second answer was this:

Whenever Kissinger was here in Israel he always called my cabinet ministers by their first names. And they called him Henry. Not me. I always called him Mr Secretary of State or Dr Kissinger; and I insisted that he called me Madame Prime Minister or Mrs Meir. If you’re on first name terms with such a man you’ll get screwed.

In summary of what I’ve said about the wars of 1948, 1967and 1973 I’ll repeat that Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab force.

I’ll add here a comment made to me in 1980 by then retired Major-General Shlomo Gazit, the best and the brightest of Israel’s directors of military intelligence. At the time I was acting as the linkman in a secret, exploratory dialogue between Arafat and Shimon Peres who was hoping to win Israel’s next election and deny Begin a second term in office. Gazit was one of two who were advising Peres for this initiative. Over coffee one morning I said to him: “I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s all a myth. Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger.” Through a sad smile he replied: “Alan, the trouble with us Israelis is that we’ve become the victims of our own propaganda.”

Lie 3: No Palestinian partner for peace

The third of Zionism’s biggest propaganda lies is its assertion that it has never had a Palestinian partner for peace.

The truth is that nobody, repeat nobody, did more than Palestine Liberation Organisation leader Yasser Arafat to prepare the ground for peace on terms which any rational government in Israel would have accepted with relief.

As I documented in detail in my book Arafat: Terrorist or Peacemaker? (I spent a year living with him and his most senior leadership colleagues to talk their story out of them), Arafat became a pragmatist as the result of a conversation he had with Egypt’s President Nasser in 1969. Nasser told him that if the PLO wanted to be taken seriously by the major powers it would have to come up with a policy of politics and compromise. The compromise required, Nasser added, was a commitment to peace with an Israel inside its 1967 borders.

Arafat knew that for most Palestinians everywhere at the time that was an unthinkable compromise because it required them to make peace with Israel in return for only 22 per cent of their land.

But from then on, 1969, Arafat himself was committed to the two-state solution. It then took him 10 long years to sell his policy of politics and compromise to first the majority of his Fatah leadership colleagues and then, eventually, to the PNC, the Palestine National Council, which was more or less a Palestinian parliament-in-exile and the highest decision-making body on the Palestinian side.

It was a selling process that required Arafat to put his reputation with his own people and his life on the line. In one of my conversations with Abu Iyad, Fatah’s intelligence and security chief, he told me that if at an early point he had believed Arafat would succeed in getting PNC support for unthinkable compromise with Israel, he would have assassinated him with his own gun. When subsequently I told Arafat what Abu Iyad had said, his only comment was “Yes, I knew that.”

It was after the 1973 war that Arafat stepped up his efforts to sell his policy of politics and compromise to the PNC. His reasoning in the immediate aftermath of that war was that Egypt would make a separate peace with Israel, that Jordan would no doubt do the same at some point, and that if PLO was not committed to peace with an Israel inside its pre-1967 borders, it would be abandoned by those two front-line Arab states.

When he went for broke in his efforts to sell his policy of politics and compromise to the PNC, Arafat summoned each and every one of the PNC’s 300 delegates from all over the world to Beirut for one-on-one conversations with him. The initial response of very many of them was to accuse him of being traitor. Arafat kept his cool and told the rejectors to return to their places in the diaspora and think over what he had said about the need for compromise with Israel. When they had done that, he told them, he would call them back for another conversation with him. Arafat was not a great public speaker but in one-on-one conversations he had the persuasive power of a magician.

That was proved when towards the end of 1979 the PNC meeting in Algiers voted in favour of Arafat’s policy of politics and compromise by 296 votes to 4.

The day after the vote I met with Arafat. He said:

It is a miracle. We are now prepared to live in peace with Israel in a mini-state of our own. No more this silly talk of driving the Jews into the sea!

Arafat was then at the height of his powers and if Israel’s leaders had been remotely interested in peace on the basis of a genuine two-state solution the door to it was open.

Israel’s response to Arafat the peacemaker came in 1982 when Defence Minister Sharon ordered an invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut. Its purpose was to eliminate the entire PLO leadership and destroy its infrastructure. But that was intended to be only Phase One of Sharon’s master plan.

His intention if he succeeded in eliminating the PLO leadership and destroying its infrastructure was to overthrow the Hashemite regime in Jordan and then say to the occupied and oppressed Palestinians: “Of course you must have a state of your own. There it is on the other side of the Jordan River. Go take it.”

A year later I asked King Hussein if he had been aware of Sharon’s intention to overthrow him. He said yes, he was fully aware of it.

But King Hussein was not the only Arab leader who was fully aware of Sharon’s game plan. When Sharon was well into planning his invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut the Gulf Arab leaders met in secret. Their purpose was to agree a message to be sent to President Reagan. The message they sent was to the effect that when Sharon went for the PLO in Beirut they would not intervene or make any trouble.

How do we know that? One of the Gulf leaders present was Oman’s Sultan Qaboos. And he warned Arafat. According to what Arafat told me, Sultan Qaboos said to him: “Be very careful. The time is coming when you will call for our help and it will not be provided.”

Did the Gulf Arab leaders want Sharon to destroy the PLO? The answer seems to me to be yes.

Another question. By being prepared to make peace with Israel in return for a Palestinian mini state, was Arafat effectively renouncing the Palestinian right of return?

The complete answer is no. Arafat and most of his leadership colleagues understood but could not say in public that a Palestinian mini state would be able to accommodate only about 100,000 of those refugees wishing to return. But they invested their hope, perhaps naively, in the idea that one or two generations of peace would create enough mutual trust and confidence for Israel to allow more and more Palestinians to return. But even if that hope was the product of wishful thinking it did not amount to renouncing the right of return.

Why Zionism is the real enemy of the Jews

Now to the question why Zionism is the real enemy of the Jews.

What we are witnessing in the world today is a rising, global tide of anti-Israelism which, generally speaking, is not anti-Semitism (not a loathing or even hatred of Jews just because they are Jews).

Anti-Israelism is the understandable human response to Israel’s contempt for international law, its denial of justice for the Palestinians and, more generally speaking, its on-going colonisation – the theft of more and more Arab land and water and the demolition of more and more Arab homes, a process that in my view could and should be described as ethnic cleansing slowly and by stealth.

The danger for the Jews of the world is that anti-Israelism could be transformed into anti-Semitism, leading at some point to a second holocaust, my shorthand for another great turning against the Jews.

An explicit waning about this danger was put into words by Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving director of military intelligence, in his 1986 book,Israel’s Fateful Hour. Here is what he wrote:

Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.

If Harkabi was alive today I think he would probably agree with me that the transformation about which he warned is now underway.

It’s worth noting that Harkabi was not the first to warn that Zionism could be the promoter of anti-Semitism.

Prior to the Nazi holocaust most Jews of the world were opposed to Zionism’s Palestine project. Those who spoke out publicly against it believed it was immoral and would lead to unending conflict. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way, it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.

Perhaps the most tragic of all ironies is that Zionism needs anti-Semitism in order to justify its criminal policies and actions.

Because of a particular belief I have I would like to be able to draw my presentation to a close on a positive note. My belief is this.

Generally speaking, the Jews are the intellectual elite of the Western world and the Palestinians are the intellectual elite of the Arab world. What this suggests to me is that together in peace and partnership they could change the region for the better and, by doing so, give new hope and inspiration to the whole world.

But it isn’t going to happen, so I can’t draw to a conclusion on a positive note.

Israel’s leaders are not remotely interested in peace on any terms the Palestinians could accept, and that’s in part because most Israeli Jews have been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda to the point where they are beyond reason on the matter of justice for the Palestinians.

The game plan of those Israeli leaders who call the shots is to make life hell for the Palestinians in the hope that they will either abandon their struggle and accept crumbs from Zionism’s table in the form of a few isolated Bantustans on 30 to 40 per cent of the West Bank which they could call a state if they wished; or, better still, pack their bags and leave to start new lives elsewhere.

What is most likely to happen when Israel’s leaders conclude that they can’t force the Palestinians to surrender on Zionism’s terms? My speculation is that they will create a pretext to go for a final round of ethnic cleansing – to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or wherever. And those who don’t flee will be slaughtered.

My further speculation is that if that happened the outrage of concerned and caring citizens around the world would speed up the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism, making another great turning against Jews inevitable at some point.

Making Israel accountable for the occupation

Last question for the moment.

Am I without any hope for a resolution of the conflict that will provide the Palestinians with an acceptable amount of justice?

In my analysis, and given the complicity by default of all the governments which matter in Israel’s on-going colonisation, I can see only one way in which the dynamics of the conflict could be changed. And that is for the occupied and oppressed Palestinians to insist on the dissolution of the corrupt and impotent Palestinian Authority and handing back to Israel complete responsibility and full accountability for occupation.

That would impose significant security, financial and other burdens on Israel, and it would respond with more and more brutality and oppression. But that could trigger an avalanche of public protest and pressure throughout the Western world and beyond to push governments to use the leverage they have to try to cause Israel to end its defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians.

But I have a caution. Even if the day comes when the governments of the major powers are prepared to confront Zionism it could not be taken for granted that Israel’s leaders would say: “Okay. We’ll do what you want.”

My reason for saying that is a statement Prime Minister Golda Meir made to me in one of my interviews with her for the BBC’s “Panorama” programme in 1972. At a point I said to her: “Prime Minister, I want to be sure I understand what you have just said… You did mean that in a doomsday situation Israel would be prepared to take the region and the world down with it?”

Without a pause for reflection, Golda replied: “Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying.”

That interview was broadcast on BBC 1 at 8 o’clock on a Monday evening. An hour later The Times of London, then a seriously good newspaper, changed its lead editorial to quote what Golda said to me. It then added its own opinion: “We had better believe her.”

I did then and I still do.

Thank you very much for listening and thank you dear Alfred for your translation. I now look forward to taking your questions and I hope that one of them will be about the role the Palestinian diaspora could play in helping to keep the Palestinian cause alive if it summoned up the will and the courage to become united and politically engaged.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Palestine and Zionism: The whole truth



Corbyn accused of keeping ‘controversial company’ after addressing May Day march featuring communists with banners of STALIN
Labour leader spoke to marchers in London insisting his party was against anti-Semitism and all forms of racism
Thought to be the first head of the party to address the event for 50 years
Attempting to cool raging row following Ken Livingstone’s suggestion that Hitler was a ‘Zionist’.

But marchers included communists carrying banners and quotes from notorious Soviet dictator
Tories say the people Corbyn associates with shows how far he is from the political mainstream


1 May 2016  .Daily Mail

Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of keeping ‘controversial company’ after marchers on the May Day rally were seen carrying Stalin banners.

The Labour leader, thought to be the first in 50 years to address the event, insisted his party was ‘absolutely against’ anti-Semitism and other forms of racism.

But Tories said the presence of communist marchers bearing flags with images of the Soviet dictator and quotes would have given the Jewish community ‘no comfort at all’.

Josef Stalin sent hundreds of thousands of citizens, many of them Jews, to the deadly Gulag prison camps.

Communists with banners featuring Soviet dictator Stalin were among marchers on the May Day rally 

Communists with banners featuring Soviet dictator Stalin were among marchers on the May Day rally.

Mr Corbyn had been due to join the rally and speak at the end of the route in London’s Trafalgar Square, but decided to make improptu address from a bus in Clerkenwell Green instead.

He argued that Labour’s strength came from ‘diversity’, saying: ‘We stand absolutely against anti-Semitism in any form.

‘We stand absolutely against racism in any form. We stand united as a Labour movement recognising our diversity.’

However, the Labour leader ignored questions from journalists about the crisis after his speech.

The intervention came as the anti-Semitism row escalated again with fresh warnings that Labour will be hammered by voters in elections this week for failing to deal with the issue.

Shadow Cabinet member Diane Abbott, a close ally of Mr Corbyn, risked further inflaming the situation by dismissing claims there is a problem as ‘smears’.

Jeremy Corbyn addresses the May Day march in London

Jeremy Corbyn addresses the May Day march in London

Unite boss Len McCluskey also waded in to accuse Blairite MPs of ‘manipulating’ anti-Semitism concerns in a bid to unseat the leader.

But Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev urged Mr Corbyn to disown extremist groups such as Hamas – which he previously described as ‘friends’ – as he warned that the party appeared to be ‘in denial’.

Mr Corbyn is facing growing demands to eject close ally Ken Livingstone immediately after he again refused to apologise for claiming Hitler was a ‘Zionist’. It has emerged that the disciplinary case against the veteran left-winger may not even get under way until July.
The leader’s critics are planning a media blitz against him next weekend if Labour crashes in Thursday’s council polls.

The sight of Communist Party marchers carrying Stalin banners among the trade unions and other workers’ group raised fresh questions.

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘The fact that Jeremy Corbyn is keeping such controversial company at his left-wing parade will give the Jewish community no comfort whatsoever.

‘It will reinforce the concerns that Mr Corbyn has associations with all the wrong people.’


Posted in UKComments Off on May Day: ZIONIST MEDIA PROPAGANDA

Syria: MSF Admits Withholding Syria Hospital Coordinates from Damascus and Moscow


msf hospital q

Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) does not provide GPS coordinates of health facilities it supports in Syria to either Damascus or Moscow over fears of “deliberate” attacks, the medical charity said, blaming a recent strike on “probably” Syrian or Russian forces.

“We gave to the Russian ambassadors in Paris [and] in Geneva coordinates for three hospitals located in very intense conflict zones, but not for all of them, and it was a decision taken together with the medical staff of the health facilities that we support,” said MSF operations director Isabelle Defourny.

At least 25 people were killed, including nine medical personnel and 16 patients, when airstrikes destroyed a hospital supported by MSF. Ten others were wounded when four missiles reportedly struck the hospital initially at around 9:00am local time Monday, according to accounts provided by medical staff on site. Forty minutes later, after rescuers arrived, the hospital was allegedly bombed again.

According to MSF, the coordinates had not been shared with the authorities or relevant Russian representatives because of safety concerns that were voiced by doctors operating in Syria.

“The staff of the hospital [and] the director of the hospital didn’t know if they would be better protected if they give the GPS or not,” Defourny said.

The operations director also noted, citing a deadly US airstrike in October on an MSF hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, that even offering GPS location would not serve as a safety guarantee. But now, after the latest strikes, the charity seeks to remedy the situation and expects its affiliated medical staffers to share their coordinates with the Syrian government officials.

The NGO seeks an independent investigation into the strikes, but has already accused the Russian air force and the Syrian Army of “probably” hitting the Maaret al-Numan hospital, yet at the same time acknowledging that it has no evidence into their assertion.


“We say a probability because we don’t have more facts than the accounts from our staff,”  said Dr. Joanne Liu, MSF’s international president.

The Pentagon has also failed to provide any additional intelligence to back the claims of Russia and Damascus involvement in the deadly attack, with Operation Inherent Resolve spokesperson Colonel Steven Warren admitting it was all “unclear.”

“Unclear to us whether it was the Russian aircraft, Syrian aircraft or a Russian missile or a Syrian missile, that part at this point is a little bit unclear to us,” Warren said on Wednesday.

“It is important to note that there were no coalition strikes in that area and in fact there have been no coalition strikes in Aleppo this year,” he added, contradicting the information shared by the Russian defense ministry last week.

RT Tweet

While the Syrian ambassador said Damascus has “intelligence information” that showed US warplanes had struck the hospital, the Russian presidential spokesman met allegations that the Russian Air Force delivered the strike with a flat denial, urging detractors to provide proof of the“empty” and “unfounded” accusations.

“We vehemently reject such allegations, particularly because those making those statements have always proven to be unable to deliver any proof of their unfounded accusations,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

MSF says that attacks against civilian infrastructure and hospitals became “routine”, saying that 101 shelling attacks have hit some 70 MSF-supported facilities over the last 13 months in Syria.

At the same time, the MSF noted that it never received official permission from Damascus to carry out work in Syria and operates mainly in areas held by anti-government forces.

The NGO president also noted the dire situation on the Turkish border, where Ankara continues its cross-border shelling of the Syrian Kurds gaining more ground.

“100,000 people are caught in northern Syria, near Azaz. They’re trying to escape the escalating air strikes and ground combat,” Liu said. “They are trapped between the Turkish border and a frontline.”

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syria: MSF Admits Withholding Syria Hospital Coordinates from Damascus and Moscow

Popular representation and democracy in Syria – end of `Alawite dictatorship’?

By Kristian GIRLING 


The Syrian parliamentary election of 13 April 2016 is demonstrative of the apparent and continuing plurality of Syrian society as manifested within the People’s Council – a parliamentary body which has often been regarded as merely a façade of legitimation for the ruling Baath Party government of President Bashar al-Assad. Plurality within the parliament is of significance insofar as it is indicative of the involvement of a range of religious communities in Syrian political life and runs directly contrary to the prevailing narrative of Syria as a dictatorship dominated by the Alawite religious community, of which the Assad family are members, and to the exclusion of the involvement of other religious communities in political activity.

Elections to the 250 member Syrian People’s Council take place every four years with the country divided into fifteen multiple seat constituencies. Since 2012 and amendments to the country’s constitution Syrian political life has been, in theory, open to participation to a wider array of political parties than the Baath and other permitted parties such as the Syrian Social Nationalist or Syrian Communist parties. Previously the Syrian Baath Party had looked likely to retain power in parliament indefinitely and indeed to dominate either directly by its own MPs or indirectly via allied parties and MPs. However, with the changes there is limitation on presidential office to seven years for any one candidate, no president can rule for more than two seven year terms, the president can now be someone who is not a member of the ruling National Progressive Front coalition, and the constitution no longer has a stipulation that the Baath Party is to be the normative and leading influence in Syrian socio-political life. Such changes may seem relatively minor and indeed the Baath Party will likely remain the de facto power in Syria for some time to come but they are indicative of President Assad’s openness to pursuing gradual reform on a model which is perceived as suitable for Syrian circumstances.

A key aspect of encouraging and maintaining societal stability in Syria since independence from French rule in 1946 has been to ensure that authoritative political leadership is combined with some type of broad representation of the plural religious and ethnic communities resident to Syria and ensure that they have a stake in determining Syria’s development. An important issue has been to ensure that those outside of the Alawite community have opportunities to take on representative roles and to know their contributions to Syrian society are valued. Criticism has focused on the Alawite strength and/or prevalence to many spheres of Syrian life but especially economically and in the security services to the detriment of others. The People’s Council appears to an extent to undermine these critiques as exemplified by the majority of seats being held by Syrians of the majority Sunni Muslim community.

Alawites and plural representation in the People’s Council

The Alawite community broadly identifies itself as part of Shia Islam having emerged in the late ninth/early tenth centuries in western Syria possibly around the figure of the eleventh Shia Imam, Hasan al-Askari. To the external observer it might seem that the Alawites are more a syncretistic movement containing aspects of Christianity and Twelver Shia Islam given, amongst other activities, they celebrate a type of Divine Liturgy including the consecration of wine alongside strong reverence for Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law and cousin of the Islamic prophet, Mohammed. This combination of — or plurality of — beliefs in part explains why the Assad family has consistently supported the notion of a plural Syria and the general advancement of a paradigm of laïcité for the Syrian state and in which, in theory, no-one religion should predominate to the detriment of another.

The Alawites currently form around ten–fifteen percent of the Syrian population (c.2,000,000 people) and are concentrated in the western coastal provinces of Latakia and Tartus. During the French Mandate in Syria (1923–1946) the Alawites were often strong supporters of French administration as their rule was perceived as a means to secure the Alawite community in a society which was not necessarily comfortable with their presence. Although Alawites consider themselves to be part of the Islamic milieu some Muslims, especially within the Sunni community, do not and find such assertions religiously and politically challenging.

The Alawite influence in the Syrian ruling élite within post-independence Syrian political affairs arose in the early 1970s when Hafez al-Assad (Bashar’s father) came to power as President. In general terms Hafez organised the state such that Sunnis held élite political offices and the Alawites held responsibility for the security services. The perception of the Syrian Baath establishment as a bastion of Alawite and to a lesser extent Christian power has not consistently sat well with the Syrian Sunni majority and it has been suggested that, in reality, they have been denied the opportunity to take a full part in Syrian political life. However, as I have noted, the People’s Council is predominantly Sunni and representative on a proportional level to the extent of almost matching the religious demographics of Syria:


These figures for Syrian MPs by religion were the only available as of 27 April 2016.

Such a balance is important as a means to legitimise the Syrian government’s claims to being the lawful and representative body controlling the Syrian state insofar as it can affirm it represents the interests of the full range of Syrian communities but also demonstrative of Sunni willingness to commit to the existing political establishment and loyalist campaign against Da’esh and other terrorist factions.

It should be noted that within the People’s Council there is a strong diversity of MPs and whilst as might be expected Latakia and Tartus are dominated by Alawite representatives there are also Christian and Sunni MPs in these regions. Moreover, women of Shia, Sunni, Alawite, Druze and Christian background also take a full part in Syrian political life with 29 female MPs (11 percent). Such a scenario were Da’esh to have successfully occupied Syria would, of course, be unthinkable.

Critiquing the Syrian elections

It appears that whether or not the April 2016 Syrian elections were actually entirely free and fair that it is enough for claims and accusations to be advanced to ensure they are characterised as a `sham’ and not reflecting the true results and popular will of the people. Such claims do not appear to more than scratch the surface of what actually took place beyond continuing to follow the set narrative of President Assad as a dictator only interested in advancing Alawite interests and the elections as likely fraudulent with only Baath loyalists actually gaining positions in reality.

This is not to suggest that Syria’s political process and elections are necessarily more than a very basic level of democratic participation. However, the elections did take place and furthermore, the current Syrian government may be many things but it appears, at the very least, to be gradually encouraging the transition to a more representative style of political system. It may not be one which external observers approve of, or, is the ideal of those external powers seeking violent and radical change for Syria but it is a process of political development which is taking place in the Syrian context and as far as the current lawful government is concerned, is perceived as the most likely method to manage Syrian plurality and to ensure some type of peaceful if long-term change in governance can take place with the minimum of extremist political forces further damaging the mosaic of Syrian society.

It is notable that Western states can be far less critical of other Middle Eastern powers with whom they are allied and who appear to have similar political structures to Syria or limited interest in widening political participation. The Kingdom of Bahrain, for example, is a Sunni led and dominated constitutional monarchy. The monarch in effect, however, is the final deciding authority in Bahrain and, for example, directly appoints the members of the Bahrani upper parliamentary house. Moreover, the majority Shia population (65–75 percent) of Bahrain has struggled to gain a strong and active voice in Bahrani socio-political life. This is not to single out Bahrain for criticism — indeed it has, like Syria, begun to transition to a more representative type of governance — but to be aware of the comparative type of narratives which are being pursued in the region with states such as Bahrain portrayed as reliable and honourable allies of the West but the Syrian government as beyond the pale for engagement by Western and Gulf states. Accusations of impropriety in democratic processes being one of the means to continue to critique the rule of President Assad.

We might also compare the democratic representation in Western states such as the United Kingdom, which have been consistently critical of the Syrian government since 2012, with attempts to proportionately represent Syrian communities in the People’s Council. We can note, for example, following the 2015 UK General Election that despite the UK Independence Party and Green Party receiving respectively c. 3,800,000 and 1,100,000 votes both parties have only one MP in the House of Commons. Whereas, the Scottish National Party received c. 1,400,000 votes and have fifty-six MPs. The peculiarities of the UK’s `First Past the Post’ electoral system are such that these results are valid returns, nonetheless, the external observer might ask are these results just, and, do they convey and strengthen confidence in the legitimate representative nature of British democracy?


The results of the 2016 Syrian elections are suggestive of the population’s commitment to the ideal of plurality in Syria through a popular willingness to take part in the elections and gain access to some type of political representation for all Syrians. We can note that a key aspect of critiquing President Assad’s leadership is the notion that he rules as a dictator and this because he favours one section of the population over others on a confessional basis. Notwithstanding that such critiques might be more vigorously and profitably pursued against other states in the Middle East it also speaks to a lack of comprehension as to how the realities of Syria’s plural society affect the type of government and form of rule which is maintained.

Syria under the Assad-Baathist governments cannot be said to hold to a representative system which is readily appreciated or supported by external observers who are used to models found in liberal democratic capitalist societies or that the Syrian system is indeed supported by the majority of the Syrian people. Nonetheless, it is a political system which has been sustained for over half a century. If the status quo in Syria has seen Alawite predominance, other confessions have not been consistently denied the opportunity to take a part in Syrian socio-economic and political life — without at least the acquiescence of the majority of the Syrian Sunni population to Assad-Baathist rule such a paradigm could not and would not have been sustained for so long.

If we are to speak of an Alawite dictatorship or Alawite over-dominance in recent Syrian history the most apparent example is in a “dictatorship of the dead”. A disproportionate burden of Syrian Arab Army casualties in the campaigns against Da’esh and its allies have been borne by the Alawite community with up to a third of Alawite young men having been killed in the conflict. It is possible that the Alawite sacrifices in this regard are such that other Syrian communities are recognizant of the commitment which the Alawites have to maintaining Syrian plurality and sustaining some form of societal stability and peaceful social interaction which has led to Sunni, Christian, Druze and Shia continuing to support President Assad’s government and willingness to engage with the gradually reforming political process.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Popular representation and democracy in Syria – end of `Alawite dictatorship’?

Labour Has A Jewish Problem; it is dominated by Zionist Oligarchs


Jeremy Corbyn, the man who just a few months ago was a ‘hope for a change,’ is a wimp. For months, the man has unconditionally surrendered to the Jewish lobby. He has systematically betrayed each of his professed core principles. Not surprisingly, the legendary ‘Left Icon’ has even betrayed his friends.

Leftists tend to call each other comrade; they shove the word ‘comradeship’ into every political statement. Apparently, they are unable  to grasp what comradeship is all about.  Corbyn’s ‘comradeship’ was on display when he failed to stand up for the heroic Ken Livingstone who told the well-established and undeniable truth about Hitler’s support of Zionism and the Havara Agreement. Corbyn just ran away with his tail between his legs.

For some time, I have thought the Left a dysfunctional masturbatory concept. But Corbyn was exciting, he seemed to support the oppressed. For decades he was the patron of the dysfunctional Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC). Corbyn promised to care for whatever is left of the British working people. He said all the most exciting things but he has delivered the opposite.

Perversely, I have been delighted with the recent developments in the Labour Party.

If anyone had so far failed to notice the corrosive impact of Jewish power and Jewish political lobbying, it is now all out in the open.

Thanks to the Jewish Lobby and Jewish donors, the Labour Party is not a free place. It is intolerant, it is oppressive, it is an occupied territory. It cares for one people only and these people are not the working class. They are, practically speaking, a bunch of Jewish oligarchs, by far the most privileged people on this planet.

Next we are going to learn that Corbyn’s Labour will remove Karl Marx from Labour’s heritage for writing On The Jewish Question. In 1843, Marx realised that “emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.” Marx thought that in order to emancipate the world from capitalism, the world must be emancipated from “Judaism.”  And in order to emancipate Labour from the Guardians of Judea it must liberate itself from Jewish Zionist oligarchs such as Lord LevyLord SugarMichael Foster and a few others.

It is probably just a question of time before the Labour party suspends the Working Class altogether for interfering with Labour’s Jewish oligarch funders.

There is now plenty of evidence that Jewish Lobby politics is incompatible with Western thought and values of freedom. We must choose whether we want to live in a United Ghetto dominated by the likes of Lord Levy and Lord Sugar or whether we prefer to dwell in a United Kingdom that is free and cares for all.

To understand Jewish ID politics and intense lobbying read The Wandering Who,


Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Labour Has A Jewish Problem; it is dominated by Zionist Oligarchs

May Day: Workers’ Struggles, International Solidarity, Political Aspirations


For more than 100 years, May Day has symbolized the common struggles of workers around the globe. Why is it largely ignored in North America? The answer lies in part in American labour’s long repression of its own radical past, out of which international May Day was actually born a century ago.

It is more important than ever, in the face of relentless capitalist austerity and emerging authoritarian forces on the right, that the North American labour movement reconnect with this history and forge linkages with the international labour movement in the remaking of a socialism for our times.

This pamphlet is the latest in the Socialist Interventions series (May 2016).


Rosa Luxemburg

We have not come to do the work of political parties, but we have come here in the cause of labour, in its own defence, to demand its own rights. I can remember when we came in handfuls of a few dozen to Hyde Park to

demand an Eight Hours’ Bill, but the dozens have grown to hundreds, and the hundreds to thousands, until we have this magnificent demonstration that fills the park today. We are standing face to face with another demonstration, but I am glad to see that the great masses of the people are on our side. Those of us who have gone through all the worry of the Dock Strike, and especially the Gasworkers’ Strike, and have seen the men, women and children stand round us, have had enough of strikes, and we are determined to secure an eight hours’ day by legal enactment; unless we do so, it will be taken from us at the first opportunity. We will only have ourselves to blame if we do not achieve the victory which this great day could so easily give us.

Eleanor Marx: Speech on the first May Day, Hyde Park, 4 May 1890

The happy idea of using a proletarian holiday celebration as a means to attain the eight­hour day was first born in Australia. The workers there decided in 1856 to organize a day of complete stoppage together with meetings and entertainment as a demonstration in favor of the eight­hour day. The day of this celebration was to be April 21. At first, the Australian workers intended this only for the year 1856. But this first celebration had such a strong effect on the proletarian masses of Australia, enlivening them and leading to new agitation, that it was decided to repeat the celebration every year.

Rosa Luxemburg, What Are the Origins of May Day? 1894

Posted in WorldComments Off on May Day: Workers’ Struggles, International Solidarity, Political Aspirations

The Silent “Elephant in the Room”: Lobbying Parliament to Supply British Weapons to I$raHell


The silent elephant in the room is the fact of the official endorsement of the actions of the Israeli government that flout international law, by our own government’s enthusiastic support for the agenda of the Conservative Friends of Israel lobby (CFI) in the House of Commons.

That agenda includes the lobbying of Parliament to supply British arms and military equipment to the IDF in order that Israeli forces can continue:

  1.  The illegal occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights,  in contempt of the will of  both the United Nations and the European Union
  2. The illegal settlement of nearly 600,000 Israeli citizens in the Occupied Territories in an attempt to prevent the establishment of an independent Palestinian state for five million indigenous Arabs
  3. The now seven year illegal blockade of nearly 2 million civilians in Gaza in a deliberate policy to prevent the supply of electricity and essential goods and services to the population in an abortive attempt to effect regime change
  4. The blatant violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions (GCIV).
  • This is the agenda of the Israel lobby in the British Parliament.
  • This is the elephant in the body politic and our legislature.
  • This is the underlying cause of anti-Semitism, not the Labour Party, nor the Liberal Party, nor the Green Party, nor UKIP nor even the Conservative Party.

The British electorate is well aware of the political machinations that damage democracy, human and civil rights and bring the integrity of the United Kingdom into disrepute.

When Britain takes firm and open action to dissociate all of us from Israeli aggression against a civilian population then the increase in anti-Semitism will dissipate as it becomes clear that the United Kingdom will no longer support terrorism whether state­ sponsored or otherwise, in any part of the world.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on The Silent “Elephant in the Room”: Lobbying Parliament to Supply British Weapons to I$raHell

Suppressing Criticism of I$raHell in Britain. Campaign within the Labour Party


There is a concerted campaign going on in the UK, in France, in the US and in the entire western world to suppress any form of criticism of Israel – especially the movement to boycott Israel. It takes many forms.A prime example is the current witch hunt in the British Labour Party against “anti-Semites” – a grave charge indeed. But in reality, the people being purged are those expressing support for Palestinian human rights.

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that the level of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is even statistically significant, let alone any kind of grave threat.

Reputable polling suggests that the level of anti-Jewish prejudice in the UK runs at seven percent (lower than in other European countries, and far lower than hatred against Muslims in the UK). The number of allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is currently no more than 11 cases.

UK Labour Party Logo

The number of allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is currently no more than 11 cases. In a party of 380,000 full time members (which may be as many as half a million once you add in registered supporters) that is a statistically insignificant. The level of anti-Semitism in the party is far less than in the general population – something that should be celebrated.

In a party of 380,000 full time members (which may be as many as half a million once you add in registered supporters) that is a statistically insignificant. The level of anti-Semitism in the party is far less than in the general population – something that should be celebrated.

In any case, most of these cases are falsified, as I documented in a major investigative piece this week.

What is really going on right now is a fanatical and desperate campaign, orchestrated by anti-Corbyn die-hards and Zionist hoodlums within the Labour Party to purge any criticism of Israel. They are after Corbyn’s head, as a long term activist for Palestinian rights.

The attempt right now is to declare acceptable boundaries of debate. John Mann MP, the Labour-right thug who played a key part in orchestrating Ken Livingstone’s political assassination Thursday has long been a fanatical apologist for Israel-right-or-wrong.

In 2013, he was a key witness in a court case launched by the Israel lobby suing the University and College Union for “institutional anti-Semitism”. Their crime? Raising the possibility of discussing the academic boycott of Israel. Not even endorsing it, mind you.  Merely discussing it.

The tribunal judge threw the case out on every single count. It was “devoid of any merit” and “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”.

Of the many in that entirely malicious case against UCU who came in for criticism from the judge, John Mann was essentially dismissed as a blow-hard and a liar. The judge pointed out that Mann claimed “any boycott of Israel or Israeli institutions”  was “itself anti-Semitic”. An obviously false and political charge.

All of this has grave implications for not only the Labour Party but the entire political culture in the UK. The Tory government is also trying to use legal intimidation to prohibit local councils from taking ethical decisions to boycott Israeli goods. Anything in the service of Israeli war crimes, it seems.

In Israel itself, the campaign to crush expressions of support for the Palestinians is of course  escalating. One of the main ways it has been ramping up in recent years is in what Israeli officials call its “war” against BDS, the boycott divestment and sanctions movement.

This has reached the point now that Israeli politicians are permitted by EU officials to stray extremely close to promising to assassinate a founder of the BDS movement – which, remember, is an entirely non-violent attempt by civil society to hold Israel to account for its war crimes and apartheid targeting the Palestinian people.

Amnesty International in April condemned remarks by an Israeli minister threatening  “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leaders such as Omar Barghouti. In Israeli terminology, “targeted elimination” or “targeted thwarting” (depending on the translation) is the official euphemism for the assassinations of Palestinian activists, political leaders and resistance fighters which Israel habitually carries out as a standard part of its depraved practices.

This was a very deliberate intimidation tactic by Israeli intelligence minister Yisrael Katz. At all costs, they want to crush BDS and any other form of action to hold Israel to account.

“I already feel slightly safer, having received this clear position by Amnesty International,” Barghouti told The Electronic Intifada after hearing about the human rights group’s condemnation of these Israeli threats.

Don’t be fooled by Israel’s propaganda usage of terminology such as “targeting elimination”. The CIA too, used to invoke such double-speak.

Of black leaders such as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, COINTELPRO documents notoriously threatened that “through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers and neutralize them”.

That ended up with government death-squads on the streets of America, gunning down community activists like the Black Panther Party.

Israel’s push to do the same must be resisted.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Suppressing Criticism of I$raHell in Britain. Campaign within the Labour Party

Shoah’s pages