Archive | November 8th, 2019

Julian Assange extradition update

Julian Assange in poor health
Stuart Littlewood writes:

Sure, your rights are protected. But you’ll just have to wait another four months before we listen to concerns that you might die from mistreatment in captivity…

I’ve received a reply from my MP Alister Jack (who is also Secretary of State for Scotland). I asked him to obtain an explanation from our Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Robert Buckland QC MP, on concerns about the proceedings to extradite Julian Assange to the US, since he is the person accountable. But Mr Jack’s response doesn’t make clear whether the response is his and, if not, where it actually come from.

I wanted to know…

  • Why Assange is held under the inhuman conditions reserved for terrorists when he’s a journalist.
  • How the Justice Department accounts for Assange’s poor physical and mental state.
  • Why the question whether political offences are excluded from extradition under Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty hadn’t been not been addressed before these expensive proceedings began.
  • Why Assange’s defence team hasn’t been given easier access and more time to prepare.
  • Why the high-security Belmarsh prison is chosen for February’s hearing, where the opportunity for public scrutiny is minimal.
  • And whether District Judge Baraitser will preside in February when, according to Craig Murray, she has already failed to behave impartially?

In particular I wanted to know why, according to witnesses, Assange’s physical and mental states have deteriorated so rapidly while in the UK justice system’s care.

There’s no attempt to answer most of these points. However, Mr Jack reminds me that Assange was jailed for 50 weeks on 1 May for breaching bail and holing up in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

“The UK’s criminal justice system is one in which rights are protected and in which, contrary to what Mr Assange and his supporters may claim, he and his interests will be protected,” writes Mr Jack, brimming with confidence.

But, he points out, the home secretary when signing an extradition warrant is limited in what he’s allowed to consider. For example, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 requires any judgement about human rights and health issues to be made in court.

The administrative hearing on 21 October ruled that Assange will face a five-day extradition hearing starting 25 February and, Mr Jack says, that’s when his human rights and poor health will be considered. It is for the judge to determine whether or not extradition would be a human rights breach and whether it would be oppressive and unjust on account of his state of health.

In other words, nobody in the UK justice system could give a toss about Assange’s wellbeing for another for months – an awful long time when you’re already in bad shape and worried sick that you’ll wind up in Guantanamo Bay for – for what, exactly?

Former ambassador Craig Murray, a friend of Assange, attended the October hearing and reported that he was distressed by how his appearance had deteriorated after long confinement, and by his rapid ageing and stumbling speech — “the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known” reduced to a “shambling and incoherent wreck”.

Some have expressed concern that Assange may not live to the end of the extradition proceedings.

From tomorrow MPs will cease to exist and Parliament will cease to function until after the General Election on 12 December. So nobody is representing anybody in the cesspit of Westminster for the next five or six weeks.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, Human Rights, UK0 Comments

Nazi regime new moves to airbrush the occupation

Israel’s new moves to airbrush the occupation

Ethnic-cleansing by Israel
By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

The United Nations’ independent expert on human rights in the Palestinian territories issued a damning verdict last week on what he termed “the longest belligerent occupation in the modern world”.

Michael Lynk, a Canadian law professor, told the UN’s Human Rights Council that only urgent international action could prevent Israel’s 52-year occupation of the West Bank transforming into de facto annexation.

He warned of a recent surge in violence against Palestinians from settlers, assisted by the Israeli army, and a record number of demolitions this year of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem – evidence of the ways Israel is further pressuring Palestinians to leave their lands.

Urgent need for boycott

He urged an international boycott of all settlement products as a necessary step to put pressure on Israel to change course. He also called on the UN itself to finally publish – as long promised – a database that it has been compiling since 2016 of Israeli and international companies doing business in the illegal settlements and normalising the occupation.

Israel and its supporters have stymied the release, fearing that such a database would bolster the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign that seeks to end Israel’s impunity.

Lynk sounded the alarm days after Israel’s most venerated judge, Meir Shamgar, died aged 94.

Shamgar was a reminder that the settlers have always been able to rely on the support of public figures from across Israel’s political spectrum. The settlements have always been viewed as a weapon to foil the emergence of a Palestinian state.

Perhaps not surprisingly, most obituaries overlooked the chicanery of Shamgar in building the legal architecture needed to establish the settlements after Israel occupied the Palestinian territories in 1967.

But in a tweeted tribute, Binyamin Netanyahu, the interim prime minister, noted Shamgar’s contribution to “legislation policy in Judea and Samaria”, using the Israeli government’s term for the West Bank.

Apologist for apartheid and crime

It was Shamgar who swept aside the prohibition in international law on Israel as an occupying state, transferring its population into the territories. He thereby created a system of apartheid: illegal Jewish settlers enjoyed privileges under Israeli law while the local Palestinian population had to endure oppressive military orders.

Then, by a legal sleight of hand, Shamgar obscured the ugly reality he had inaugurated. He offered all those residing in the West Bank – Jews and Palestinians alike – access to arbitration from Israel’s Supreme Court.

It was, of course, an occupier’s form of justice – and a policy that treated the occupied territories as ultimately part of Israel, erasing any border. Ever since, the court has been deeply implicated in every war crime associated with the settlement enterprise.

As Israeli lawyer Michael Sfard noted, Shamgar “legalised almost every draconian measure taken by the defence establishment to crush Palestinian political and military organisations”, including detention without trial, house demolitions, land thefts, curfews and much more. All were needed to preserve the settlements.

Shamgar’s legal innovations – endorsing the systematic abuse of Palestinians and the entrenchment of the occupation – are now being expanded by a new generation of jurists.

Legalised theft

Their latest proposal has been described as engineering a “revolution” in the occupation regime. It would let the settlers buy as private property the plots of occupied land their illegal homes currently stand on.

Disingenuously, Israeli officials argue that the policy would end “discrimination” against the settlers. An army legal adviser, Tzvi Mintz, noted recently: “A ban on making real-estate deals based on national origin raises a certain discomfort.”

Approving the privatisation of the settlements is a far more significant move than it might sound.

International law states that an occupier can take action in territories under occupation on only two possible grounds: out of military necessity or to benefit the local population. With the settlements obviously harming local Palestinians by depriving them of land and free movement, Israel disguised its first colonies as military installations.

It went on to seize huge swathes of the West Bank as “state lands” – meaning for Jews only – on the pretext of military needs. Civilians were transferred there with the claim that they bolstered Israel’s national security.

That is why no one has contemplated allowing the settlers to own the land they live on – until now. Instead, it is awarded by military authorities, who administer the land on behalf of the Israeli state.

That is bad enough. But now Defence Ministry officials want to upend the definition in international law of the settlements as a war crime. Israel’s thinking is that, once the settlers become the formal owners of the land they were given illegally, they can be treated as the “local population”.

Israel will argue that the settlers are protected under international law just like the Palestinians. That would provide Israel with a legal pretext to annex the West Bank, saying it benefits the “local” settler population.

And by turning more than 600,000 illegal settlers into landowners, Israel can reinvent the occupation as an insoluble puzzle. Palestinians seeking redress from Israel for the settlements will instead have to fight an endless array of separate claims against individual settlers.

This proposal follows recent moves by Israel to legalise many dozens of so-called outposts, built by existing settlements to steal yet more Palestinian land. As well as violating international law, the outposts fall foul of Israeli law and undertakings made under the Oslo accords not to expand the settlements.

American blessing

All of this is being done in the context of a highly sympathetic administration in Washington that, it is widely assumed, is preparing to approve annexation of the West Bank as part of a long-postponed peace plan.

The current delay has been caused by Netanyahu’s failure narrowly in two general elections this year to win enough seats to form a settler-led government. Israel might now be heading to a third election.

Officials and the settlers are itching to press ahead with formal annexation of nearly two-thirds of the West Bank. Netanyahu promised annexation in the run-up to both elections. Settler leaders, meanwhile, have praised the new army chief of staff, Aviv Kochavi, as sympathetic to their cause.

Expectations have soared among the settlers as a result. Their impatience has fuelled a spike in violence, including a spate of recent attacks on Israeli soldiers sent to protect them as the settlers confront and assault Palestinians beginning the annual olive harvest.

Lynk, the UN’s expert, has warned that the international community needs to act swiftly to stop the occupied territories becoming a permanent Israeli settler state. Sadly, there are few signs that foreign governments are listening.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Chester Interfaith Conference on Palestine a monumental success despite threats and intimidation by Zionist terror networks

Chester Interfaith Conference on Palestine 2019
Gilad Atzmon writes:

In the last few days Zionist and Israeli advocacy groups have been desperate to cancel a gathering of many local peace enthusiasts, intellectuals and religious leaders. Every hasbara [Israeli propaganda] trick was put into play: social media abuse, intimidating phone calls, smears and lies. But none of it worked. The bigoted pro-Israeli efforts backfired – interest in the conference grew immediately, the local community stood for Palestine, peace, harmony and free speech!

Roderick Heather MBE, Chairman of Hoole Community Centre, was subjected to vitriolic abuse. I learned yesterday that Mr Heather decided to attend the conference meetings and to judge for himself whether it was a “hateful” gathering. Apparently, he was impressed and announced to the group at the end of the first day that they will always be welcome at the Hoole Centre. Here is the message Mr Heather sent to the North West Friends of Israel, the advocacy pressure group that led the campaign.

Roderick Heather message

Roderick Heather message

One may wonder why Zionist operators are so desperate to cancel Palestinian meetings and are so fearful of my work in particular. As things stand, the law seems to be on their side. With the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitsm and current legislation designed to supress all criticism of Israel, the Zionist advocacy groups could theoretically seek to punish  everyone who even comes close to questioning the operation of their community or their beloved Israel. You would expect Zionists to ignore Palestinian gatherings. If those gatherings were indeed “hateful”, they could have locked many of us up behind bars a long time ago. Clearly, the Friends of Israel know that the reality is different. Palestine solidarity is a peace-seeking mission. Despite my huge body of work, I have never been accused of making a single hate statement. Needless to say, I do not need to mention that I have never been charged or even questioned by any legal authority anywhere in the world about anything I have said or written. The same applies to Stephen Sizer. The Zionist lobby groups accuse Palestinian solidarity gatherings of being “hateful” while knowing that this type of behaviour is something that Palestinian activism is free of.

Here are final words of the Chester Interfaith Conference on Palestine:

The Chester Palestine Conference was even more successful on its second day. We actually ran out of chairs!

The theme for the day was “Grassroots for Palestine: Making local links”.

The day started with a brief interfaith service.

Burnley Women’s Peace Group shared the experience of their Jerusalem Peace Pilgrimage this year. The images of Palestinian suffering were very moving. They are a Jewish, Christian and Muslim interfaith group.

A Jewish Roma activist addressed the similarities between the Roma and Palestinian experience.

Andrew Herbert from Chester’s Methodist Church spoke of his Palestinian house rebuilding experience with the Amos Trust.

Gilad Atzmon the international jazz artist and author of best-selling books on Jewish identity politics flew in from Greece to give a wide-reaching presentation entitled “Zionism from Herzl to Bibi” [watch video below].

Atzmon was born into a Jewish family in Tel Aviv, and conscripted into the Israeli regime army where he had a life-changing experience when he was shocked by the barbaric conditions imposed by the Israeli regime on the Palestinians during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

In his intellectual, philosophical and polemical style he engaged us to think deeply about the causes of the worsening trauma of the Palestinian people.

Damien Short’s presentation on the “Genocide of the Palestinians” could not be shown due to technical problems. We will endeavour to distribute it to the conference attendees. Damien is a Reader in Human Rights at the University of London. His book “Redefining Genocide: Settler Colonialism, Social Death and Ecocide”, which includes a chapter on “Genocide and Palestine”, is highly recommended.

The Israeli artist Zohar’s exhibition of Palestinian paintings is on show at Chester University Kingsway Arts Campus, Kingsway, Chester CH2 2LB for the month of November. 

These accomplished and thought-provoking pictures are “witnessing the chaos and brutality inflicted on the Palestinian civilian population by an ever more confident and belligerent military power.”

(For insurance and practical reasons we were unable to show these at the conference).

We look forward to the third Annual Chester Palestine Conference in 2020.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

A response to UK Labour Party Zionists’ disinformation and double standards

Zion strangles UK

Binary thinking for binary times? If opposing racism is binary thinking then anti-racists will be guilty of it

*Jon de Rennes writes:

This is a response to an article published on the Jewdas website on 23 September 2019 and circulated by Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) a couple of weeks later. 

The author of the Jewdas article, Matthew Aaron Richmond, included the above image that we from LAZIR displayed outside this year’s Labour Party conference. Although he doesn’t say so, we have assumed he agrees with the ridiculous assertion, made by the Zionists who repeatedly and violently attacked it, that it’s in some way anti-Semitic. Sadly, this was an assertion disgracefully backed up by (former?) Palestinian rights advocate Jeremy Corbyn. We will say a bit more about the banner at the end.

In its introduction to Richmond’s article, Jewdas said:

The following piece was contributed by Matthew Aaron Richmond @mattyrichy. This is a serious piece of journalistic analysis so, if you came here to laugh and were disappointed, all we have to say is that this is our website and if you don’t like it you can get out.

This seems to be quite an aggressive introduction to an article that purports to be a rallying cry for rapprochement by people who, I argue, have no interest whatsoever in rapprochement. As for the serious journalistic analysis part, it’s nothing of the sort. It’s quite long so I might not be able to deal with every point raised, but I will attempt to rebuff its apparent overall argument.

I should begin by saying what I thought was good about the article, although there wasn’t much of that. I guess the idea of finding common ground is commendable, but when it appears to imply common ground with racists, that is unacceptable It also contains some obvious common sense arguments with which I wholeheartedly agree, but they seem so obvious to me that they hardly need saying. Not only that, but some of them are also assumed to be ideas that some of us on the anti-Zionist left, who the author seeks to take to task over our implied racism, espouse when as far as I am aware none of us do. 

Let’s begin our analysis with the 2012 mural which (with hindsight probably mistakenly) Corbyn defended. Was it anti-Semitic? The author says it was, but I think it’s debatable as Jonathan Cook and Martin Odoni have argued. To quote from the Odoni article: 

If you see a picture of rich men with large noses and your immediate assumption is “Jews!!!!” that may say more about your own prejudices than it says about the artist’s.

In the author’s defence, he does acknowledge the overall spuriousness of the mural and other accusations of Corbyn’s supposed anti-Semitism. So this part of the article is not the problem. The problems start when Richmond starts to talk about those of us on the anti-Zionist left.

Immediately after his apparently somewhat justified criticism of Chris Williamson MP, Richmond begins to refer to the witch hunt in the Labour Party in inverted commas. The obvious implication of the quote marks is that there is, in fact, no witch hunt when quite clearly there is. Also, I found his dismissal of Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein as “a Jewish person that agrees” pretty bold and also possibly anti-Semitic. The same applies to his dismissal of our Jewish comrades on the anti-Zionist left (presumably the author thinks all these people are the wrong kind of Jews – he wouldn’t be the first). For the record, it turns out Finkelstein doesn’t entirely agree with us anyway.

With regards to Richmond’s apparent dismissal of the witch hunt, I would recommend that he watches this documentary by John Pullman. And in terms of the existence of an orchestrated Zionist smear campaign against Corbyn, which Richmond also seems to call into question I would recommend the AlJazeera documentary about the Zionist lobby in the Labour Party. I would also recommend the Dispatches documentary, “Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby”. Clearly, the Dispatches documentary has nothing to do with Corbyn, but it would seem to back our claim of longstanding interference in UK politics by the Zionist lobby. The other interesting point is that 10 years ago the UK’s mainstream media were prepared to screen this whereas today they are utterly unwilling to do so and I think we need to ask ourselves why this is so.

One of Richmond’s main criticisms seems to be that we are guilty of binary thinking, to which I have a couple of responses. First, I think that the situation in Israel/Palestine is binary and people that try to frame it as otherwise risk enabling the current horrendous status quo. The Richmond also states that our kind of binary thinking is useful when confronting real far-right racists in the street. Here I would argue that what we are confronting here is the real rise of global far-right racism from the US to Europe, Israel, Brazil, the Philippines and beyond.

Richmond also seems to imply that we believe that any (Jewish) person who has interpreted anything Corbyn, Williamson (or anyone else on the left) has said or done as anti-Semitic “are knowingly part of a smear campaign”. However, I am pretty confident that very few, if any, of us would ever make such an argument. I certainly would not. After all, the whole point of the coordinated smear campaign that we are being subjected to is to convince unwitting people that we are racists. The fact that the campaign, with the full support of the UK establishment and their shills in the mainstream media, has succeeded in convincing many people (whether Jewish or otherwise) should come as no surprise.  Therefore, I would not argue that such people “are knowingly part of a smear campaign”; quite to the contrary, I would argue they are victims of it. 

In their recent book Bad News for Labour, Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller discovered that the British public believe 34 per cent of members of the Labour Party have been accused of anti-Semitism when the research indicates the real figure is 0.1 per cent. That’s out by a factor of 340. (You can read an interview with one of the authors here 

I don’t want to get involved in Richmond’s self-confessed highly problematic attempts to define racism, although I would suggest that dictionary definitions might suffice. However, the idea that calling Israel a racist endeavour could under any circumstances “be attached to fantasies about driving all Jews “into the sea” is, frankly, ludicrous. Calling Israel a racist endeavour is simply a statement of fact. 

As someone that was born and grew up in the UK and lived there until I was 38 I was interested in the Richmond’s observation about the apparent invisibility of the British Jewish community and our consequent disorientation on discovering its existence. Once again, I find such an argument a bit of a stretch at best. Throughout my education and professional career I had Jewish friends and colleagues and as an Arsenal fan have always been aware of the widely known Jewish community of North London, so the implication that we were disorientated by the sudden discovery that the UK has a Jewish community seems a bit odd to me. The UK has the seventh largest Jewish population in the world.

Even more ludicrous is the suggestion that we wouldn’t understand why Jewish people might be concerned about anti-Semitism “at all”. As anti-racists, we are opposed to any and all forms of anti-Semitism as we are to all other types of racism. Having said that, I think it’s important to note that Jewish people in the UK are not, in general,  subject to institutional racism in the same way that other minority groups are. Here I think it would be informative to focus specifically on the scourge of Islamophobia which is inextricably linked to the rise of global far-right racism I mentioned before. I think it’s informative how little media attention this receives in the UK (and elsewhere) compared with Labour’s supposed anti-Semitism crisis. 

It’s also worth noting how the (genuine) Islamophobia crisis has been fuelled by genuinely racist politicians such as Boris Johnson and Donald Trump and how in the case of the former this has been largely ignored by the UK mainstream media (almost completely compared to Labour’s supposed anti-Semitism crisis). Once again, I think we need to ask ourselves why this might be the case. When Sadiq Khan shamefully told the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM – formerly Paole Zion, reconstituted in 2015 in order to undermine Corbyn – see the AlJazeera documentaries) that there is a hierarchy in racism he’s correct, but in the complete opposite way than that which he implies. Apparently, he has no sense of irony, so perhaps Corbyn was correct about Zionists.

I think it’s also important to recognise the undeniable rise of anti-Semitism that we are seeing worldwide (I think the Tree of Life shooting and other recent murderous attacks against Jewish people are more than enough evidence of this). However, yet again I think it’s important to note where this is coming from. The answer, of course, is the far right, not the left. It’s also been enabled by racist far-right politicians (primarily Trump) and their supporters in the mainstream media (for example, Fox News in the US). However, these far-right (genuinely) anti-Semitic politicians who have enabled the murder of Jewish people are friends of the Zionists (many of them, from Boris Johnson to “Tommy Robinson” to Richard Spencer are themselves self-declared Zionists) and this fact seems to often get them a free pass in terms of their overt racism.We need to be asking some questions as to what is going on here and who the real anti-Semitic racists are. 

What angered me most was the implication in Richmond’s conclusion that those of us on the Corbyn-supporting anti-Zionist left are as much or more of a threat to the possible achievement of a Corbyn premiership as the Zionists. I find this argument ridiculous given that the Zionists are on record declaring they won’t stop until Corbyn has been replaced, declaring no-confidence votes in his leadership, telling people not to vote for him and a multitude of other attacks, too many to mention.  

Serious journalistic analysis? I think not. 

LAZIR chair Peter Gregson with the banner in happier days before it was attacked by Zionist thugs.

LAZIR chair Peter Gregson with the banner in happier days before it was attacked by Zionist thugs.

Bob Pitt has written an excellent defence of the banner. It’s also worth reading Pete’s own description of the events of that day.

In terms of binary thinking, I think the Zionists who repeatedly ND violently attacked the banner (three times in all) were a classic case of mob violence stifling open debate. Their binary thinking that any criticism of Netanyahu was anti-Semitic was exemplified by their fury at our making public his frequent denunciations of Corbyn. While they raged and ripped, Peter Gregson and his supporters resolutely repaired it each time it was damaged. Our claim that freedom of speech and expression was a right got nowhere when the police succumbed to the mob’s demand that the banner be removed. The Zionist mob violence has been condemned by no-one. 

Matthew Aaron Richmond ends his article by calling for “moral leadership [to] drive a process of cultural change, challenging unhealthy and counterproductive habits among parts of the membership”. These thugs were Labour members, Matthew. What about them? 

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

Tulsi Gabbard is right, and Nancy Pelosi wrong. It was US Democrats who helped cultivate the barbarism of Islamic State group

Islamic State group and USA
Jonathan Cook writes:

There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump’s decision to pull troops out of Syria.

One does not need to defend Trump’s actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger picture.

The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meeting this week with Trump, who is described as having had a “meltdown”. Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the paper writes that “it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Islamic State group (IS) in the Middle East”.

Hang on a minute! Let’s pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.

IS didn’t emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. And I’m not even referring to the mountains of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming IS – just as their predecessors in Washington, in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.

No, I’m talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington’s local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn’t care.

Overthrow, not regime change

You don’t have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don’t even have to be concerned that these so-called “humanitarian” wars violated each state’s integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined in international law as “the supreme war crime”.

The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations, these haven’t so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.

The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called “Washington consensus” since 9/11.

The first was Israel’s long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that sucked out all the local population’s energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they could export to non-compliant states in the region.

The second was the Chicago school’s Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein’s book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction, the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable population that would be ripe for a US-controlled “colour revolution”.

The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.

Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted – from Pinochet’s Chile to Yeltsin’s Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning from past errors. As Bush’s senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the “reality-based community”: “We’re an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality.”

The birth of Islamic State

The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region’s finest public health services.

One can argue about the initial causes of the uprising against Assad that erupted in Syria in 2011. Did it start as a popular struggle for liberation from the Assad government’s authoritarianism? Or was it a sectarian insurgency by those who wished to replace Shia minority rule with Sunni majority rule? Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate change led to repeated crop failures? Or are all these factors relevant to some degree?

Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture I want to address.

The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be found and that served as the pretext for Bush’s campaign of Shock and Awe.

The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing, flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.

A dark US vanity project

After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington’s policy had engineered.

The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, IS saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabist dogma. IS needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.

This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west’s chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria.

Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.

The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.

From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.

A giant red herring

Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East, one intimately tied to Islamic State.

What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should have no credibility on the matter to begin with.

But their claims that Trump has “no plan to deal with a potential revival of IS in the Middle East” is a giant red herring they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.

First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that IS – or something very like it – was inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.

IS was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.

With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for IS to fill. The jihadists’ state-building project is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.

Doomed Great Game

The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army, which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.

The Syrian Kurds’ predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad’s protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army’s return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.

That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.

Nancy Pelosi’s purported worries about IS reviving because of Trump’s Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama spent years spawning, cultivating and financing IS to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against the head-chopping extremists?

Pelosi and the Democratic leadership’s bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party’s only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.

Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don’t care about Syria, or its population’s welfare. They don’t care about Assad, or IS. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues to bestow on them.

Posted in USA0 Comments

A window into Jewish guilt

Jewish guilt
Gilad Atzmon writes:

It has become an institutional Jewish habit to examine how much Jews are hated by their host nations and how fearful Jews are of their neighbours. Jewish press outlets reported on 27 October that “9 out of 10 US Jews worry about anti-Semitism”.

I, for one, can’t think of another people who invest so much energy in measuring their unpopularity. Despite the scale of Islamophobia and anti-Black racism, we are not subjected to a constant barrage of “statistics” to “warn us” of how hated Blacks are or how unsafe Muslims feel.

The American Jewish Committee’s (AJC) statistics suggest that “most Jews think that the situation is getting worse”. I find its statistics questionable but I guess any mathematically inclined person would agree that if 9 out of 10 are fearful, then the situation can’t get much “worse” as 10 out of 10 would constitute only a minor increase (11 per cent).

Assume for a moment that the AJC’s statistics reflect reality and that the  overwhelming majority (90 per cent) of 1,200 Jewish respondents, from all political and religious persuasions, regard Jew-hatred as a serious problem with potentially disastrous consequences.

We might wonder is are the “naughty” one out of ten Jews who, unlike his / her brethren, is not scared of his / her American neighbours. I suspect these are the so-called “self-haters”, that infamous bunch of horrid humanist Jews who support Palestine and are disgusted by the manifold of recent Jewish #MeToo scandals and paedophilia/organised crime networks. This small minority (10 per cent ) of disobedient Jews might be disturbed by the opioid scandal that left 400.000 Americans dead, they probably know who were the prime actors in this saga of class genocide. They are likely troubled by a range of  financial crimes from Madoff to Israeli banks evading US taxes, to the Israeli binary options companies that defraud American citizens. These universalist Jewish outcasts are often vocal critics of their people, their culture and their politics. They may denounce AIPAC (AMerican Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), George Soros and even JVP (Jewish Voices for Peace) for acting as the controlled opposition. The AJC’s “statistics” point to the possible existence of a comic scenario in which nine out of 10 Jews are intimidated by the one out of 10 Jews who speak out.

There is a less humorous, more serious interpretation of the AJC’s “findings”. It is possible that the large number of Jews who worry about anti-Semitism indicates that Jews at large are aware of the worrying traits associated with their politics, culture, identity, lobbying and Israeli criminality.

Jews may feel that they are stained as a group by problematic characters such as Weinstein, Epstein and Maxwell. They may feel polluted by Israeli politics and the intensive Zionist lobbying that plunders billions of American taxpayers’ dollars every year. As the White House seems to turn its back on the neocons’ immoral interventionism, some Jews may be discomfited by the fact that the neocon war mongering doctrine has been largely a Jewish project. As Haartez writer Ari Shavit wrote back in 2003: “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish…” Maybe some Jews now understand that the Zionist shift from a “promised land” to the neocon “promised planet” doesn’t reflect well on the Jews as a group.

I am trying to point out the possibility that the overwhelming fear of “anti-Semitism”, documented however poorly by the AJC, might well be the  expression of  guilt. American Jews may feel communal guilt over the disastrous politics and culture of some sections of their corrupted elite. They might even feel guilty as Americans about the brutal sacrifice of one of America’s prime values, that of  freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment, on the altar of “anti-Semitsm“.

Obviously, I would welcome AJC’s further investigation of this. It would be interesting to learn about the correlation between the Jewish fear of anti-Semitism and Jewish guilt. It would also be fascinating to find out how Jewish anxiety translates into self-reflection. In that regard, I suggest that instead of blaming the American people, Jews try introspection. US Jews may want to follow the early Zionists, such as Theodor Herzl, who turned guilt into self-examination. Herzl was deeply disturbed by anti Semitism but this didn’t stop him from digging into its causes. “The wealthy Jews control the world, in their hands lies the fate of governments and nations,” Herzl wrote. He continued: “They set governments one against the other. When the wealthy Jews play, the nations and the rulers dance. One way or the other, they get rich.” 

Herzl, like other early Zionists, believed that Jews could be emancipated from their conditions and even be loved globally by means of a cultural, ideological and spiritual metamorphosis with the aspiration of “homecoming”. Herzl and his fellow early Zionists were clearly wrong in their proposed remedy for the Jewish question, but were absolutely spot on in their adherence to self-reflection and harsh self-criticism.

American Jews have much to learn from Herzl and other early Zionists. They should ask themselves how their American “Golden Medina”, their Jewish land of opportunities, has turned into a “threatening” realm. What happened, what has changed in the last few years? Was it the constant cries over anti-Semitism and the desperate and institutional attempts to silence critics that turned their Golden Medina into a daunting space?

Posted in ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

The Oslo Accords: The five-star Nazi occupation

Oslo agreement

By: Dr. Mohsen Saleh+-
The Oslo Accords, which were concluded between the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel in 1993, will surely go down in history as the worst agreement between the representatives of a people under occupation and an occupying power.

The main Palestinian negotiator thought that Oslo would be a prelude to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, he found himself establishing an authority that provides cover for Israel’s “five-star occupation” that has continued to impose Judaization and settlement building across the occupied territories to destroy the dream of a “two-state solution”. The occupation also keeps the functional Palestinian Authority to serve Israel’s objectives rather than the goals of the Palestinian people.

It is the trap which the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said talked about when he stated that the late President Yasser Arafat (1929-2004) “entangled his people in a trap from which there is no escape,” and that he had thrown himself among the Israelis and the Americans (Al-Hayat newspaper, 21/8/1995).

Oslo has had a number of major consequences. For a start, it has damaged the Palestinian national project by ensuring that the PLO leadership made a historic concession by recognizing Israel’s “right to exist” and the legitimacy of its occupation of 77 per cent of Palestine. At a stroke, Palestinian land occupied in 1948 was taken out of the conflict and negotiations. Israel did not, in return, recognize the right of the Palestinian people to keep the rest of Palestine, essentially the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Indeed, there is nothing in the Accords to indicate that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are occupied lands; there is no Israeli commitment to withdraw from them; and there is no indication that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination or to establish their independent state, even on a part of Palestine.

The Oslo Accords have pared back the national project to liberate Palestine, and restricted it to the PA that pursues the establishment of a rump state in less than 22 per cent of historic Palestine, but its survival and development are dependent on the will of the Israelis. The Palestinian leadership seems to regard the Israeli occupation as a “charity” which has the goodwill to respond to the demands of the Palestinian people, even though it is colonial, expansionist, aggressive and based on the displacement of the indigenous people. Israel is changing the identity of the land and its people, while stealing its history as well as its future.

When the PA was formed, the occupation state became in effect the unseen presence in the decision-making process of the Palestinian leadership. The authority has gone on to busy itself with administering life under occupation, and not managing the end of the occupation.

This seriously diminished national project excludes Palestinians in the diaspora, who form half of the global Palestinian population; they have no place on the PA leadership’s agenda. Interest in getting them involved has declined, despite their huge potential. What’s more, the PLO itself has become more like a department of the PA than a liberation movement. It sits in the recovery room, to be resuscitated and used when the Palestinian leadership needs to legitimize its actions.

Rare among such agreements and the history of occupations, Oslo did not solve any of the fundamental problems, which were put back to “final issue talks”. The first issues to be solved are normally related to the end of the occupation, independence, the right of self-determination and sovereignty. The catastrophe of the Oslo Accords is that they were preoccupied with the details and minor aspects of self-rule, while keeping major issues untouched. Hence, the status and future of Jerusalem; the future of Palestinian refugees and their legitimate right of return; the future of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories; the right of self-determination; the borders of the Palestinian state; and the exploitation of natural resources, especially water, all remain to be dealt with at some future date. The initial deadlines for this were passed long ago.

At the same time, the Accords forced the Palestinians to stop all forms of armed resistance, solve all of their problems and continue negotiations by peaceful means only. Thus, the Palestinian national project lost all its cards and any means to put pressure on Israel that would make its occupation too costly to maintain. The terms of the agreement did not include the UN and international resolutions as terms of reference; nor was there any binding mechanism put in place to enforce the terms of the agreement. The Palestinians became dependent on Israel and its US sponsor, paying little heed to the Arab proverb, “Whoever lets the wolf graze his sheep has done them wrong.”

As a result, the Israelis have the prerogative of “endless” procrastination and postponement as they manage the so-called peace process, whilst also establishing “facts on the ground” in order to “solve” the core issues for its own benefit.

Oslo paved the way for the largest schism in modern Palestinian history, with a single faction — Fatah — making a fateful unilateral decision to concede most of Palestine and prepare the ground for a peace deal with the occupation. None of these decisions were referred to the Palestinian people, and no agreement was sought from the main national forces, even while there was strong opposition within Fatah itself.

The resistance forces which rejected Oslo formed the Alliance of the Ten Factions, which represented a strong popular and political bloc in the Palestinian arena. The alliance continued along the resistance path, while considering the PA as an obstacle. As for Fatah and the PA, they regarded the Accords as the roadmap for establishing the Palestinian state. Furthermore, they considered armed resistance to be sabotage of the proposed independent state, and thus a hindrance to be neutralized. This they did by suppressing resistance and arresting the groups’ members, and facilitated their own security coordination with Israel against fellow Palestinians.

The subsequent flaws in priorities and the fault lines between pro-peace and pro-resistance movements were established. The 2007 schism — which led to Hamas control of the Gaza Strip and Fatah control of the West Bank — was simply a manifestation of the original schism arising out of the Oslo Accords.

Any agreements forming the bases for establishing a Palestinian state and the withdrawal of the occupying forces, are supposed to include the dismantling of the illegal Israeli settlements and the withdrawal of the settlers. However, the Oslo Accords neither imposed such requirements on the Israelis, nor insisted that settlement building must stop. Israel has continued with its settlement building ever more intensively, and raced to confiscate as much Palestinian land as it can, while confining the Palestinians within “ghettos” and “Bantustans”.

Israel has changed the face of Jerusalem; built the Separation Wall; and increased the number of settlements to around 200. The number of settlers in the West Bank has increased from 280,000 in 1993 to 800,000 in early 2019. The “two-state solution” has lost any real meaning, and the PA has realized that it is itself an Israel tool to silence dissenting Palestinian, Arab and international voices, on the pretext that a peace process is on the move. It also understands that it was used to give Israel cover as it built facts on the ground and swallowed the West Bank acre by acre.

The PA’s structure was established upon a system ensuring that it is “prepared for failure”. It didn’t have the basic requirements necessary to develop and become an independent Palestinian state. The authority in Ramallah has also suffered from the political and sovereign hegemony of the Israeli occupation, which controls the borders and the movement of individuals by land, sea and air, giving it the ability to disrupt the work and daily life of the Palestinians, and to control their resources and infrastructure.

The PA has established its own economic failure by signing the “Paris Protocol” which created a consumer client state full of corruption, and with no vision to escape from the occupation. Almost 80 per cent of the PA’s revenues come either from clearance revenues collected by Israel or foreign aid, while 85 per cent of its imports come from Israel and two-thirds of its exports go to Israel. The imports and exports are governed by the Israelis and the Palestinian per capita income is less than one tenth of Israel’s.

It is a security-fragile authority, where Israel moves around freely in “Palestinian-controlled” areas. Israel occupation forces besiege, storm, arrest, imprison and assassinate at will. They control every aspect of Palestinian life under occupation. Moreover, these forces protect the fully-armed illegal settlers and have around 600 fixed and mobile checkpoints across the West Bank.

Functionally, the PA is an exhausted entity serving Israel through security coordination — which President Mahmud Abbas calls “sacred” — and maintains around 70,000 security personnel who use up a considerable portion of the PA’s budget. It is around seven times the global average of security budgets in other countries.

Finally, the Oslo Accords are a catastrophe for the Palestinian people and their national project. Disconnecting and disengaging from them should be an urgent national priority in order to put the Palestinian house on new foundations for the future.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Ein Bubin: Palestinian natural gem targeted by Nazi Jewish settler groups

Ein Bubin

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM:-Ein Bubin is a natural spring located in Deir Ibzi town in the West Bank district of Ramallah, and its name has become more famous following a recent anti-occupation attack that killed an Nazi soldier and wounded two others.

The resistance attack was an opportunity to expose the Nazi Jewish settlers’ unlawful exploitation of Palestinian natural resources in the West Bank.

Once Nazi Jewish settlers find a new natural spring in the West Bank, whether small or large, they build a new Jewish community around it or announce it a closed zone and prevent the Palestinians from approaching it.

Ein Bubin is one of the most beautiful natural sites in the West Bank that it known for its high water flow.

The name “Bubin” is of Canaanite origins, and it might be derived from the fact that the spring has two doors. The Nazi Jewish settlers have been seeking for years to change the name into “Ein Dani”, the name of a Jewish settler who was killed in the same site five years ago.

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, the total number of springs in the West Bank is estimated at 530 of which about 26.8 million cubic meters of water flow annually.

The West Bank water springs are used for irrigating plants, watering livestock and drinking. They are also considered perfect destinations for recreation and domestic tourism.

Nazi Jewish Settler attacks:

The Palestinian farmer Mohammed Tleib told the PIC reporter, “The Israeli settlers have been trying for years to control Ein Bubin turning the life of the Palestinian inhabitants in the area into an intolerable hell. During the olive harvest season they chop off the olive trees close to the spring. They set up ambushes for the Palestinian farmers and attack them or prevent them from reaching their lands.”

Nazi Jewish settlers further organize regular trips to the area as a natural reserve completely ignoring the Palestinian landowners from Deir Ibzi and the surrounding towns.

Naim Ja’wan, the head of the Deir Ibzi village council, told the PIC reporter that Ein Bubin is part of the Nazi Jewish settlers’ plans targeting water resources in the West Bank.

He pointed out that Ein Bubin is constantly targeted by the Nazi Jewish settlers living in the nearby Nazi Jewish illegal settlement of Dolev which was built illegally on Palestinian-owned lands.


According to a report by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territories (OCHA), the Israeli occupation authorities systematically Judaize the springs they control in the West Bank.

OCHA said that the stealing of the spring is done by marking it as a tourist site then giving it a Hebrew name to suggest that it has a presence in the alleged Jewish history of Palestine.

After that, the report noted, the Nazi regime authorities gradually change the geography of the site by building new recreation facilities around the spring and rehabilitating the place for settler visits.

Nazi Jewish settlers have fully seized 56 water springs in the West Bank, changing their Arabic name into Hebrew, preventing the Palestinians from accessing them, annexing them to nearby settlements, or simply polluting and destroying them.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

The Ominous Promise

Amira Futtouh

By: Amira Abo el-Fetouh

When November arrives with its windy and rainy winter, a painful memory accompanies it; a memory which doomed the nation to live in a permanent winter and a permanent stormy season after which no spring comes, since the Balfour fateful promise. 2 November 1917: the day Palestine was lost. The day Arthur James Balfour sent a letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, one of the leaders of the World Zionist movement, indicating the British government’s support for the establishment of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine. It is the promise of he who does not own, to he who does not deserve.

At that time, the number of Jews in Palestine was no more than 50,000, while the number of Jews throughout the world was estimated at around 12 million. The Jews in Palestine accounted for only five per cent of the 650,000 Palestinians, who had owned the land for thousands of years. However, this ominous promise ignored the indigenous Palestinian population and only recognized some civil and religious rights, obscuring their political, economic and administrative rights.

Although the Balfour Declaration recognized the right of the Jews to establish a national homeland, more dangerous was the Conference of Versailles, which was held two years later in 1919, resulting in the document of the agreement between Prince Faisal, representative of the Hejaz Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representative of the World Zionist Organization. This agreement included provisions that denied Palestinians their rights, and strengthened the Jewish presence in Palestine, such as the following:

All measures should be taken to encourage the large-scale immigration of Jews to Palestine, and urge them as quickly as possible to settle immigrants in the land, through housing and intensive agriculture.

Through the Versailles document, the call was launched to all the Jews throughout the world to gather from the Diaspora. Palestine opened the door wide, and they all responded to this call. Thus, a lasting process of Jewish immigration from all corners of the world to Palestine continued. In the Jewish melting pot, more than seventy nationalities fused and this was the first step towards establishing an entity for the Jews. The Balfour Declaration was the legal cover upon which the World Zionist Organisation was based, to support its demand for the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine and the fulfillment of the dream of the Jews, who had achieved what they aspired to, as the dream of establishing the state of Israel eventually became a reality on 15 May 1948.

Israel joined the United Nations as a member state under pressure from the world’s major powers, and it became the first country in the history of the global political system to emerge on usurped land, after it displaced its native people outside their homeland and received international support and unprecedented support from the largest country in the world, the USA. This made this entity the most arrogant and the most ravaging in the region, waging wars, expanding and devouring more Palestinian and Arab lands, and oppressing the rest of the Palestinian people on its land, mercilessly and inhumanely.

I will not probe into the history or the reasons that led Great Britain to establish this Zionist entity, and the unlimited Western support for it. What was said, and the human and religious arguments introduced, will remain false and fraud as they are meant to embellish that Western imperial project called Israel, which was planted in the region to protect Western colonial interests, being called at that time “the guard dog in the region.”

Now, 102 years after the fateful Balfour Declaration, and after the Zionist takeover of more Palestinian lands, in addition to America’s recognition of Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel, what did the Arabs do to liberate Palestine and bring it back to the Arab embrace?

Unfortunately, nothing was done, but trading with the Palestinian case by the Arab leaders. Besides, after the armed struggle clause was dropped from the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s document, and the Oslo agreement which was concluded in exchange for a fake power that the Palestinian authority has nothing to do with, and which was actually a form of security coordination with the Zionist enemy to save its entity, the Palestinian cause would have been lost and no one would have remembered it, had it not been for Hamas and its resistance.

It is Hamas that makes Palestine and its dignity alive in Arab and international conscience, especially after the so-called peace agreements and the rush of the Arabs to the Zionist entity, kneeling down to such an entity, seeking to normalize it, and asking Trump to accelerate the implementation of the alleged “deal of the century,” in order to get rid of this chronic headache and put an end to the Palestinian issue.

So, while the 1907 Balfour Declaration granted the Jews a national homeland in Palestine, the peace and normalization agreements with the Zionist enemy have granted the Zionist entity the entire Arab homeland, enabling it to realize the dream of “Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates!”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Shoah’s pages


November 2019
« Oct