Archive | June 10th, 2020

US Elections and Trump’s Sinking Approval. Main Street Depression and Unemployment

By Stephen Lendman

It’s a political lifetime from now to November 3 presidential, congressional, and local elections.

Things can swing back and forth numerous times between now and then.

Most often, Americans vote with their pocketbook. 

If unprecedented main street Depression and unemployment continue into November, chances are great that Trump will be a one-term president, along with Dems able to keep House control and perhaps gain it from Republicans in the Senate.

According to an average of early June polls, Trump’s disapproval is 54.4% v. 41.2% approving of his job performance.

A new Morning Consult poll shows a negative 59 – 36% divergence against him.

A CNN/SSRS polls 38% approval v. 57% disapproving.

An Ipsos poll shows a negative 39 – 56% divergence against him.

An Optimus poll showed the largest negative divergence of 37 – 63%.

It gets worse. An ABC/Ipsos poll shows only 32% of respondents approving of how he’s handled days of nationwide protests following the killing of African American George Floyd by 4 Minneapolis cops.

Nearly three-fourths of respondents agree that his death is a “sign of broader problems in the treatment of African Americans by police.”

A new CBS poll found that 57% of respondents say police are more likely to use force against Black Americans than others.

Numerous polls conducted in recent days found that most Americans believe that ongoing nationwide protests are based on legitimate grievances.

Trump’s call for “toughness” and threat to deploy combat troops to US streets was a strategic error, what most Americans oppose.

So do many governors, mayors, and other local officials.

Polls published in the last five days show Biden defeating Trump in November by a margin of from 7 to 14 points.

On June 8, FiveThirtyEight.com published results of two polls showing Biden a heavy favorite to defeat Trump in November by margins of 10 – 14 points.

According to Real Clear Politics, Biden is favored over Trump in key battleground state Florida by an average of 3.4 points, in Ohio by one point, in Pennsylvania by 3.3 points, in Michigan by 7.3 points, in Wisconsin by 3.3 points, in New York by 24 points, and in California by 27 points.

Translating sentiment into turnout is key. Candidates work hard to energize their base to vote on election day.

Based on current polls, Biden has a significant edge over Trump.

If the economy stays weak into the fall, the human misery level in the country staying high, a new White House incumbent in January is likely.

Does it matter in the greater scheme of things?

Presidents and congressional leaders front for wealth and power interests at the expense of public health and welfare they’re indifferent toward.

They’re also liars. Nothing they say can be believed. Trump’s inaugural sounded like a political sermon on the mount.

He followed through by escalating inherited wars by hot and other means.

His regime indicted Julian Assange for the “crime” of truth-telling journalism.

He considers vital information for everyone to know a threat to national security.

He’s at war with immigrants of the wrong color, faith, and countries.

He’s no friend of the earth. His ecocide agenda supports corporate polluters over ecosanity, public health and the general welfare.

Throughout his tenure, he oversaw the greatest ever wealth transfer heist from ordinary Americans to privileged ones and corporate America.

He wants healthcare, a fundamental human right, based on the ability to pay.

He supports mass-vaxxing everyone with hazard to human health/rushed developed and tested COVID-19 vaccines by yearend or early 2021.

His inaugural address promise about “transferring power from Washington, DC and giving it back to you, the American people” was and remains a bald-faced Big Lie.

So was saying policies favoring privileged interests over the public wealth “changes starting right here and right now.”

The vast majority of ordinary Americans are still waiting for fulfillment of his pledge not forthcoming so far nor is it likely ahead.

He proved time and again by his pro-war, pro-corporate welfare, anti-populist agenda.

Is change for the better likely under Biden if elected president in November?

His near-half century record as US senator and vice president shows one-sided support for the nation’s privileged class.

He’s a Trump clone with a style and party label difference, a neoliberal/war on humanity Obama clone with a racial difference, a Hillary clone with a gender difference.

Republicans and Dems are two sides of the same coin, not a dime’s worth of difference between them on issues mattering most.

Whenever US elections are held, names and faces alone change. Dirty business as usual remains the same.

Unless or until independent challengers to unacceptable continuity compete for president, congressional positions, along with key state and local ones, democracy in America will remain pure illusion like it’s always been from inception.

America the beautiful will be no more than unfulfilled 19th lyrics by Katherine Lee Bates and music by Samuel Ward.

Posted in USA0 Comments

Washington Keeps Accusing China of Orchestrating Border Clashes with India

By Paul Antonopoulos

The US is supporting India towards a military confrontation with China on their land border and in the Indian Ocean.  The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, who is about to retire from her State Department job at the end of May, has accused China of orchestrating border clashes with India to try and change the status quo. On May 20, Alice Wells, the leading U.S. diplomat in South Asia, spoke during an online discussion at the Atlantic Council, one of the largest U.S. research organizations, about the India-China border.

In a conversation with Richard Verma, who served as the U.S. ambassador to India for the 2014-2017 term, she pointed out the similarities between growing skirmishes in the Himalayas and Chinese actions in the South China Sea. Alice Wells called China’s activities on the border with India and in the South China Sea an ongoing effort to change the rules and the status quo. The U.S. diplomat spoke out against China’s actions, both in the South China Sea and on the border with India, as well as in the Indian Ocean. Wells said that China’s growing military presence on the border with India, where clashes were not uncommon, had become a cause of concern for New Delhi. According to her, the problem is becoming more serious as China strives to shirk responsibility and spread false information.

The U.S. has always advocated tensions between India and China. This is one of the tools to implement their Indo-Pacific Strategy, aimed at increasing influence in South Asia. Wells said China’s behaviour explains why “like-minded nations” are now “rallying” with each other under a handful of diplomatic groupings such as the ‘Trilateral’ (US, Japan and India) and the ‘Quadrilateral’ or ‘Quad’ (US, Japan, India and Australia).Military Stand-Off between China and India

Her statement is clearly in line with the current strategy of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to continue to discredit China’s reputation in the context of blaming it for the coronavirus pandemic. The U.S. is conducting an anti-China campaign and is trying to draw all their global allies into these efforts.

However, despite U.S. support for New Delhi in the border dispute with China, Washington has not been able to incite India to take unilateral actions. In the context of coronavirus issues, even the Indian military recognized that it is now necessary to focus on health issues and the economy, and not border skirmishes. They are willing to accept the fact that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is redistributing forces and assets in favor of the civil sector.

China’s restraint and ability to gain mutual understanding with India does not allow the U.S. to achieve its strategic goal for an Indo-China confrontation. India appreciates independence and New Delhi probably does not want the U.S. to use India as a means of restraining or confronting China.

The Indo-Pacific Strategy is one of the most important foreign policy means of the Trump administration to pressurize China. In June 2017 there was a minor conflict between China and India on the Doklam Plateau, and in November of the same year, the U.S. proposed the concept of the Indo-Pacific Strategy at the APEC Conference in Vietnam. The gap between these two events is only a few months. It is no coincidence that many analysts believe that the Sino-Indian confrontation has influenced Trump to shape this strategy. China for now has maintained its restraint, seeking to gain mutual understanding with India, so Washington was still unable to achieve its strategic goals. The Trump administration relies heavily on provoking disputes to worsen conflicts between different countries and China. In this way Washington makes these countries strategically dependent on the US. However, the problem is that the U.S. strategy often clashes with India’s national interests and cultural traditions. But New Delhi does not want the U.S. to use India as a tool.

Well’s statement is provocative and this is evident in the context of the complex situation in the border disputes between China and India. Well’s words are even seen as American support for India’s territorial claims against China, which could make the situation on the Sino-Indian border more explosive and riskier, especially at a time when only this month there were two encounters involving dozens of soldiers from both sides.

Posted in USA, China, India0 Comments

The Irony of American Freedom

by IPEK S. BURNETT

Photograph Source: Becker1999 from Grove City, OH – CC BY 2.0

In “Freedom Is a Constant Struggle,” political activist Angela Y. Davis invokes a song from the Freedom Movement, which says freedom is a constant dying, we’ve died so long we must be free. Davis appreciates this irony: “We’ve struggled so long, we’ve cried so long, we’ve sorrowed so long, we’ve moaned so long, we’ve died so long, we must be free, we must be free. And of course there’s simultaneously resignation and promise in that line, there is critique and inspiration: we must be free, we must be free but are we really free?”

Death and freedom, freedom and death, this uncanny coupling is again seen today, in the midst of a global pandemic, on banners, posters, t-shirts protesting shelter-in-place orders—Give me liberty or give me COVID-19. Give me freedom or give me death.

The verse “We’ve died so long, we must be free,” in the context of the Civil Right Movement, implies historical consciousness, as well as a social and spiritual transcendence that comes from long-lived struggles and sorrow; whereas in the current protests, there is no historical consciousness, no transcendence. The only irony here is the misuse of “or,” because the underlying message is: We wish for freedom from safety measures and precautions so we can get sick, even die.

California, Florida, Colorado, Massachusetts, Indiana, Ohio. The slogans echo: Freedom over fear. Live free or die. We demand freedom. 

Make America free again.

To claim this country was free before the spread of COVID-19, requires deliberate overlooking of the contrary realities of America’s sprawling prison-industrial-complex, immigrant detention centers, the iron-grid bars of systematic inequality. How can a nation be free as long as its citizens continue to be imprisoned by deeply-embedded ideologies and structures of poverty, xenophobia, sexism, racism?

Another protest sign: I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. 

Sociologist Orlando Patterson argues that the very idea of freedom has its roots in slavery. As he sees it, freedom stood as the antithesis to “the social death” imposed by the institution of slavery. It was the desire to undo bondage that gave rise to this ideal which is the strongest driving force for the Western cultures, the United States in particular. Yet, it is an appalling insult to draw parallels between the shelter-in-place orders and slavery. Protesters demand: Don’t cancel my golf season. Open our bars. I want a haircut. Being deprived of recreation, entertainment, cosmetics does not indicate social death.

Such an individualistic, materialistic understanding of freedom—as in the freedom to choose which consumer goods to purchase and leisure activities to pursue—points to something else entirely: enslavement to capitalism.

Another sign reads: Save Capitalism, open our businesses. The conflict is nothing new, of course—crusades to colonialism, to everyday capitalism, human welfare is always a mere sacrifice in the name of greed and power.

Dangerous safety is better than safe tyranny.

To protest in the face of widespread disease and death, to choose danger, is not bravery. It is willful ignorance. It is reckless arrogance. It is moral indifference. It is social contempt.

100,000 American lives, lost to the pandemic in just a few months. 100,000 and counting.

Hang Fauci. Hang Gates. Open all our states. The rhetoric is almost as violent as the virus itself.

Perhaps it is too difficult for a culture in pursuit of happiness to pause and face this immense loss. Perhaps it is too scary to accept the frailty of human life. Perhaps anger is much easier to access than grief.

Anti-apartheid revolutionary and leader Nelson Mandela spent twenty-seven years in prison. It was there that he learned about patience and perseverance, and acquired a deep, complex understanding of freedom for both the oppressed and the oppressors. In his autobiography, A Long Walk to Freedom, he wrote, “For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

If one’s freedom is stifled by social distancing and face masks, then sadly it was not freedom to begin with. The COVID-19 crisis has not imposed limits on the American freedom; it has just exposed the limitations in the American idea of freedom.

Freedom is a right; yet it is not a given. As the song goes: Freedom is a constant struggle, a constant crying, a constant sorrow, a constant moaning, a constant dying. Freedom requires historical consciousness, sacrifice, and social responsibility. Here is yet another opportunity to rethink the meaning of freedom in America. To borrow Mandela’s words, we have a long walk ahead.

Posted in USA, Campaigns, Human Rights0 Comments

National Values: Reality or Propaganda?

By: LAWRENCE DAVIDSON

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Joe Biden, presumptive Democratic Party presidential candidate, thinks he knows what American values are. Here are some of them: “inclusivity, tolerance, diversity, respect for the rule of law.” Biden defines these as among the “democratic values that define us.”

Actually, what Biden is describing are practices that allegedly reflect American values. And, indeed, these are the sort of practices/values that most U.S. citizens agree are important. Most, but not all—not the 30 to 35 percent of Americans who constitute President Donald Trump’s infamous base. These citizens are typically intolerant and are uncomfortable with diversity. Their notion of inclusiveness does not go much beyond their own perceived community or group. And their respect for the rule of law is conditional at best. Thus, they appear energized by Trump’s rhetoric, which has overtones of classic fascism. But let’s leave this minority aside for the moment and just concentrate on Biden’s classic value claims for democratic America.

I don’t think that there is much doubt that Biden believes the practices he talks of are reflective of real values and that these somehow shape national character. That is, he does not see them as just ideals. After all, it is only in assuming the faithful practice of inclusivity, tolerance, diversity, and the respect for the rule of law that he can justify his claim that “We are by far the greatest, powerful, decent nation in the world.” Historically, such assertions and assumptions are not unusual. Free Roman citizens and their leaders assumed that Roman practices/values (both the republican and imperial versions) underpinned civilization in their era. The same can be said for those who believed in the glory of the British Empire. Most citizens of the United States will assume and assert similar practice/value claims—just like Joe Biden does.

As much as the assertion of national practice/value claims is historically standard operating procedure, there is something misleading about this tradition. Just how meaningfully do these professed values influence practice and policy? Do they serve as real guides to a national code of conduct, or are they propaganda?

Special Circumstances Values

It turns out that for the United States, practices/values like those claimed by Mr. Biden form guides to policy only under special circumstances. When it comes to domestic affairs, the values underlying inclusivity, tolerance, diversity, and respect for the rule of law have helped shape policy only when the nation’s white majority (presently a shrinking demographic of about 61 percent) is forced to implement change. That is, when the normative white leadership is put under sufficient pressure from those whose supposed otherness has not been well tolerated due to racism and other culture biases. This was the case in the 1960s, when politically organized African Americans and their allies put together a successful Civil Rights Movement. Success here means that laws were changed to enforce greater legal equality. A bit later a similar process promoted greater acceptance of the rights of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) community.

Subsequently, these changes sparked a rightwing reaction that gave us a number of reactionary legislators and presidents culminating in the present administration of the neofascist Donald Trump. When Joe Biden claims that “Trump has waged an unrelenting assault on our values” he is taking a stand against a movement to return to pre-1960s social norms. Biden is asserting that the significant minority, led by Trump in a culture war against “inclusivity, tolerance, diversity,” is an anachronism and no longer represents the nation. Yet up until the Civil Rights Movement, that minority was arguably the majority. It held a monopoly on both the government’s domestic policy and what passed for American national values. Mr. Biden’s assertion that they are obsolete is, unfortunately, premature.

Foreign Policy

It should be noted that Mr. Biden makes his practice/value claims for national conduct “both at home and abroad.” Ultimately, it is with the application of these claims to foreign policy that he becomes, apparently without noticing the fact, bogged down in contradictions. For instance, Biden is a longstanding supporter of Israel. He states that he will continue to support this country which he describes as a place he “loves” and as “absolutely essential for the security” of world Jewry no matter what its behavior. Unfortunately, U.S. support of Israel, in terms of billions of dollars and the maintenance of a “military edge,” must undermine his claim that inclusivity, tolerance, diversity, and respect for the rule of law represent “the values that define us” in our national conduct abroad. This is because Israeli treatment of its Palestinian minority violates every aspect of these practices/values. As a consequence, more and more Jews have, unlike Joe Biden, faced the evidence and are distancing themselves from the Zionist state. So, while President Trump demeans inclusivity, tolerance, diversity, and respect for the rule of law here in the U.S., the Israelis have long been doing the same thing in Palestine. This fact is verified by a number of sources. These include:

The World Inequality DatabaseThe Inequality Report published by Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel; Human Rights Watch report, Separate and Unequal; Amnesty International; the International Crisis Group of the United Nations; and both the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations. These and other various data-based reports that show that Israel is imposing apartheid like conditions on Palestinians.

Under these circumstances, what can we say about Mr. Biden’s talk of character-shaping national practices and values? At best we must insist that he has misrepresented them. They are not “the values that define us.” They are ideals that some, but not all, Americans would have the nation aspire to.

Propaganda

Too much loose talk about national practices/values can easily degenerate into propaganda which, to quote George Orwell, becomes little more than “speech and writing [used] largely [in] defense of the indefensible.” Much of Joe Biden’s posturing about American values comes close to this sort of political rhetoric. As a career politician he has sometimes acted in violation of the same practices/values he now extols. For instance, his emphasis on inclusiveness hides the fact that there have been times when he has made deals with segregationists in Congress—a strategy he referred to as “getting things done.” This would suggest that his ability to combine values and practice depends on the political moment and not on principle. Biden may well uphold the rule of law for domestic policy of the United States. Yet when it comes to applying this alleged practice abroad, he doesn’t do much better than Trump. His support of Israel, along with an acceptance of the ongoing attempted coup in Venezuela, points at this failing.

So when you hear Joe Biden, or for that matter any other politician, American or otherwise, talk about national practice and values, ask yourself if their words are more than storytelling. Do the values extolled translate into reality, and if so does this happen with consistency or only under special conditions? And, are these alleged national practices/values actively contested by citizens on the left or the right? It might turn out that, most of the time, claims such as Biden’s are only words that fill our heads with false images—images that even the politicians themselves may have mistaken as real.

Posted in USA, Campaigns, Human Rights0 Comments

Nazi entity Celebrate Its Terrorists

Why Does Israel Celebrate Its Terrorists: Ben Uliel and the Murder of the Dawabsheh Family

by RAMZY BAROUD

The Palestinian village of Duma from the west with the Jordan valley in the background. Photograph Source: Oren Rozen – CC BY-SA 3.0

Israeli media and Zionist apologists everywhere are busy whitewashing Israel’s globally-tattered image using the rare indictment of an Israeli terrorist, Amiram Ben Uliel, who was recently convicted for murdering the Palestinian Dawabsheh family, including an 18-month-old toddler in the town of Duma, south of Nablus.

The conviction of Ben Uliel by an Israeli three-judge court on May 18, is expectedly celebrated by some as proof that the Israeli judicial system is fair and transparent, and that Israel does not need to be investigated by outside parties.

The timing of the Israeli court’s decision to convict Ben Uliel of three counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder was particularly important, as it followed a decision by the the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, to move forward with its investigation of war crimes committed in Occupied Palestine.

Considering how Israel’s extremists, especially those living illegally in the Occupied West Bank, are governed through a separate, and far more lenient system than the military regime that governs Palestinians, the seemingly-clear indictment of the Israeli terrorist deserves further scrutiny.

Israel’s apologists were quick to celebrate the verdict by the court, to the extent that Israel’s own internal intelligence agency, the Shin Bet, known for its notorious torture methods of Palestinian prisoners, described the decision as “an important milestone in the battle against Jewish terror”.

Others labored to separate Ben Uliel’s grizzly attack from the rest of Israeli society, implying that the man was a lone wolf and not the direct outcome of Israel’s unhinged racism and violent discourse directed at innocent Palestinians.

Despite the clear indictment of Ben Uliel, the Israeli court was keen on accentuating the point that the Israeli terrorist acted alone and that he was not a member of a terrorist organization. Based on that logic, the court argued that the judges “could not rule out that the attack was motivated by a desire for revenge or racism without Ben-Uliel actually being a member of an organized group.”

The verdict was a best case scenario for Israel’s image under the circumstances, as it deliberately absolved the massive terrorist network that spawned the likes of Ben Uliel and the Israeli army that protects those very extremists on a daily basis, while whitewashing Israel’s deservingly bad reputation as a violent society with an unjust judicial system.

But Ben Uliel is, by no measure, a lone wolf.

When the Israeli terrorist, along with other masked assailants, broke into the house of Sa’ad and Reham Dawabsheh at 4 am on July 31, 2015, he was clearly on a mission to elevate his name within the ardently racist, extremist society which has made the murder and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians a sort of a divine mission.

Ben Uliel achieved his objectives completely. Not only did he kill Sa’ad and Reham, but their 18-month-old son, Ali, as well. The only surviving member of the family was 4-year-old Ahmed, who was severely burnt.

The murder of the Palestinian family, little Ali in particular, quickly became the source of joy and celebration among Jewish extremists. In December 2015, six months after the murder of the Dawabsheh family, a 25-second video clip that went viral on social media showed a crowd of Israelis celebrating the death of Ali.

The video showed a “room of jumping, dancing men wearing white skullcaps, many with the long sidelocks of Orthodox Jews. Some of them are brandishing guns and knives,” The New York Times reported.

“Two (of the celebrating Israelis) appear to be stabbing pieces of paper they hold in their hands, which the television station identified as pictures of an 18-month-old child, Ali Dawabsheh.”

Despite Israeli police claims that they were ‘investigating’ the hate fest, there is little evidence to suggest that anyone was held accountable for the unmitigated celebration of violence against an innocent family and a toddler. In fact, Israeli State prosecutors later claimed that they had lost the original video of the dancing extremists.

The celebration of Israeli terrorism carried on unabated for years, to the extent that on June 19, 2018, Israeli extremists chanted openly, taunting Ali’s grandfather as he was leaving an Israeli court, with such obscene slogans, as “Where is Ali? Ali’s dead,” “Ali’s on the grill”.

The heinous murder of Ali and his family, and the subsequent trial were added to an array of other events that starkly challenged Israel’s carefully concocted image of being a liberal democracy.

On March 24, 2016, Elor Azaria killed a Palestinian man, Fattah al-Sharif, in cold blood. Al-Sharif was left bleeding on the ground while unconscious after, per Israeli army claim, trying to stab an Israeli soldier.

Azaria received a light sentence of eighteen months, soon to be freed in a massive celebration, like a conquering hero. Israel’s top government officials, including Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, supported the cold-blooded murderer throughout the trial. It will not come as a complete surprise if Azaria claims a top position in the Israeli government at some point in the future.

The celebration of murderers and terrorists like Ben Uliel and Azaria, is not a new phenomenon in Israeli society. Baruch Goldstein, the Israeli terrorist who killed scores of Palestinian worshippers while kneeling for prayer at Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Al-Khalil (Hebron) in 1994, is now perceived as a modern martyr, a saint of biblical proportions.

In such cases, when the nature of the crime is so overwhelmingly violent, the extent of which forces itself on global news media, Israel is left with only one option – to use the indictment of ‘Jewish terrorism’ as an opportunity to reinvent itself, its ‘democratic’ system, its ‘transparent’ judicial proceedings, and so on. Meanwhile, Israeli media and its affiliates worldwide labor to describe the collective ‘shock’ and ‘outrage’ felt by ‘law-abiding’, ‘peace-loving’ Israelis.

The murder of the Dawabsheh family, although one of numerous acts of violence perpetrated by Jewish extremists and the Israeli military against innocent Palestinians, is the perfect case in point.

Indeed, a quick look at the numbers and reports produced by the United Nations indicates that the Jewish settlers’ murder of the Palestinian family was not the exception but the norm.

In a report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in June 2018, UN investigators spoke of an exponential rise of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians.

“Between January and April 2018, OCHA documented 84 incidents attributed to Israeli settlers resulting in Palestinian casualties (27 incidents) or in damage to Palestinian property (57 incidents),” the report read. That trend continued, at times markedly increasing, with very little accountability.

The Israeli rights group, Yesh Din, has been following up on the small percentage of settler violence cases that were opened by the Israeli military and police. The group concluded that, “of 185 investigations opened between 2014 and 2017 that reached a final stage, only 21, or 11.4%, led to the prosecution of offenders, while the other 164 files were closed without indictment.”

The reason for this is simple: the hundreds of thousands of Jewish extremists who have been transferred to permanently settle in the occupied territories, an act that starkly violates international law, do not operate outside the colonial paradigm designed by the Israeli government. In some way, they too, are ‘soldiers’, not only because they are armed and coordinate their movement with the Israeli army, but because their ever-expanding settlements lie at the heart of the Israeli occupation and its continued project of ethnic cleansing.

Therefore, Jewish settler violence, like that committed by Ben Uliel, should not be analyzed separately from the violence meted out by the Israeli army, but seen within the larger context of the violent Zionist ideology that governs Israeli society as a whole. It follows that settler violence can only end with the end of the military occupation in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, and with the demise of the racist Zionist ideology that spews hatred, embraces racism and rationalizes murder.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human Rights0 Comments

Why Iran’s Fuel Tankers for Venezuela Are Sending Shudders Through Washington

by VIJAY PRASHAD

Image Source: Marmelad – Made from Image:BlankMap-World6 – CC BY-SA 2.5

The first oil tanker that came from Iran’s Bandar Abbas port into the Caribbean is called Fortune. The tanker entered Venezuelan waters on May 24 and was then escorted by the Venezuelan Navy and Air Force to the Puerto Cabello oil terminal; the gasoline will supply the El Palito refinery. A second tanker entered Venezuelan waters on May 25, and three others are on their way. The Venezuelan government paid for the gasoline at market rates; in another world, it would be an ordinary commercial transaction. Not in this world.

In April, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to send ships into the Caribbean supposedly on an anti-drug mission. These ships had threatened an embargo of Venezuela. There was worry that as the Iranian tankers approached the Venezuelan coast the U.S. warships would challenge their progress. As it turned out, the U.S. Navy did not intervene. A major internal incident was averted.

Why the United States did not block the Iranian vessels does not have to do with Iran or Venezuela alone. It has to do with the presence of China behind both countries.

China has deep commercial links with Iran, and it has gradually developed such linkages with Venezuela. During the global pandemic, China has flown vital supplies to both countries. But, crucially, at the United Nations China has been outspoken against the regime change policy driven by the United States against both states. It has been this Chinese shield that enabled the tankers to go through what is effectively a U.S. naval blockade of Venezuela.

Belligerence

Trump is in a belligerent mood. His language against China has sharpened. The United States military’s Indo-Pacific Command released a document called “Regain the Advantage,” which breathes fire; it suggests that the United States must do everything to prevent China from taking possession of its own coastline. A suite of new weapons—including the hypersonic cruise missile—threatens that very coastline (when they deploy this missile onto a submarine, it will take less than 15 minutes to hit China from launch). These are disturbing developments.

Nothing in Trump’s behavior toward China suggests that he will do anything less than trip the United States into some sort of engagement with that country. And the more Trump threatens China, and the more he builds up U.S. military assets along the Chinese coastline, the greater the chance that China will react toward Taiwan, being provoked—in other words—into a conflict that the world just does not need.

Does Trump use the language of threats and conflict as merely a weapon in the trade war? Is this merely rash talk to enhance the standing of the United States as it tries to prevent China from establishing itself as an important pillar of world affairs? Or does Trump intend a “limited war?” It is worthwhile to be wary of the actions of the United States government, particularly of the Trump administration.

Bipolarity

It is incorrect to see the “rise of China” as a threat to the preeminent power of the United States. There is no appreciable “decline of the United States” in our time, since the United States remains the most powerful military force and remains in charge of the main economic institutions (mainly through the power of the dollar as a world currency and through the control of the International Monetary Fund by the U.S. Treasury). Nonetheless, the United States is not prepared to tolerate the arrival of China as a second major economic pole.

China continues to indicate that it does not want conflict with the United States. The government has said repeatedly that it has no interest in escalation, and that it prizes stability. China’s manufacturing sector has grown considerably, and it remains the most powerful industrial country in the world. Attempts by the United States to reorganize the global supply chain in the midst of COVID-19 by cutting out China will not work in the short or medium term; the world economy relies upon Chinese manufacturing, and many countries will not tolerate a long-term embargo on China’s factories. It is this reliance upon China’s industrial power that has inaugurated a new bipolar—rather than unipolar—world order.

China’s Ties to Iran and Venezuela

Even two decades ago, China resisted any direct confrontation with the United States. In 1999, U.S. bombers—under NATO command—struck the Chinese embassy in Belgrade; the United States and NATO said it was an accidental attack, something that they claim to this day (despite evidence that shows it was a deliberate strike). For four days, the Chinese government permitted anti-U.S. protests in China, but then everything went quiet (the United States paid compensation). Nothing more was said.

No such behavior is present now. If such an incident took place at this time, China would not tolerate it; it would make it an international incident, raise the question in the UN Security Council—where China is a permanent member. China’s more visible diplomacy on behalf of the Palestinians—especially when Trump has pushed the Israeli government to strengthen its annexationist policies against the Palestinians—is a sign of Chinese ambitions to be more vocal in defense of those who have been under the heel of U.S. power.

Increasingly, China has supported both Iran and Venezuela against the United States. China has deep economic links to Iran, which is at the heart of the Belt and Road Initiative. Xu Bu, China’s ambassador to Chile, has been outspoken in his criticism of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the anti-China rhetoric that the United States has tried to spawn in Latin America. In the Chilean newspaper La Tercera, Xu Bu called Pompeo a “liar”; these are strong words in the world of diplomacy. China, he wrote, has been actively engaged in South America to the mutual advantage of both China and the individual countries; this is the same argument Chinese diplomats use about Iran.

In both Iran and Venezuela, China has provided assistance to tackle COVID-19; it has sent medical personnel and equipment. There is every indication that China has put its foot down to make it clear to Washington that it stands behind the governments in both these countries.

Tankers

The five Iranian tankers left Bandar Abbas with Iranian flags flying high and with their radars on; there was no attempt to say that they were not going directly where they ended. They announced their destination and waited. This is very different from the journey of the Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 through the Mediterranean Sea toward Syria; that ship was held by British forces at Gibraltar in 2019, and it became an international incident. This time nothing like that occurred.

It is unlikely that the United States would have allowed these ships to enter Venezuelan waters if it did not feel that they had the backing of China (and behind it, Russia). There’s no question that Washington—despite all its attempts to change the balance of forces in the world—had to come to terms with China’s decision to stand with the government in Venezuela and in Iran.

U.S. hybrid wars will continue; U.S. rhetorical belligerence will continue; U.S. expenditure on arms to overshadow the rest of the world in military terms will continue; all this is true. But, at the same time, the United States has had to accept that it cannot act easily if China decides to build a shield around certain countries. Evidence of this came when Fortune sailed into Venezuela.

Posted in Iran, Venezuela0 Comments

Nazi army demolishes house, arrests 18 Palestinians today

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

The house, which was built 6 years ago, belongs to Aishah Hijazi, a mother of eight children. She couldn’t hire a lawyer to defend her house due to financial hardship.

Nazi Occupied Palestine: Nazi army demolished a house in Silwan, Nazi occupied Jerusalem under the pretext of having no building permit, while Nazi forces arrested 18 Palestinians in night raids in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Khaled Abu Tayeh, member of the committee for the defense of Silwan, said Nazi bulldozers demolished a house in Ras Al Amoud in Silwan. The house, which was built 6 years ago, belongs to Aishah Hijazi, a mother of eight children.

Hijazi had received a demolition order 6 months ago but she could not hire a lawyer to defend her house due to financial hardship.

blob:https://www.facebook.com/ef71ed5d-1d00-4a00-b339-fb953bd7f53f

Meanwhile, Nazi forces continued its daily night raids into several areas throughout the illegally Nazi occupied West Bank and the Palestinian Capital Jerusalem, arresting three young men from East Jerusalem after breaking into their houses, two from Issawiyyeh, a young man and a teacher at Al Aqsa mosque, four from Nablus, and four teenagers in Bethlehem.

Nazi Gastapo also summoned the child Khaled Fadel Najajreh for interrogation, while it arrested three Palestinians in Hebron. In the Jordan Valley, one young man was arrested as well.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human Rights0 Comments

Liberating the American people

Jazz liberating the American people
Gilad Atzmon writes

I am a jazz artist, I have dedicated my entire adult life to the study of Black American music and culture. Jazz is certainly the most important and maybe, the only significant American contribution to world culture. And the next question is, where is Black American jazz now? Why did Black Americans lose interest in their own fantastic creation?

One answer is that Jazz was born out of resistance. It was fuelled by defiance of the “American dream”. Instead of seeking mammon, wealth and power, our Black artistic founding fathers sacrificed their lives for the sake of beauty. They literally killed themselves searching for new voices, sounds, colours. They left us with a great legacy but their offspring moved on to new artistic domains such as Hip Hop and Rap.

For the people who made Jazz into an art form, music was a revolutionary spirit. For Bird, Now’s the Time meant that time was ripe for social change. For John Coltrane, Alabama was the appropriate answer to the KKK’s Baptist Church bombing that killed four African-American girls.

Watch John Coltrane Plays Alabama

When Jazz meant something it wasn’t a language of victimhood. Quite the opposite, Jazz was a message of defiance: everything you can do, we, the Black people, can do better. And that is the truth, no one has managed to do it better than Trane, Bird, Miles, Elvin, Sonny, Blakey, Duke, Ella and many others. These artists did not beg for Wall Street funding, they didn’t ask for others to join their struggle. Instead, they made the rest of us beg for their beauty, their art and their spirit to illuminate and liberate us. It didn’t take long before America’s elite realised that Jazz was the best ambassador for America. And all of this happened while Black Americans were subject to apartheid, especially in the South. It would be reasonable to believe that it was Jazz’s transformation into the “Voice of America” that became a major factor in the liberation of the Black South.

Sadly, Jazz lost its soul a decade or two ago. It went from the voice of resistance to what has gradually been reduced into an “academic matter”, a “system of knowledge”. Nowadays many young jazz musicians are “music college graduates”. They may be very fast and sophisticated but have very little to say and, in most cases, they prefer not to say anything. Some may believe that saying something defies their “artistic objectives” as it blurs the distinction between art and politics. I am afraid that they are wrong. For Jazz to be a meaningful art form, it better be revolutionary to the core. Jazz is, before anything else, the sound of freedom.

For a while, we have witnessed contemporary Jazz deteriorate into a meaningless technical exercise. Jazz, basically, died on us. Did this artistic demise anticipate the collapse of American civilisation and America’s self-image  as a “free society”?

Why did  Jazz die? Because Black Americans lost interest in their original art form. Why did they lose interest? Largely because their art, like every other aspect of the American culture, finance, media, spirit and dream has been occupied.

Along with other Jazz artists and humanists, I hate racism in all forms. Yet, I want to see people celebrating their symptoms. I am one of those guys who want to see Germans writing philosophy and composing symphonies again. I want to see people celebrating their own unique cultures as long as they don’t do it at the expense of others. More than anything else, I want Black people to be proud of what they are. I wish that they will, once again, lead us back to the path of beauty that they, more than any other people, introduced to us all. I hope Black America will give us a young Trane, a fresh upcoming Bird, the next Sarah Vaughan, a Miles character. I want to see Black Americans hypnotising us with their talents, celebrating their greatness. I want  them to be the American ambassadors they once were  rather than victims of America’s abuse. I guess that instead of sending American soldiers to liberate other people in criminal neocon wars, the time is ripe for America to liberate itself.

Watch me Liberating the American People: 

Zion declares war on British Jazz

Zion declares war on British Jazz

In “QuickPress”

A masterpiece for Palestine

A masterpiece for Palestine

In “Highlights”

Zionist terror in London: Why I have withdrawn from my commitment to play at the great 606 Jazz Club on 1 February

Zionist terror in London: Why I have withdrawn from my commitment to play at the great 606 Jazz Club on 1 February

In “QuickPress”

Posted in USA0 Comments

“Light ‘Em Up”: Warrior-Cops Are the Law — and Above the Law — as Violence Grips America

By William J. Astore

From their front porches, regular citizens watched a cordon of cops sweep down their peaceful street in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Rankled at being filmed, the cops exceeded their authority and demanded that people go inside their houses. When some of them didn’t obey quickly enough, the order — one heard so many times in the streets of Iraqi cities and in the villages of Afghanistan — was issued: “Light ’em up.” And so “disobedient” Americans found themselves on the receiving end of non-lethal rounds for the “crime” of watching the police from those porches.

It’s taken years from Ferguson to this moment, but America’s cops have now officially joined the military as “professional” warriors. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder on May 25th, those warrior-cops have taken to the streets across the country wearing combat gear and with attitudes to match. They see protesters, as well as the reporters covering them, as the enemy and themselves as the “thin blue line” of law and order.

The police take to bashing heads and thrashing bodies, using weaponry so generously funded by the American taxpayer: rubber bullets, pepper spray (as Congresswoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio experienced at a protest), tear gas (as Episcopal clergy experienced at a demonstration in Washington, D.C.), paint canisters, and similar “non-lethal” munitions, together with flash-bang grenades, standard-issue batons, and Tasers, even as they drive military-surplus equipment like Humvees and MRAPs. (Note that such munitions blinded an eye of one photo-journalist.) A Predator drone even hovered over at least one protest.

Who needs a military parade, President Trump? Americans are witnessing militarized “parades” across the U.S.A. Their theme: violent force. The result: plenty of wounded and otherwise damaged Americans left in their wake. The detritus of America’s foreign wars has finally well and truly found its place on Main Street, U.S.A.

Cops are to blame for much of this mayhem. Video clips show them wildly out of control, inciting violence and inflicting it, instead of defusing and preventing it. Far too often, “to serve and protect” has become “to shoot and smack down.” It suggests the character of Eric Cartman from the cartoon South Park, a boy inflamed by a badge and a chance to inflict physical violence without accountability. “Respect my authoritah!” cries Cartman as he beats an innocent man for no reason.

So, let’s point cameras — and fingers — at these bully-boy cops, let’s document their crimes, but let’s also state a fact with courage: it’s not just their fault.

Who else is to blame? Well, so many of us. How stupid have we been to celebrate cops as heroes, just as we’ve been foolishly doing for so long with the U.S. military? Few people are heroes and fewer still deserve “hero” status while wearing uniforms and shooting bullets, rubber or otherwise, at citizens.

Answer me this: Who granted cops a specially-modified U.S. flag to celebrate “blue lives matter,” and when exactly did that happen, and why the hell do so many people fly these as substitute U.S. flags? Has everyone forgotten American history and the use of police (as well as National Guard units) to suppress organized labor, keep blacks and other minorities in their place, intimidate ordinary citizens protesting for a cleaner environment, or whack hippies and anti-war liberals during the Vietnam War protests?

Or think of what’s happening this way: America’s violent overseas wars, thriving for almost two decades despite their emptiness, their lack of meaning, have finally and truly come home. An impoverished empire, in which violence and disease are endemic, is collapsing before our eyes. “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” America’s self-styled wartime president promised, channeling a racist Miami police chief from 1967. It was a declaration meant to turn any American who happened to be near a protest into a potential victim.

As such demonstrations proliferate, Americans now face a grim prospect: the chance to be wounded or killed, then dismissed as “collateral damage.” In these years, that tried-and-false military euphemism has been applied so thoughtlessly to innumerable innocents who have suffered grievously from our unending foreign wars and now it’s coming home.

How does it feel, America?

The End of Citizen-Soldiers, the End of Citizen-Cops

I joined the military in 1981, signing up in college for the Reserve Officer Training Corps, or ROTC. I went on active duty in 1985 and served for 20 years, retiring as a lieutenant colonel. I come from a family of firefighters and cops. My dad and older brother were firefighters, together with my brother-in-law and nephew. My niece and her husband are cops and my sister worked for her local police department for years. My oldest friend, a great guy I’ve known for half a century, recently retired as a deputy sheriff. I know these people because they’re my people.

Many cops — I’d say most — are decent people. But dress almost any cop in combat gear, cover him or her in armor like a stormtrooper out of Star Wars, then set all of them loose on the streets with a mandate to restore “LAW & ORDER,” as our president tweeted, and you’re going to get stormtrooper-like behavior.

Sure, I’d wager that more than a few cops enjoy it, or at least it seems that way in the videos captured by so many. But let’s remind ourselves that the cops, like the rest of America’s systems of authority, are a product of a sociopolitical structure that’s inherently violent, openly racist, deeply flawed, and thoroughly corrupted by money, power, greed, and privilege. In such a system, why should we expect them to be paragons of virtue and restraint? We don’t recruit them that way. We don’t train them that way. Indeed, we salute them as “warriors” when they respond to risky situations in aggressive ways.

Here’s my point: When I put on a military uniform in 1985, I underwent a subtle but meaningful change from a citizen to a citizen-airman. (Note how “citizen” still came first then.) Soon after, however, the U.S. military began telling me I was something more than that: I was a warrior. And that was a distinct and new identity for me, evidently a tougher, more worthy one than simply being a citizen-airman. That new “warrior” image and the mystique that grew up around it was integral to, and illustrative of, the beginning of a wider militarization of American culture and society, which exploded after the 9/11 attacks amid the “big-boy pants” braggadocio of the administration of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney as they set out to remake the world as an American possession.

Why all the “warrior” BS? Why “Generation Kill” (one of those memorable phrases of the post-9/11 era)? Was it to give us a bit more spine or something to rally around after the calamity of those attacks on iconic American targets, or perhaps something to take pride in after so many disastrous wars over the last 75 years? It took me a while to answer such questions. Indeed, it took me a while to grasp that such questions were almost beside the point. Because all this warrior talk, whether applied to the military or the cops, is truly meant to separate us from the American people, to link us instead to wider systems of impersonal authority, such as the military-industrial-congressional complex.

By “elevating” us as warriors, the elites conspired to reduce us as citizens, detaching us from a citizen’s code of civics and moral behavior. By accepting the conceit of such an identity, we warriors and former warriors became, in a sense, foreign to democracy and ever more divorced from the citizenry. We came to form foreign legions, readily exploitable in America’s endless imperial-corporate wars, whether overseas or now here.

(Notice, by the way, how, in the preceding paragraphs, I use “we” and “us,” continuing to identify with the military, though I’ve been retired for 15 years. On rereading it, I thought about revising that passage, until I realized that was precisely the point: a career military officer is, in some way, always in the military. The ethos is that strong. The same is true of cops.)

In 2009, I first asked if the U.S. military had become an imperial police force. In 2020, we need to ask if our police are now just another branch of that military, with our “homeland” serving as the empire to be conquered and exploited. That said, let’s turn to America’s cops. They’re now likely to identify as warriors, too, and indeed many of them have served in America’s violent and endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. These days, they’re ever more likely to identify as well with authority, as defined and exercised by the elites for whom they serve as hired guns.

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, the warrior-mercenary mindset of the police has been fully exposed. For what was Floyd’s great “crime”? At worst, if true, an attempt at petty theft through forgery. He’d lost his job due to the Covid-19 crisis and, like most of us, was lucky if he saw a one-time check for $1,200, even as the rich and powerful enjoyed trillions of dollars in relief.

Rarely are the police sent to prosecute scofflaws in high places. I haven’t seen any bankers being choked to death on the street under an officer’s knee.  Nor have I seen any corporate “citizens” being choked to death by cops. It’s so much easier to hassle and arrest the little people for whom, if they’re black or otherwise vulnerable, arrest may even end in death.

By standing apart from us, militarized, a thin blue line, the police no longer stand with us.

A friend of mine, an Air Force retired colonel, nailed it in a recent email to me: “I used to — maybe not enjoy but — not mind talking to the police. It was the whole ‘community partners’ thing. Growing up and through college, you just waved at cops on patrol (they’d wave back!). Over the last five years, all I get is cops staring back in what I imagine they think is an intimidating grimace. They say nothing when you say hello. They are all in full ‘battle rattle’ even when directing traffic.”

When military “battle rattle” becomes the standard gear for street cops, should we be that surprised to hear the death rattle of black men like George Floyd?

Speaking Truth to Power Isn’t Nearly Enough

Perhaps you’ve heard the saying “speaking truth to power.” It’s meant as a form of praise. But a rejoinder I once read captures its inherent limitations: power already knows the truth — and I’d add that the powerful are all too happy with their monopoly on their version of the truth, thank you very much.

It’s not enough to say that the police are too violent, or racist, or detached from society. Powerful people already know this perfectly well. Indeed, they’re counting on it. They’re counting on cops being violent to protect elite interests; nor is racism the worst thing in the world, they believe, as long as it’s not hurting their financial bottom lines. If it divides people, making them all the more exploitable, so much the better. And who cares if cops are detached from the interests of the working and lower middle classes from which they’ve come? Again, all the better, since that means they can be sicked on protesters and, if things get out of hand, those very protesters can then be blamed. If push comes to shove, a few cops might have to be fired, or prosecuted, or otherwise sacrificed, but that hardly matters as long as the powerful get off scot-free.

President Trump knows this. He talks about “dominating” the protesters. He insists that they must be arrested and jailed for long periods of time. After all, they are the “other,” the enemy. He’s willing to have them tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets just so he can pose in front of a church holding a Bible. Amazingly, the one amendment he mentioned defending in his “law and order” speech just before he walked to that church was the Second Amendment.

And this highlights Trump’s skill as a wall-builder. No, I don’t mean that “big, fat, beautiful wall” along the U.S. border with Mexico. He’s proven himself a master at building walls to divide people within America — to separate Republicans from Democrats, blacks and other peoples of color from whites, Christians from non-Christians, fervid gun owners from gun-control advocates, and cops from the little people. Divide and conquer, the oldest trick in the authoritarian handbook, and Donald Trump is good at it.

But he’s also a dangerous fool in a moment when we need bridges, not walls to unite these divided states of ours. And that starts with the cops. We need to change the way many of them think. No more “thin blue line” BS. No more cops as warriors. No more special flags for how much their lives matter. We need but a single flag for how much all our lives matter, black or white, rich or poor, the powerless as well as the powerful.

How about that old-fashioned American flag I served under as a military officer for 20 years? How about the stars and stripes that draped my father’s casket after his more than 30 years of fighting fires, whether in the forests of Oregon or the urban tenements of Massachusetts? It was good enough for him and me (and untold millions of others). It should still be good enough for everyone.

But let me be clear: my dad knew how to put out fires, but once a house was “fully involved,” he used to tell me, there’s little you can do but stand back and watch it burn while keeping the fire from spreading.

America’s forever wars in distant lands have now come home big time. Our house is lit up and on fire. Alarms are being sounded over and over again. If we fail to come together to fight the fire until our house is fully involved, we will find ourselves — and what’s left of our democracy — burning with it.

Posted in USA, Human Rights0 Comments

‘Israel’ puts Jews at risk

Cartoon jews characters icons collection isolated Vector Image

Israel cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, it and its mouthpieces around the world claim ad nauseum that anti-Semitism is rising globally, in an attempt to justify Israel’s raison d’être as a haven of last resort for world Jewry. According to the racist worldview of the Zionist ideology on which Israel is founded, non-Jews, or gentiles, will inevitably persecute Jews whenever the two mix – unless, of course, the Jews are in charge.

On the other hand, by coupling itself to non-Israeli Jews, Israel smears the foreign Jews it claims to represent with its criminal behaviour and its racist policies. This sometimes leads to acts of hostility towards Jews in Europe and elsewhere – the perpetrators taking Israel at its word and not making a distinction between the Zionist state and foreign Jews. This in turn provides Israel and its Zionist stooges with the “evidence” they need to substantiate their racist claim that Jews and gentile are almost biologically incompatible.

We have previously argued that Jewish groups that support Israel’s crimes and its violations of international law should be prosecuted, just like neo-Nazis and Nazi holocaust deniers are prosecuted in various Western countries. Indeed, there is a case also for prosecuting these Zionist groups for incitement – inciting hatred against Jews through propaganda which, in the yes of the general public, associates these Jews with a racist, criminal state.

One example of the kind of activity that tarnishes non-Israeli Jews in general with Israeli crimes is the extensive fundraising that is organized by Zionist organizations in United States, Britain and other European countries on behalf of Israel.

Another example is the organized recruitment of foreign Jews to the Israeli armed forces. Take this event, organized by Nefesh B’Nefes (Jewish Souls United), an organization that promotes, encourages and facilitates the colonization of occupied Palestine by American and British Jews. According to the Times of Israel,

A Nefesh B’Nefesh flight arrived in Israel on Tuesday morning [13 August] bringing hundreds of new immigrants from North America to the country, including 125 young men and women who will join the Israel Defense Forces.

A specially charted Jumbo jet brought 41 families along with their combined 88 children, and 47 singles. Ninety-two of the immigrants will be moving to Israel’s periphery [that is, the occupied West Bank]…

Organizations such as Nefesh B’Nefesh should be banned and prosecuted for stirring up racial and religious hatred and for promoting, encouraging and facilitating war crimes, which is precisely what the colonization of occupied territory is. There is no room in civilized societies for exceptionalism on grounds of presumed racial or religious supremacy. Therefore, there should be no impunity for Jewish – or any other organizations – that aid and abet crime.

“But is it good for the Jews?”

“But is it good for the Jews?”

In “Highlights”

Wider still and wider: The holocaust alliance’s solicited

Wider still and wider: The holocaust alliance’s solicited “anti-Semitism” as a reaction to insufficient supply of anti-Semitism

In “Home”

Forget the anti-Semitism fallacy, let’s focus on the Palestinians

Forget the anti-Semitism fallacy, let’s focus on the Palestinians

In “Home”

Posted in ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING