Archive | Palestine Affairs

Nazi Soldiers Open Fire On Homes In Southern Gaza

NOVANEWS

gaza-fence-soldiers-e1471134740984A Palestinian child was reportedly injured on Friday evening after being struck by Nazi bullet in Beit Lahiya in the north of the Gaza Strip after Nazi forces opened live fire at homes in the area.

According to medical sources, the six-year-old girl was injured in her stomach, and described her injury as moderate.

The child was taken to al-Shifa hospital in Gaza city and was later transferred to a hospital in the north of the besieged enclave.

 

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

Why Palestinian Children Throw Stones

NOVANEWS
By Jonathan Cook 

Forget the empty posturing of world leaders in Paris yesterday. This photo tells us what the Israel-Palestine “conflict” is really about.

1613343517-copy-e1484565131183

Imagine for a second that the little boy – how old is he, eight, nine? – is your son, trying to adjust his keffiyeh because it keeps falling over his eyes and he can’t see anything. Imagine your small son surrounded by masked Israeli “soldiers”, or what looks more like a Jewish militia than an army. Imagine that the boy is likely soon to be bundled into the back of a military van and taken for interrogation without his parents or a lawyer present, or even knowing where he is. That he could end up beaten and tortured, as human rights groups have regularly documented.

Maybe you can’t imagine any of that because you, a responsible parent living in Europe or the United States, would never let your child out to throw stones.

Then you need to know more about the story behind this picture.

This photo was taken in Kfar Qaddum last month. The boy and his friends aren’t there to bait Israeli soldiers or indulge a bout of anti-semitism. Jews from the violent – and illegal – settlement of Kedumim have taken over their farm lands. Kedumim’s expansion has been further used to justify the army closing the access road in and out of Qaddum. The village is being choked off at the throat. In short, these villagers are being ethnically cleansed.

Parents living in such circumstances do not have the privilege of concealing from their children what is happening. Everyone in the village knows their community and its way of life are being extinguished. Israel is determined that they will leave so that the Jewish settlers next door can grab their land. Israel expects these villagers to join the rest of the aid-dependent Palestinian population in one of the ghettoised towns and cities in the bantustans of the West Bank.

Even little boys understand the stakes. And unlike your child, this one knows that, if he doesn’t resist, he will lose everything he holds dear.

Posted in Palestine Affairs0 Comments

Nazi forces continue systematic crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)

NOVANEWS
 (12 – 18 January 2016)

Israeli Forces Demolish Civilian Faculties in Qalendia Refugee Camp.
  • Nazi forces killed 2 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank.

–          7 Palestinian Civilians were wounded, including a child and woman, in the West Bank.

  • Nazi forces continued to target the Gaza Strip border areas, but no casualties were reported.

–         A military checkpoint established by Palestinian armed groups was destroyed and another civilian was wounded.

  • Nazi forces conducted 60 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and 3 limited ones into the Gaza Strip.

–         62 civilians, including 17 children; woman and PLC Member, were arrested in the West Bank.

–         23 of them, including 13 children and the woman, were arrested in illegally occupied Jerusalem.

  • Nazi forces continued their efforts to create Jewish majority in occupied East Jerusalem.

–         A Civilian was forced to self-demolish his house in al-‘Issawiyah village.

–         5 brothers were forced to self-demolish 8 commercial and agricultural facilities and another civilian to remove 4 containers in al-Mukaber Mount.

–         A livestock and poultry barn was demolished in Ras al-Mukaber Mount neighbourhood.

  • Nazi Jewish Settlement activities continued in the West Bank.

–         An agricultural road, dwelling and 4 other facilities were demolished in Kherbet Tana, southeast of Nablus.

–         A 172-dunum land was levelled, and 1200 old olive trees were uprooted in ‘Azoun village, east of Qalqilya, for the interest of establishing a bypass road.

  • Nazi forces continued to target Palestinian Fishermen in the Gaza Sea.

–         Two fishermen were wounded, 5 others were arrested and two boats were confiscated.

  • Nazi forces turned the West Bank into cantons and continued to impose the illegal closure on the Gaza Strip for the 9th year.

–         Dozens of temporary checkpoints were established in the West Bank and others were re-established to obstruct the movement of Palestinian civilians.

–         7 Palestinian civilians, including a child and journalist, were arrested at military checkpoints.

–         Nazi forces arrested 3 Palestinian traders at Beit Haoun “Erez” Crossing in the northern Gaza Strip.

–         Nazi forces detained a number of Gaza prisoners’ families at Erez Crossing and prevented a woman from visiting.

Summary

Nazi violations of international law and international humanitarian law in the oPt continued during the reporting period (12 – 18 January 2017).

 

Shooting:

During the reporting period, Nazi forces killed two Palestinian civilians, including a child, in the West Bank.  Nazi forces also wounded ten other civilians, including a child and woman; 3 of whom were in the Gaza Strip and the rest were in the West Bank.  In the Gaza Strip, Nazi forces continued to chase Palestinian fishermen in the Gaza Sea and open fire at farmers in the border areas.

In the West Bank, on 16 January 2017, during clashes between young men and Nazi soldiers at the southern entrance to the village, Nazi forces killed Qosay ‘Amour (17) after directly shooting at him and wounded his brother.  Both live in Taqou’a village, southeast of Bethlehem.

In a new crime of excessive use of armed force, Nazi forces stationed at “Checkpoint 104”, west of Tulkarm, shot dead Nedal Mehdawi (44) from Shweikah Suburb and living in Western Baqah village in occupied Palestine 1948.  Nazi forces claimed that Mehdawi threw stones at the Nazi soldiers and then pulled out a knife trying to stab one of the.  As a result, the Nazi soldiers opened fire at him and he was immediately killed.  Investigations indicate that the Nazi forces could have used less lethal force and arrested him.

On 13 January 2017, 3 Palestinian civilians, including a child, were wounded during their participation in Bal’in village, northwest of Ramallah.  On the same day, 3 other civilians during a protest against the Nazi soldiers who moved into Hezma village, northeast of occupied Jerusalem.

 

The full report is available online at:

http://pchrgaza.org/en/?p=8722

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

“Being There” – Why Palestinian and Israelis should be worried about Trump’s presidency

Jared Kushner and Donald Trump

By Uri Avnery

Perhaps he is lying all the time.

Perhaps he is lying about being a liar.

Perhaps he is cheating about being a cheat.

Perhaps he is just posing as an impostor.

Perhaps he has misled us all about his misleading.

Perhaps he is a very shrewd manipulator, who has led us all into believing that he is a megalomaniac simpleton.

Well, Friday 20 January was President Donald Trump’s first day in office.

President Donald Trump – we must get used to these three words.

“A man who knows nothing and believes that he can solve everything?”

The only one thing that can be said with some certainty is that nothing is certain. That this man is totally unpredictable. That we are in for four years of uncertainty, waking up every morning wondering what he is up to today.

He will be the entertainer-president. As he was the entertainer-candidate. I confess that every morning, when I took into my hand the daily newspaper, the first thing I was looking for was the latest

item about Trump. What did he do? What did he say? Whatever it was, it was always entertaining.

The question is: do we really want the most powerful man in the world to be an entertainer? Or an overblown egomaniac? Or a totally self-absorbed narcissist? A man who knows nothing and believes that he can solve everything?

This is a dangerous world. From today on, it will be a lot more dangerous.

Let’s think for a moment about the red button.

“Some of the most terrible wars in history were started by nincompoops”

There are several red buttons around the world, and several fingers of leaders (including ours) hovering over them. Thinking about Trump’s finger makes me nervous.

Some of the most terrible wars in history were started by nincompoops.

Think about Word War I, with its many millions of dead, started by a nobody, a Serbian fanatic.

World War II, with its many tens of millions of dead, was started by Adolf Hitler, a quite primitive person. When he crossed the border into Poland, he did not dream of starting a world war. Until the very last moment he did not believe that Great Britain, an “Aryan” country he admired, would declare war on him.

President Trump seems to know nothing about history. Nor about much else, except real estate and making money. He also does not seem to really listen to others when making decisions. Wow.

Some 45 years ago I read a book by a Polish-American writer, Jerzy Kosinsky, called Being There. It was about a mentally handicapped gardener whose rich boss died and left him alone. All his knowledge was confined to gardening and television.

By some accident he became involved in politics. His simple answers to all questions were conceived as profoundly wise. Things like “You have to water the roots if you want to have sweet fruit.”

He climbed the political ladder to the top, become the advisor to the president. I don’t remember if he actually became president. Trump did.

Curiously enough, I remember a German movie I saw when I was nine years old. Not a very important or sophisticated one. Yet here I remember it, 84 years later.

It’s about a young man from a well-to-do family who falls in love with the daughter of an ordinary carpenter. His family absolutely refuses to allow him to marry the daughter of such a lowly handyman.

One evening the old carpenter sits in his pub and finds a fly in his beer. He hits his huge fist on the table and cries out: “This swinishness must end!”

For a moment there is silence. Then shouts of “Bravo!” come from all directions.

The suitor seizes the opportunity. He founds a party, makes deals, runs the old man for elections and in the end – that was still the Weimar republic – gets him elected as prime minister.

Now the young suitor’s family is happy to have him marry the girl, but her father adamantly refuses. “Who are you to marry the daughter of the prime minister?” he asks.

Out for revenge, the suitor, who also writes the prime minister’s speeches, changes the pages in the middle of one of the old man’s speeches in the Reichstag. So the old man announces: “I am a total failure, I am a complete idiot…”

I don’t remember the end.

Jared Kushner, champion of “the most fanatical elements” in Israel

Who is the young man who directed Trump’s campaign? His Jewish son-in-law, of course, Jared Kushner.

Kushner, like Trump, is a real estate dealer. Like Trump, he was born rich, and devoted his life to getting richer. Now he is Trump’s main political advisor.

Kushner is also an ardent Zionist. That means that he wouldn’t dream of coming and settling in Israel, but instead supports the most fanatical elements in this country.

It seems to be a rule that the further a Jew is removed from the past and future battlefields of Israel, the more fanatically Zionist he is. This Jared is very far removed.

One of his pieces of advice, it seems, was to appoint as US ambassador to Israel another rich Jew, David Friedman. This person is such a fanatical right-wing Zionist that he is financially involved in the settlement of Beit El (“House of God”), one of the most right-wing colonies in the West Bank. Some would call it fascist.

A diplomatic curiosity: the Israeli ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, and the US ambassador to Israel are both ultra-right US-born Jewish Zionists. If they changed places, no one would notice.

Aiding and abetting land thieves

Let me remind readers what these settlements are all about.

When the Israeli army occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in 1967, these territories were as populated as the US Midwest. Much of the land belonged to private farmers or absentee landlords, and the rest was “government land”.

During Ottoman times, the land reserves of the villages and towns were registered in the name of the sultan, whose heir was the British High Commissioner, whose heir was the Jordanian monarch, whose heir is now the commander of the Israeli occupation army.

Now the Israeli settlers come and just take this land, private or “government” owned, and turn it into their homes. No payment to anyone. Sheer robbery.

Now Americans like Friedman, Kushner and others come and encourage the settlers to steal even more, even offering money to help them along.

History tells us that such things don’t last forever. Sooner or later such things end in a bloodbath. But on that day, Friedman. Kushner and Trump will be far, far away.

So why am I now writing about Trump?

Well, first of all because it’s a historic day. I don’t like historic days. I remember such a day when young men with festive torches and arcane symbols on their arms were parading through Berlin.

But there is also another reason I don’t want to write about Israel just now.

We are in the middle of the biggest scandal in Israel’s history. The prime minister and the owner of our largest mass-circulation newspaper are being investigated for bribery, and so are foreign tycoons who have kept Binyamin Netanyahu supplied for years with the world’s most expensive cigars and his wife with the world’s most expensive pink champagne. (It’s the “pink” that provides the added gossip value).

No, I am not going to write about this now. Sorry.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Palestine: the international community screws up, again

NOVANEWS
US-Israel blood-soaked handshake

…and so does the Palestinian leader, again

By Stuart Littlewood

The Middle East peace conference which took place in Paris on 15 January was the usual farce, with Israel and Palestine, the subjects under discussion, both staying away. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called the talks “useless” and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was off opening an embassy in Vatican City and meeting the Pope while 70 nations gathered to take part in another peace pantomime. It ended with a pathetic declaration urging both sides to “officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution”.

Is this what the much-trumpeted two-state solution looks like?

Everyone knows Netanyahu and the Israeli regime have never wanted peace. Land-grabbing and ethnic cleansing is what they do, so the jackboot of Israeli occupation must remain firmly on the Palestinians’ neck. He was bound to treat any peace conference with utmost contempt. And Abbas’s crass absence was not only another slap in the face to all who sympathise with the Palestinians’ plight and to the millions of campaigners who fight for their cause, but also another disservice to the Palestinian people.

I call the conference declaration “pathetic” because no-one in the international community, as far as I’m aware, has actually told us what the two-state solution they keep banging on about will look like – or even what they think it should look like. No-one, that is, since the former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, and his so-called “generous offer” to the Palestinians in the summer of 2000.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, seized by Israel in 1967 and occupied ever since, comprise just 22 per cent of pre-partition Palestine. When the Palestinians signed the Oslo accords in 1993 they agreed to accept the 22 per cent and recognise Israel within “Green Line” borders (i.e. the 1949 armistice line established after the first Arab-Israeli war). Conceding 78 per cent of the land that was originally theirs was an astonishingly big-hearted concession on their part.

But it wasn’t enough for greedy Israel. Barak’s “generous offer” demanded the inclusion of 69 Israeli settlements within the 22 per cent Palestinian remnant. It was obvious on the map that those settlement blocs created impossible borders and already severely disrupted Palestinian life in the West Bank. Barak also demanded the Palestinian territories be placed under “temporary Israeli control”, meaning Israeli military and administrative control, probably indefinitely. The generous offer also gave Israel control over all the border crossings of the new Palestinian state. What nation in the world would accept that? But the ludicrous reality of Barak’s two-state solution was cleverly hidden by propaganda spin.

Since when did Her Majesty’s Government favour negotiating with the perpetrator of criminal acts and crimes against humanity?

Later, at Taba in Egypt, Barak produced a revised map but withdrew it after his election defeat. The ugly facts of the matter are well documented and explained by organisations such as Gush Shalom, yet the Israel lobby’s stooges continue to peddle the lie that Israel offered the Palestinians a generous peace on a plate. Is Barak’s crazed vision of the two-state solution the one the 70 nations have in mind?

Britain’s stance on Palestinian independence has always been nonsensical. I remember former Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt announcing that we would not recognise a Palestinian state unless it emerged from a peace deal with Israel. London “could not recognise a state that does not have a capital, and doesn’t have borders”.

Where did he suppose Israel’s borders are? And is Israel within them? Where did he think Israel’s capital is? And where did Israel claim it to be? In other words, is Israel where Israel is supposed to be? If not, how could he possibly recognise it, let alone align himself with it? “We are looking forward to recognising a Palestinian state at the end of the negotiations on settlements because our position is again very straightforward: We wish to see a two-state solution, a secure and recognized Israel side by side with a viable Palestine, Jerusalem as a joint capital and agreed borders,” Burt said.

Negotiations about illegal settlements? Since when did Her Majesty’s Government favour negotiating with the perpetrator of criminal acts and crimes against humanity? At around the same time Hillary Clinton had rejected in advance an anticipated Palestinian bill in the UN against unlawful Israeli settlement building. According to her, Israel’s illegal squats could be resolved through “negotiations” between Palestinians and Israelis and to hell with international law. Burt embraced this “solution” instead of enforcing international law and upholding justice, as he should have. He cooperated with the most dishonest peace brokers on the planet to revive discredited, lopsided direct talks. It’s been the same story with every other UK foreign secretary.

UN Resolution 242, a work of evil

So why, after decades, is the Palestinian homeland still under foreign military occupation and total blockade when international law and the United Nations have said it shouldn’t be?

And why are the Palestinians being pressured – yet again – to submit to “direct negotiations”, victim versus armed invader haggling and pleading for their freedom?

The answer appears to lie in the hash made of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967. Here is what it said:

The UN Security Council…

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all member states in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories [i.e. Gaza, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights belonging to Syria] occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the secretary-general to designate a special representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the states concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the secretary-general to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the special representative as soon as possible.

It was adopted unanimously.

Article 2 of the UN Charter states, among other things, that all members “shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” and “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

Nothing too difficult there for people of integrity and goodwill, one would have thought. But after 49 years nothing has happened to give effect to the charter’s fine words or to deliver the tiniest semblance of peace, or allow the Palestinians to live in security, free from threats or acts of force. Israel still occupies the Holy Land and the Golan Heights with maximum brutality while law and justice, the cornerstones of civilisation, have evaporated.

This dereliction of duty began with careless use of language – or more exactly the deliberate non-use of a certain word, the “the” word, which should have been inserted in front of “territories” but was purposely omitted by the schemers who drafted the resolution.

Behind the scenes there was no intention of making Israel withdraw

Arthur J. Goldberg, the US ambassador to the UN in 1967 and a key drafter of Resolution 242, stated:

There is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after 5 June 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words “secure and recognized boundaries” that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.

According to Lord Caradon, then the UK ambassador to the UN and another key drafter,

the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognised is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognised boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognised… It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary…

He later added:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967… That’s why we didn’t demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.

Professor Eugene Rostow, then US undersecretary of state for political affairs, had also helped to draft the resolution. He was on record in 1991 that Resolution 242

allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces “from territories” it occupied during the Six-Day War – not from “the” territories nor from “all” the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. Israel was not to be forced back to the fragile and vulnerable Armistice Demarcation Lines (the “Green Line”).

Israel could thus keep the territory it seized as long as the Zionist regime avoided making peace. Even if it did make peace it could keep some unspecified territory, presumably what it had stolen in terror raids before the 1967 war.

In the meantime, Arab leaders had picked up on the fact that the all-important “the” word in relation to territories had been included in other language versions of the draft resolution (e.g. the French document) and it was therefore widely understood to mean that Israel must withdraw from all territories captured in 1967. Unfortunately, under international law, English is the official language and the English version ruled.

For Israel, Foreign Minister Abba Eban said:

As the representative of the United States has said, the boundaries between Israel and her neighbours must be mutually worked out and recognised by the parties themselves as part of the peace-making process. We continue to believe that the states of the region, in direct negotiation with each other, have the sovereign responsibility for shaping their common future. It is the duty of international agencies at the behest of the parties to act in the measure that agreement can be promoted and a mutually accepted settlement can be advanced. We do not believe that member states have the right to refuse direct negotiation…

Eban seemed to forget that Israel was in breach of international law.

“Acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible,” right?

So, here was Israel, aided by the devious drafters, pressing for direct negotiations as far back as 1967 and sensing that the defenceless and impoverished Palestinians under their heel would be easy meat.

But the Soviet deputy foreign minister, Vasily Kuznetsov, wasn’t fooled.

In the resolution adopted by the Security Council, the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” becomes the first necessary principle for the establishment of a just and lasting peace… We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab states and seized by Israel following its attack on those states on 5 June 1967.

Kuznetsov dismissed Goldberg’s border-adjustment argument, saying that the clause concerning the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition trumped any consideration for secure boundaries. He argued that the security needs of Israel “cannot serve as a pretext for the maintenance of Israel forces on any part of the Arab territories seized by them as a result of war”.

Your average native English speaker would not have been fooled by the missing word either. To the man on the Clapham omnibus “withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict” plainly means “get the hell out of the territories you occupied in the recent conflict”.

US Secretary of State Dean Rusk, writing in 1990, remarked:

We wanted [it] to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be rationalized; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties… But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided… I’m not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.

And how had UN members so conveniently forgotten about the Palestinian lands seized and ethnically cleansed before 1967? You know, those important Arab towns and cities and hundreds of villages that had been allocated to a future Palestinian state in the UN’s 1947 Partition Plan but were seized by Jewish terrorist groups and Israeli militia while the ink was still drying on the document? Had they also forgotten that the Palestinians were never consulted on the UN’s decision to hand over their lands to aliens, mainly from Europe, and with no ancestral links to the ancient Holy Land? The borders set down in the 1947 Partition Plan and incorporated into a UN resolution are certainly “recognised” because they were duly voted on and accepted even by the Zionists and their allies, were they not?

As everyone knows, Israel has never declared its borders nor respected the UN-specified borders. It is still hell-bent on thieving lands and resources, so no border is ever secure enough or final. Of course, a Palestinian state, if or when it emerges, is equally entitled to secure borders but the Israeli regime is unlikely to agree. It wants total control. So, going down the talks path again and again is fruitless. Borders should be imposed by the proper international bodies and enforced. That has to be the start-point. Adjustments can then be made with mutual consent once Israeli troops are no longer in occupation.

Incidentally, Article 33 of the UN Charter says that the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security, shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

Should the parties fail to settle it by those means, Article 37 says they must “refer it to the Security Council. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate”.

Article 36 declares that “in making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court”.

Isn’t the Israeli occupation a legal dispute? How much longer must we wait to see the UN Charter complied with? Which brings us back to the question: why wasn’t Abbas at the conference batting for Palestine’s freedom and a just solution based on law? His presence would have put Netanyahu on the wrong foot.

Posted in Palestine Affairs0 Comments

PCHR Follows up with Concern Excessive Use of Force by Security Services to Disperse Demonstration in Jabalia Refugee Camp

 

NOVANEWS 

الوصف: 04f0d7f835eec0d2c2a147316b2c4b46

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) follows up with concern the latest incidents in Jabalia refugee camp, where Hamas security services used excessive force against civilians, including journalists. PCHR stresses the significance of adhering to the legal and international standards when dealing with civilians in all circumstances. PCHR calls upon the Attorney General to follow up the incidents and ensure compliance with legal procedures. Moreover, PCHR emphasizes that the security services’ duty is to maintain security and protect public property within the law with strict commitment to the relevant international standards, especially the 1979 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials.

According to PCHR’s investigations, at approximately 16:15 on Thursday, 12 January 2017, a peaceful demonstration was organized in the center of Jabalia refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip, protesting the aggravating electricty crisis. The protest came upon an invitation from youth groups on “Facebook”. Around 500 protesters peacefully made their way from Jabalia refugee camp towards al-Hojha Stree and then to al-Fakhoura area and Beit Lahia housing Project. They arrived at the Gaza Electricity Distribution Corporation (GEDCO) building located behind the Engineers Syndicate in Beit Lahia. Around 5000 persons then joined the demonstration chanting slogans against GEDCO.  Hamas police officers were there, so altercations occurred between them and the protestors. A number of youngsters then threw stones at the GEDCO building and police officers, who in response fired live bullets in the air and attacked civilians with batons. As a result, 7 civilians sustained bruises and were taken to Kamal ‘Odwan Hospital and the Indonesian Hospital.

Moreover, Hamas police officers attacked journalists while covering the protest. Journalist Mohamed Abed al-Razeq Abdullah al-Baba (48), a photojournalist at the AFP, sustained an incised wound to the head after being beaten by the Hamas police. They also confiscated his camera and the memory card. Iyad al-Buzom, Spokesperson of the Interior Security, then came to the hospital to officially apologize for al-Baba and returned the camera

During the protest, a number of civilians were arrested by the police officers. PCHR’s fieldworker said that following the protest, security officers raided many houses and arrested activists. Some of them are so far under arrest.

PCHR stresses that security services’ duty is to maintain security and protect civilians and public and private property from any riot or violence acts during peaceful demonstrations and protests. PCHR also underscores that security services should comply with the principles of proportionality and legality of using force and condemns any random or excessive use of force. PCHR also stresses that use of force is not the solution and further complicates matters.  PCHR also emphasizes the right to freedom of expression and opinion and right to peaceful assembly, but also protestors should abide by law and maintain the peaceful nature of the demonstration in addition to not attacking the police or property.  In light of the above-mentioned, PCHR:

1-      Calls upon the Attorney General to investigate the yesterday incidents in Jabalia refugee camp, including beating civilians and a journalist and the security officers’ violations, and hold those responsible accountable;

2-      Calls upon the security services in Gaza to respect law and human’s dignity, take all necessary procedures to stop those violations and respect civilians’ public freedoms and press freedoms guaranteed under the international human rights standards and

3-      Calls upon the security services to release all civilians arrested on grounds of the protest.

 

 

 

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Gaza, Human Rights0 Comments

The Pope Says Yes to Palestine: Embassy Opens in Vatican

NOVANEWS
 
rp_r-VATICAN-FOX-large570.jpg

On Saturday Palestine will open its first embassy in the Vatican, a diplomatically significant development in the midst of ongoing threats by President-elect Donald Trump to illegally move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and an international peace conference on Israel and Palestine which begins on Sunday in Paris.

Palestine’s ambassador to the Vatican, Issa Kassissieh, said the embassy was “a significant achievement for the Palestinian people,” adding that Argentine-born Pope Francis had made an important “moral, legal and political stand through recognizing the state of Palestine along the pre-1967 borders.”

Palestine has formal diplomatic missions to over 90 countries and has had official diplomatic relations with the Vatican since 2000.

Palestinian Authority President Abbas will also press the Pope about his concerns regarding U.S. threats to move their embassy from Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem, a move which would not only break international law but threaten to entirely scuttle Palestinian Authority hopes for a two-state settlement.

Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs Riyad al-Maliki said Abbas is “hoping that the Pope will participate in sending a strong message” to Trump about the dangers of the proposed move.

Trump’s pick for U.S. ambassador to Israel David Friedman a Zionist extremist who has said Jewish supporters of Palestine are worse than Nazi concentration camp guards– has publicly said that the U.S. embassy will move to Jerusalem.

Saturday’s inauguration comes as over 70 countries gather in Paris on Sunday for the opening of the first major international peace talks on Israel-Palestine since 2014, when U.S. sponsored negotiations ended in the face of the Israeli government’s continued construction of illegal settlements.

Abbas told a French paper earlier this week that the Paris talks “may be the last chance for implementing” the two-state solution mapped out in 1967 U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 and the 1993 Olso accords.

The Paris talks begin just weeks after a historic U.N. Security Council vote which unanimously condemned Israel’s flagrant violation of international law in ongoing settlement construction on Palestinian territory.

Despite official hopes that the talks might revive the two-state solution- which would see a contiguous Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital alongside Israel’s 1967 borders- many Palestinians have declared it long dead, given Israel’s continual refusal to abide by international law and multiple previous peace deals.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Italy0 Comments

The Hidden History of the Balfour Declaration

NOVANEWS
By John Cornelius

pic

IN THIS article the author relates what he believes to be the true story of how the British government came to issue what has come to be known as the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration took the form of a letter, dated Nov. 2, 1917, from Arthur Balfour, foreign secretary of the British government, to Lord Walter Rothschild, head of the organization of British Zionists. This letter promised that the British government would work to bring about “a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.” (See box.)

I have written three earlier articles in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, on this subject, and my views have evolved with the passage of time.1,2,3 What has not changed is my belief in a British-Zionist trade whereby the Zionists assisted in bringing America into the war and, in return, the British promised them Palestine.

Among the things that have changed is my concept of the timing of the agreement. The earliest article contained a chronology showing that the British received a plain-language copy of the Zimmermann telegram (ZT) a few days after it was sent, encoded, from Berlin to Washington, on Jan. 16, 1917, and that the first formal meeting between British Zionists and the British government took place on Feb. 7, 1917. It now appears that the basic agreement was made several months before that time and what was betrayed to the British was not the text of the ZT, but rather the code in which it was sent.

Autumn 1916

The story can begin about halfway through the First World War, in the autumn of 1916. We will examine three components of the situation at that time: the military and naval positions and the status of British Zionist negotiations.

On land, the war began in August 1914 with the German army facing enemies on two fronts. In accordance with a long-standing plan, the Schlieffen plan, Germany attacked France first, hoping for a quick victory there, after which it could turn its full attention to the Russian front. Events did not work out that way. The Germans did advance, through Belgium, deep into France, but they did not succeed in enveloping Paris from the west, as had been the intention. By the end of 1914 a sort of stalemate had developed. A year and a half later the location of the front had not changed greatly, and a continuous line of trenches ran from the Swiss border almost to the North Sea. Both sides mounted offensives from time to time, with heavy loss of life, but the location of the front changed by only a few miles.

The Germans fared better on the Russian front, but that does not concern us here.

By the middle of 1916 the French army was largely exhausted, and the next big Allied offensive was undertaken primarily by the British. The battle of the Somme began on July 1, 1916 and was one of the bloodiest in history. The British suffered 60,000 casualties (19,000 dead) on the first day alone. Total casualties were over a million, more or less equally divided between the two sides. The location of the front shifted by a few miles.

Well before the battle ended, the British must have concluded that they would not be able to drive the Germans out of France by frontal assault.

At sea, the situation was delicate. Early in the war, on Nov. 3, 1914, Britain had declared the whole of the North Sea a theater of war and instituted an illegal blockade of the adjoining neutral coasts and ports. The purpose of the blockade was to starve Germany into submission. The American government protested but took no action.4

On Feb. 4, 1915 the German ambassador informed the American government that from Feb.18 a counter blockade would be in force, and the territorial waters of Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole of the English Channel, were declared a war area.

On May 7, 1915 the British liner Lusitania, traveling from New York to Liverpool, was struck off the Irish coast by a single torpedo, which provoked a much larger secondary explosion. The ship sank quickly, with the loss of almost 1,200 lives, 128 of them American.

There was strong American reaction to the sinking of the Lusitania, both popular and diplomatic, and the U.S. came close to breaking off diplomatic relations with Germany. A meeting between the German ambassador and President Woodrow Wilson on June 2 had the effect of calming matters for a time, but an exchange of diplomatic notes occurred. The second American note, of June 10, led to the resignation of the American secretary of state, William Jennings Bryan, who believed that neutrality required that American citizens be forbidden from traveling on ships bearing the flag of any belligerent nation. And, in fact, Americans could perfectly well have traveled on American, Dutch, or Scandinavian vessels.

Although there had been no settlement of the Lusitania case, feeling died down for a time. Then on Aug. 19, 1915 the British passenger steamer Arabic was sunk off the coast of Ireland, with the loss of two American lives. Once again the possibility of war between the U.S. and Germany loomed. In this case, however, Germany revealed that, following the Lusitania sinking, German submarine commanders had been ordered not to sink liners without warning, and apologized and offered compensation. Although the Lusitania matter still was not settled, following the Arabic apology German-American relations remained tranquil for several months.

The next cloud on the horizon was the “Sussex incident.” On March 24, 1916 the French trans-channel steamer Sussex was reported torpedoed and sunk in the English Channel, with the loss of several American lives. There seems to be some question as to whether the Sussex was in fact torpedoed and sunk at all, but in any case, the American government issued an ultimatum, and the German government was forced to acknowledge that the Sussex had been sunk by a German submarine and to agree that henceforth German submarines would abide by the rules of “cruiser warfare,” a severe restriction which seriously handicapped the submarine as a strategic weapon.

Throughout the war, there were two schools of thought within the German government. One held that the submarine was a major strategic weapon, with the potential of winning the war for Germany. The other held that the continued use of submarines against merchant shipping would lead to continual incidents and ultimately bring America into the war on the side of the Allies, and that therefore the use of submarines against merchant shipping was against Germany’s interest. By the fall of 1916 this issue had not been resolved.

British-Zionist negotiations date back at least to 1903. In that year the sixth Zionist congress took place in Basel. It is referred to as the “Uganda” congress because it dealt with an offer by the British government to make available land in Uganda for Jewish settlement. The offer was seriously considered and was, in fact, approved by a majority of the delegates, but the debate proved to be very divisive, and ultimately the offer was not taken up.

During that period Arthur Balfour was British prime minister, and the Zionists had retained the London law firm of Lloyd George, Roberts and Co. This firm was chosen because one of the partners, David Lloyd George, was an MP and thus in touch with Foreign Office thinking.5 Both Balfour and Lloyd George must have given serious thought at that time to the question of what the British government and the Zionists could do for each other.

That Balfour continued to think about this is shown by his statement at what Chaim Weizmann calls their second meeting in 1915 (the first was in 1906): “You know, I was thinking of that conversation of ours, and I believe that after the guns stop firing you may get your Jerusalem.”6

British-Zionist negotiations date back at least to l903.

On the other hand, in her 1983 book, Dear Lord Rothschild, Rothschild’s niece, Miriam Rothschild, states that Balfour and Weizmann had met on several occasions between 1905 and 1915 and had established an excellent rapport.7

In any case, it would seem that a pattern of British-Zionist negotiations, and in particular of Balfour-Weizmann negotiations, had been established well before the fall of 1916.

It is interesting to note that the Encyclopedia Britannica states that Balfour succeeded Winston Churchill as first lord of the admiralty in May 1915, whereas in Trial and Error Weizmann states that in March 1916 he was summoned to the British admiralty in connection with a chemical process he had developed and was subsequently brought into the presence of “the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was at that time Mr. Winston Churchill.”

Whatever the truth of the timing may be, Weizmann established a pattern of frequent visits to the admiralty, ostensibly in connection with his chemical process, but which would also have provided the opportunity for frequent, prolonged and secret negotiations between Weizmann and Balfour.

What Happened Next

Once it became clear, in the fall of 1916, that the battle of the Somme would not result in the German army’s being forced out of France, the British, with their resources approaching exhaustion, had to consider what to do next.

Herbert Asquith, who had been prime minister since 1908, had begun, reluctantly, to consider a negotiated peace, but negotiations with the Zionists, through Weizmann and Balfour, provided another option for Britain, although not for Asquith. That option was the possibility of a formal, but secret, alliance between the Zionists and the Monarchy, whereby the British Monarchy would undertake to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine and the Zionists would undertake to help bring America into the war on the side of the Allies, thus assuring an Al-lied victory. An agreement with a British government would certainly be necessary, but British governments come and go, and a commitment from something less ephemeral than a British government would have been required by the Zionists.

It is proposed that such a secret agreement took place. There seems to be no way to date it accurately, but it seems likely to have occurred sometime in October 1916.

Once a formal agreement was in place, the next step was to arrange for several changes in personnel—on both the British and the German sides.

  • The first change was in the leadership of Room 40, the name given the British codebreaking organization. Room 40 was destined to play a key role in the vast deception to follow, and it was necessary to have a trusted actor at its head. Room 40 was first set up in the fall of 1914 under the direction of Alfred Ewing, who retained that position until October 1916. At that time Ewing was replaced by Captain Reginald Hall, director of naval intelligence. Balfour found a suitable position for Ewing in academia. See “Five Books,” p. 47.
  • In Germany, Gottlieb von Jagow, who had been foreign minister since 1913, resigned in November 1916 over the issue of unrestricted submarine warfare, which he opposed. Speaking of the situation in Berlin at that time, the then German ambassador to the U.S. stated, “the unrestricted submarine campaign was only made possible by the resignation of Herr von Jagow, who was the chief opponent of the submarine campaign,” and “as long as Herr von Jagow remained secretary of state, a breach with the United States was regarded as impossible.”8
  • Von Jagow was replaced by Arthur Zimmermann, undersecretary for foreign affairs since 1911. Before 1914, Berlin was the center of Zionist activity, and in 1912 the organization which was to become the Technion, or Israel Institute of Technology, in Haifa had placed itself under the protection of Germany, and Zimmermann had arranged with the Turkish government for the purchase of land and the erection of a building.9 Zimmermann clearly enjoyed good relations with German Zionists and was thus susceptible to Zionist influence.
  • In November 1916, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected to a second term as U.S. president with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” It was understood that Wilson’s aim was to bring about a negotiated end to the war without victory for either side.
  • In early December 1916, a political crisis, probably engineered, occurred in Britain, and Herbert Asquith, who had been prime minister since 1908, was forced to resign. The denouement came on Dec. 6, 1916. That afternoon King George V summoned several prominent political figures, including Balfour and Lloyd George, to a conference at Buckingham Palace. Later that same evening, Balfour received a small political delegation, which proposed that the difficult political situation could be resolved with Lloyd George as prime minister, provided Balfour would agree to accept the position of foreign minister, which he did.10
  • Lloyd George then quickly imposed a war dictatorship, and direction of the war was entrusted to a “War Cabinet” of five members, including himself as prime minister and Balfour as foreign minister. Mark Sykes was named secretary.

At that point, all necessary changes in personnel had been accomplished.

  • On Dec. 18, 1916, the American ambassador to Britain conveyed an “offer of peace” on behalf of the Central Powers to the Allies.
  • On the following day, David Lloyd George, in his first speech to Parliament as prime minister, heaped scorn on the peace proposal and vowed that Britain and its allies would fight on until victory.

In retrospect, it seems clear that this speech was a bluff and was meant to goad the Germans into resuming unrestricted submarine warfare.

That this was indeed the case is indicated by a series of messages from the U.S. ambassador to Britain, Walter Page, to President Wilson and the secretary of state, written in June 1917.11 These messages make it clear that Britain was on the verge of financial collapse, and that only American support could avert disaster.” These messages were made public only in 1925 and are, in my opinion, too little known.

  • On Jan. 9, 1917 the German government made the fateful decision to resume unrestricted submarine warfare at the beginning of the following month.
  • Date unknown—What would come to be known as the Zimmermann telegram was concocted in London. My source for this information is a letter to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, written in response to my first (1997) article, by author Russell Warren Howe.12 Howe stated that he had been taught at Cambridge that the ZT was “concocted in London to encourage Washington to join the Allies against the Central Powers.” My first reaction to this letter was doubt—because Zimmermann subsequently accepted responsibility for the ZT. But of course he had to, because he was responsible, even if the idea came from someone else.
  • Date unknown, possibly before the previous two entries—The key to German code 7500 (in which the ZT was to be sent) was provided to Room 40 by an informant. Howe states that Britain broke code 7500 (he calls it 0075) “a few weeks before the ZT.” By “broke,” he presumably means “acquired.”
  • Date unknown—One Herr von Kemnitz, an East Asia expert in the German foreign office and presumably a Zionist agent, presented Zimmermann with the text of a proposed telegram, the ZT, that he had supposedly drafted but had more likely received from London.13 Against the opposition of some of his colleagues, he persuaded Foreign Minister Zimmermann to send it.
  • On Jan. 16, 1917, two telegrams were sent sequentially, by cable, from Foreign Minister Zimmermann, in Berlin, to the German ambassador in Washington, Count Bernstorff. The first, which both Zimmermann and Bernstorff considered to be by far the more important, informed Bernstorff of the decision to resume unrestricted submarine warfare on Feb. 1, 1917, and gave him instructions on when and how to inform the American government. The second was what has come to be known as the Zimmermann telegram. (See box on facing page.) This second telegram was relayed to the German Embassy in Mexico City on Jan. 19, 1917.
  • The British intercepted the ZT on the day it was sent and promptly decoded it.

It should be noted that Zimmermann sent the ZT on his own authority. Neither the Kaiser nor Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg knew anything of it until it was made public in America.

After seeing these cables, Bernstorff attempted to have the German government rescind the unrestricted submarine warfare decision, but was unsuccessful.

  • Jan. 31, 1917—Bernstorff informed the U.S. government that unrestricted submarine warfare would commence the following day.
  • Feb. 3, 1917—The U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Germany, and Bernstorff was told to leave the U.S.
  • Feb. 7, 1917—The secretary of the War Cabinet, Mark Sykes, met with Weizmann and other Zionist leaders in London, in what is widely, but incorrectly, believed to have been the first contact between the British government and the Zionists during the war. It is doubtful that Sykes himself had any knowledge of the October 1916 British-Zionist agreement.
  • Feb. 14, 1917—Bernstorff left New York on the Danish steamer Friedrich VIII to return to Germany. Safe conduct had been granted by the British.
  • Feb. 16, 1917—The Friedrich VIII entered Halifax, Nova Scotia harbor. Bernstorff remained incommunicado for almost two weeks.
  • Feb. 26, 1917—The State Department received a telegram from the American ambassador in London containing the plain language text of the ZT.
  • Feb. 27, 1917—Friedrich VIII permitted to sail from Halifax.
  • March 1, 1917 —Text of ZT published in U.S.
  • March 15, 1917—Czar Nicholas II abdicated, following the first of two 1917 revolutions in Russia. A provisional government was formed, later headed by Alexander Kerensky. Democracy appeared to have taken hold in Russia.
  • April 2, 1917—President Wilson addressed Congress. He spoke of the “wonderful and heartening” events in Russia, stated that “the world needs to be made safe for democracy,” and asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
  • April 6, 1917—Congress declared war on Germany.
  • Aug. 6, 1917—Zimmermann replaced as foreign minister in Germany.
  • Early November 1917—The Bolshevik revolution took place in Russia. The promise of democracy disappeared. The ex-Czar and his family were subsequently put to death. Kerensky was removed from power but came to no harm.
  • Nov. 2, 1917—Arthur Balfour sent a letter, including what has come to be known as the Balfour Declaration (BD), to Lord Walter Rothschild. For a number of years it was not known that the BD took this form. Lord Balfour’s obituary in The New York Times of March 20,1930 stated that the BD was the text of a speech delivered by Balfour on Nov. 4, 1917. See box p. 44.
  • March 8, 1918—Weizmann had a private and secret audience with King George V. According to Weizmann’s account in Trial and Error, the meeting consisted of an exchange of pleasantries, and one must wonder whether the meeting did not have some unstated purpose. One wonders, for example, if Weizmann did not emerge from the meeting in possession of a document signed by the King of England, possibly committing to more than did the BD.
  • Nov. 11, 1918-World War I ended.

Five Books: How the Betrayal of German Code 7500 to the British Was Covered Up

To establish that German Code 7500 was obtained by the British in 1917 by means other than codebreaking, it is instructive briefly to review five publications. These will be examined in the order in which they were published, which—because book three was first published classified and later declassified—is different from the order in which they were made public.

Our first book is The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page by Burton J. Hendrick.14Walter Page was a long-time (since 1881) friend of President Woodrow Wilson and was appointed by him to be U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, serving from 1913 until his death in 1918.

Volumes I and II of this three-volume work have a common index and were both published in 1922. Volume III deals largely with Page’s correspondence with President Wilson and Secretary of State Robert Lansing and was published in 1925, after Wilson’s death. It is important to remember that these volumes were written not by Page himself, who died in 1918—less than two months after the end of World War I—but by his biographer, Hendrick, who assembled the letters from many sources. We are concerned here only with Volume III.

Hendrick relates that in late February 1917 Balfour personally handed Page a copy of the document which has come to be known as the Zimmermann telegram. This document can be found in the box at right, and is referred to there as ZT-2. It is the version of the telegram that was forwarded by the German Embassy in Washington to the German Embassy in Mexico City on Jan. 19, 1917. Balfour stated that the telegram had not been obtained in Washington but had been bought in Mexico City.

Two other versions of the Zimmermann telegram may also be found in the box at right. These are ZT-1, the original telegram as cabled from Berlin to Washington on Jan. 16, 1917, and what we may call ZT-Hendrick. ZT-Hendrick appears nowhere else than in Hendrick’s book. It seems to be something the British gave Page, with an indication that it was an early, partial, decipherment of ZT-2 made sometime before Page was given the completely deciphered version. It is evident, however, that ZT-Hendrick is derived from ZT-1, not ZT-2.

ZT-1 and ZT-2 are, of course, English translations of German originals. There is no German original of ZT-H.

Some people in the U.S. government must have learned in early 1917 that ZT-1 and ZT-2 were sent encrypted in two different and unrelated codes. This did not become public knowledge, however, until F&M (see Book 3, below) was declassified in 1965.

It is difficult to see how the national interest was served by hiding from public knowledge for 48 years the simple fact that ZT-1 and ZT-2 were encrypted in different codes.

It was fortunate for the British that Page died when he did in 1918. Page was clearly an anglophile and eagerly accepted everything Balfour told him. Nevertheless, had he learned that the two versions of the ZT had been sent in different codes and that ZT-Hendrick could only have been derived from ZT-1, he would surely have realized that he had been deceived.

The second book is Arthur James Balfour by Lord Balfour’s niece, Blanche Dugdale, published in two volumes in 1936 (London) and 1937 (NY).15 This is a lengthy work, covering Lord Balfour’s entire life and political career. We are concerned here only with Chapter 10 of the second volume, in which the following significant paragraphs appear. The year referred to is 1917.

Ever since the middle of January, however, a piece of information had been in the possession of the British Government, which would move, if anything could, the vast populations behind the Atlantic seaboard States, who still read of the European War with as much detachment as if it had been raging on the moon. This was the famous telegram from Zimmermann, the German Foreign Minister, to the German Minister in Mexico, instructing him, if and when the United States should enter the War on the Allied side, to propose to Mexico an alliance which would restore to her, when peace came, her “lost territories in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.”

The method by which this information had reached the British Intelligence Service made it impossible for some time to communicate it to the United States Government. Therefore for over a month Balfour read his dispatches from Washington of the slow wakening of the American will to war, but could do nothing to hasten the process. Till—at last—information about the Mexican plot reached London through channels which enabled the Intelligence Service to cover up the traces of how it had first been got.

This appears to open the possibility that the British government obtained either the Zimmermann telegram or the code in which it was sent from an informant, rather than by code-breaking, and in any case indicates that the British possessed the full text of ZT-1 shortly after it was sent.

The third work to be examined is a U.S. Army Signal Corps Bulletin, The Zimmermann Telegram of January 16, 1917 and its Cryptographic Background, by William F. Friedman and Charles J. Mendelsohn (F&M).16 This work was published, classified, in 1937 and was declassified in 1965. The senior author was born Wolfe Friedmann in Kishinev, Russia in 1891 and ultimately became known as the Father of American Cryptanalysis.

Friedman and Mendelsohn (F&M) undertake to determine how the British were able to intercept the Zimmermann telegram and how they were able to decipher it.

They reveal that the ZT (ZT-1) was first transmitted by submarine cable from Berlin to the German ambassador in Washington, Count Bernstorff, on Jan. 16, 1917, encrypted in German code 7500, and that Bernstorff then relayed it (ZT-2) as a Western Union telegram encrypted in German code 13042, to the German legation in Mexico City on Jan. 19. Two different codes were used because the German legation in Mexico did not possess code 7500, and the ZT had to be relayed to them in an older and less secure code.

The texts of the two versions of the ZT, the Berlin-to-Washington (7500) version and the Washington-to-Mexico City (13042) version, were identical, but they had different preambles. The preamble of the 7500 version was “For your Excellency’s personal information and to be forwarded to the Imperial Minister in Mexico by a safe route.” The preamble of the 13042 version was simply “The foreign office telegraphs on January 16.” (See “Three Versions” box on previous page.)

Code 7500 was a new and difficult code, only recently delivered by submarine to the U.S., and it is the professional judgment of F&M that the British would have been able to make, at best, a very rudimentary decipherment of the ZT by the time they made the verbatim text of the ZT available to the U.S.

F&M’s explanation of how the British obtained the text of the ZT is that, after making a meager beginning in deciphering the 7500 version, they were able to obtain a copy of the 13042 version, after which decipherment was soon accomplished. This fails to explain, however, how the British were able to obtain the text of the preamble of the 7500 version of the ZT, which they did.

The more likely explanation of how the British were able to obtain a verbatim copy of the original 7500 version of the ZT is that, at the time the ZT was sent, the British already possessed the key to that code.

Although F&M reproduce the Dugdale quotation given above, they are remiss in having failed even to consider the obvious possibility that the British might have obtained the text of ZT-1 (or code 7500) through an informant rather than by code-breaking. The possibility must be considered that this failure was by design rather than through oversight.

The fourth book to be considered is The Zimmermann Telegram, by Barbara Tuchman.17 This work first appeared in 1958, and a second edition appeared in 1966, i.e., after F&M was declassified in 1965.

The first edition of Tuchman’s book states that the British picked up the encoded ZT by wireless on Jan. 16, 1917, and found it to be in code 13042, which was related to codes the British already had deciphered. They were thus able, in short order, to produce a nearly complete copy of the decoded ZT.

In fact, the ZT was transmitted by cable, not radio, and encrypted in code 7500, not 13042.

Normally, the second edition of a book provides an opportunity, and also the duty, for the author to correct errors in the first edition. That did not happen with this book. The text is unchanged, but a “Preface to New Edition” has been added. In it, Tuchman reports the declassification of F&M and acknowledges that it “appears to modify my account”—a gross understatement. She acknowledges having been aware of the existence of F&M and acknowledges having been in contact with Friedman but professes to have been unaware of the content of the book.

The heart of Tuchman’s book is the de-tailed story in Chapter 1 of how the British deciphered the ZT in code 13042 on Jan. 16, 1917. A reading of F&M makes it clear that this story is false. It is conceivable that Tuchman believed this story when she first wrote it, but it is not possible that she still believed it when the second edition of her book was issued. It is the belief of this writer that Tuchman fabricated a false story of how the British obtained the text of the ZT in order to conceal the fact that they obtained it by betrayal rather than by codebreaking.

It is remarkable that Tuchman’s book continues to be read and believed more than 30 years after hard evidence has become available that the story is false.

The fifth and final book on our list is The Codebreakers, by David Kahn, published in 1967.18 This a lengthy work of 26 chapters and over 1,000 pages. We are interested primarily in Chapter 9, entitled “Room 40.” About half of that chapter is devoted to the ZT. A second edition appeared in 1996, but it does not alter Chapter 9.

Kahn’s explanation of how the British were able to decipher the ZT in code 7500 (which, like Tuchman but unlike F&M, he calls 0075) is that “somehow” the British obtained enough material in code 7500 to make a start at breaking it. Kahn quotes an incomplete version of the ZT as being what the British were able to produce. This same incomplete version is referred to by F&M as the “Hendrick version,” of which they say: “When all is said and done, the decipherment of the 7500 version of the Zimmermann telegram, even to the degree given in the Hendrick version, approaches the unbelievable.” Note that, unlike Kahn, who is a writer on cryptography, F&M were professional cryptographers.

One’s confidence in Kahn is eroded by the fact that, in discussing the question of why, after the ZT was made public, Zimmermann admitted authorship of it, Kahn states, “to this day no one knows why Zimmermann admitted it” (p. 297). This is disingenuous. Anyone who has looked into the matter knows exactly why he admitted it. The Germans were as much taken by surprise by the publication of the ZT as anyone else and wanted to know if it was genuine. Zimmermann was called on to testify before the Reichstag and had no choice but to admit it.

As an aside, note that Room 40 was the name given to the cryptoanalytic bureau set up in the British admiralty early in the war under the direction of Sir Alfred Ewing. Kahn reveals that Ewing remained the head of Room 40 from the fall of 1914 until October 1916, when he returned to academia, whence he had come. His departure was facilitated by Lord Balfour, and his replacement was Captain Reginald Hall, R.N., director of naval intelligence. We may infer that at this time British-Zionist negotiations were well under way and that Room 40’s role was being broadened from cracking German codes to include pretending to crack German code 7500.

We have examined our five books one-by-one. Let us now relate them to each other.

It is the unproven belief of the present writer that German code 7500, in which the original ZT was sent in January 1917, was obtained by a Zionist agent inside the German government, possibly either by means of photography or a photographic memory, and provided to the British government.

The second book cited, by Blanche Dugdale, is consistent with this belief in that it contains a veiled hint that the British might have obtained the plain language text of the ZT by means other than codebreaking, whereas the three following books totally ignore this possibility. Interestingly, the other three books give different, and incompatible, stories of how the British did obtain the text of the ZT.

It is clear that the authors of books three, four and five were acquainted with each other.

Since it was the first of these three books, F&M, of course, make no mention of Tuchman or Kahn.

In her “Preface to New Edition,” written after the declassification of F&M, Tuchman acknowledges having known of the existence of F&M, though not its content, and having spoken to Friedman. (There was no mention of either of these facts in the first edition.) Also in the same preface, Tuchman states that decipherment of code 7500 (which she calls 0075) will be analyzed in Kahn’s, at that time forthcoming, book. This implies contact between them.

Interestingly, Kahn makes no mention of Tuchman, nor does her name appear in the index, although Kahn’s account of the historical circumstance of the ZT seems to be largely borrowed from her book. Kahn does, however, mention Friedman. In the preface to The Codebreakers. Kahn mysteriously thanks Friedman for “a gift made in 1947, upon my graduation from high school, that was a major step in my cryptographic education.” One wonders if that “gift” might not have been the secret of how the British first obtained German code 7500 and of the need to protect that secret in perpetuity.

“Services Rendered”

In his seminal work, Arab Awakening (1938), George Antonius points out that in early 1917 three major obstacles stood in the way of Zionist efforts to obtain a commitment from the British government in support of their goals in Palestine.19First was the bargain concluded in 1915 with Sharif Husain of Arabia for an independent Arab state whose territory included Pales-tine. Second was the Sykes-Picot agreement, dividing the Middle East between Britain and France and placing the Holy Land under some sort of international administration. And third was the hostility toward political Zionism of an influential group of British Jews.

Antonius then continues:

“Undeterred, however, by those obstacles, Mr. Lloyd George appointed Sir Mark Sykes to open negotiations with the Zionists. What his motives were in wishing to come to an understanding with the Zionist leaders, and what the considerations were which induced the British Government eventually to issue the Balfour Declaration are questions to which the answers have been obscured by a smoke-screen of legend and propaganda. It is alleged, for instance, that the Jews used their financial and political influence to bring the United States into the War on the side of the Entente and that the Balfour Declaration was a reward for actual services rendered. All published evidence goes to disprove that allegation, and one can only infer either that it does not rest on any foundation or, if it does, that the services rendered by international Jewry in that connection were of so occult a nature that they have hitherto escaped the scrutiny of all the historians of America’s intervention.”

The initial meeting between Sykes and the Zionists took place on Feb. 7, 1917, and we can now see why the “services rendered” toward bringing America into the war have hitherto escaped the scrutiny of all the historians of America’s intervention. One would expect that Zionist actions aimed at bringing America into the war would have taken place sometime after the first British-Zionist meeting, but the first acknowledged contact between the British Government and Zionists was the Sykes meeting of Feb. 7, 1917. Yet by that time the Zionist contributions toward bringing America into the war already had largely been accomplished, although it is likely that Sykes himself was unaware of that.

The Balfour-Weizmann agreement of October 1916 was and remains entirely secret.

The Sykes meeting served as a sort of decoy.

In the few months between these two events, the following had taken place:

  • The civilian head of codebreaking “Room 40” in London had been replaced by the director of Naval Intelligence.
  • Von Jagow, who had served since 1913, was replaced by Zimmermann as German foreign secretary.
  • Asquith, who had served as British prime minister since 1908, was removed from power, and a new War Cabinet was formed, in which Lloyd George was prime minister and Balfour foreign minister—both friends of Zionism since 1903.
  • The key to German code 7500 was betrayed to Room 40.
  • A draft of the ZT was concocted in London and presented to Zimmermann by one of his subordinates in Berlin.
  • The ZT was transmitted by cable from Berlin to Washington on Jan. 16, 1917. It was copied by Room 40 and promptly de-coded. Note that this is incompatible with Tuchman’s story but entirely consistent with Dugdale’s account.

Thus, by the time of the Sykes-Zionist meeting of Feb. 7, 1917, the Zionist part of the bargain had been accomplished, and America was as good as at war. All that remained was for the British to find the best time and method for revealing the contents of the ZT to President Wilson and for him to convince Congress and the American people to go to war.

References:
  1. Cornelius, John. “The Balfour Declaration and the Zimmermann Note,” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs), Aug./Sept. 1997.
  2. Cornelius, John. “Answering Critics of the Theory that Balfour Declaration Was Payoff for Zionist Services in WWI,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Sept. 1998.
  3. Cornelius, John. “Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, and Why America Entered the Great War,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Oct./Nov. 1999.
  4. Bernstorff, Count Johann Heinrich. My Three Years in America, New York: Scribner’s, 1920.
  5. Dugdale, Mrs. Edgar. The Balfour Declaration-Origins and Background, London: The Jewish Agency for Palestine, 1940, pp. 15-16.
  6. Weizmann, Chaim. Trial and Error, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1949, p. 152.
  7. Rothschild, Miriam. Dear Lord Rothschild, Glenside, Pa.: Balaban Publishers, 1983, p. 341.
  8. Bernstorff, pp.310-311.
  9. Weizmann, p. 143.
  10. Dugdale, Blanche. Arthur James Balfour, NY, Putnam’s, 1937, Vol. II, pp. 127-9.
  11. Hendrick, Burton J. The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page, NY, Doubleday, Page & Co., 1925, Vol. III, Chap 14.
  12. Howe, Russell Warren. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Letters to the Editor, Jan./Feb. 1998, p. 110.
  13. Link, Arthur S., Wilson, Vol. 5, Princeton, NJ, 1965, Princeton University Press, pp 433-5.
  14. Hendrick, Vol. III.
  15. Dugdale, Arthur James Balfour, Vol. II.
  16. Friedman, William F. and Mendelsohn, Charles J. The Zimmermann Telegram of January 16, 1917 and its Cryptographic Background, Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1994.
  17. Tuchman, Barbara W. The Zimmermann Telegram. New York: Ballantine Books, 1958, 1966.
  18. Kahn, David. The Codebreakers. New York: Macmillan, 1967, 1996
  19. Antonius, George. The Arab Awakening. Philadelphia, NY: Lippencott, 1939.

 

Three Versions of the Zimmermann Telegram

ZT-I as sent in code 7500 from Berlin to Washington on Jan. 16, 1917
Source: German Hearings

Telegram No. 158.

Strictly confidential.

For your Excellency’s exclusively personal information and transmission to the Imperial Minister at Mexico by safe hands:

Telegram No. 1.

Absolutely confidential.

To be personally deciphered.

It is our purpose on the 1st of February to commence the unrestricted U-boat war. The attempt will be made to keep America neutral in spite of it all.

In case we should not be successful in this, we propose Mexico an alliance upon the following terms: Joint conduct of war. Joint conclusion of peace. Ample financial support and an agreement on our part that Mexico shall gain back by conquest the territory lost by her at a prior period in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Arrangement as to detail is entrusted to your Excellency.

Your Excellency will make the above known to the President in strict confidence at the moment that war breaks out with the United States, and you will add the suggestion that Japan be requested to take part at once and that he simultaneously mediate between ourselves and Japan.

Please inform the President that the unrestricted use of our U-boats now offers the prospect of forcing England to sue for peace in the course of a few months.

Confirm receipt.

ZIMMERMANN

ZT-2 as sent in code 13042 from Washington to Mexico City on Jan. 19, 1917

Source: Friedman and Mendelsohn, translated from the German version

The Foreign Office wires (telegraphiert) January 16:

No. I.

Absolutely confidential.

To be personally deciphered.

It is our purpose on the 1st of February to commence the unrestricted U-boat war. The attempt will be made to keep America neutral in spite of it all.

In case we should not be successful in this, we propose Mexico an alliance upon the following terms: Joint conduct of war. Joint conclusion of peace. Ample financial support and an agreement on our part that Mexico shall gain back by conquest the territory lost by her at a prior period in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Arrangement as to detail is entrusted to your Excellency.

Your Excellency will make the above known to the President in strict confidence at the moment that war breaks out with the United States, and you will add the suggestion that Japan be requested to take part at once and that he simultaneously mediate between ourselves and Japan.

Please inform the President that the unrestricted use of our U-boats now offers the prospect of forcing England to sue for peace in the course of a few months.

Confirm receipt.

ZIMMERMANN

ZT-Hendrick, date unknown

Source: Hendrick found among Ambassador Page’s papers

Zimmermann to Bernstorff for Eckhardt W. 158.

I6th January, 1917

Most secret for your Excellency’s personal information and to be handed on to the Imperial Minister in ? Mexico with Tel. No. 1…by a safe route.

We purpose to begin on 1st February unrestricted submarine warfare. In doing so, however, we shall endeavor to keep America neutral….? If we do not (succeed in doing so) we propose to (? Mexico) an alliance upon the following basis:

(joint) conduct of the war

(joint) conclusion of peace

Your Excellency should for the present inform the President secretly (that we expect) war with the U.S.A. (possibly) (…Japan) and at the same time to negotiate between us and Japan…(indecipherable sentence meaning please tell the President) that…our submarines…will compel England to peace in a few months.

Acknowledge receipt.

ZIMMERMANN

SIDEBAR 2

Mr. Morgenthau Doesn’t Go to Istanbul

A little known historical incident took place in the spring of 1917, shortly after the U.S. entered World War I on the side of the Allies. President Woodrow Wilson devised a plan for bringing about an early end to the war by detaching Turkey from the Central Powers. To this end, he sent a mission to Europe, where it was to meet with representatives of Britain and France in Switzerland and then make its way to Turkey. The mission was headed by Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who had been American ambassador to Turkey from 1912 to 1915 and had many contacts there. This story is related in Chapter 17 of Chaim Weizmann’s 1949 autobiography, Trial and Error.

The American mission never arrived in Switzerland, let alone Turkey. In early June of 1917, Weizmann, who was then in London, received a cable from Louis Brandeis in the U.S., informing him of the mission and suggesting that he contact it. Weizmann immediately contacted members of the British government and learned the nature of the mission. Weizmann was concerned that the Morgenthau mission might result in the war ending with the Ottoman Empire still intact, eliminating the possibility of a Jewish state in Palestine.

A subsequent conference with Lord Balfour lead to Weizmann’s being sent as the official British representative to meet with the American mission and a French representative. This meeting took place at Gibraltar after the American mission disembarked at Cadiz on July 4, 1917.

Weizmann reports that he had no difficulty persuading Morgenthau to drop the whole matter, so instead of proceeding to Switzerland and Istanbul, Morgenthau went to Biarritz, in the South of France, where, he said, he would communicate with General Pershing and await further instructions from President Wilson.

The Morgenthau mission was apparently secret, for Weizmann says he does not know how the story got out. He also says that in 1922, when Congress was looking into the merits of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, a senator stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement were unworthy men and that Weizmann, in particular, had prolonged the war for two years by scuttling the Morgenthau mission.

Morgenthau seems to have shown more loyalty to Zionism than to his president or his country.

Interestingly, author Barbara Tuchman was Morgenthau’s granddaughter.—J.C.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Nazi  forces continue systematic crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)

NOVANEWS
(05 – 11 January 2016)

 

 

  • Nazi forces killed a Palestinian civilian at point-blank range in al-Far’ah refugee camp, in front of his mother.

  • A Palestinian civilian was killed after running over Nazi soldiers in occupied Jerusalem

–         A Palestinian photojournalist was wounded, and then he and a reporter were beaten by Nazi soldiers.

 

  • Nazi forces continued to target the Gaza Strip border areas, but no casualties were reported.

 

  • Nazi forces conducted 54 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank.

–        58 civilians, including 9 children and 3 women, were arrested.

–        18 of them, including 6 children and the 3 women, were arrested in occupied Jerusalem.

 

  • Nazi forces continued their efforts to create Jewish majority in occupied East Jerusalem.

–        A decision to suspend the residency of 12 members of al-Qunbar family in al-Mukaber Mount.

–        Settlers seized a building in al-Rababah Valley neighbourhood in Silwan

–        Lands of East Sawahrah were levelled, claiming they are State lands.

  • Nazi Jewish illegal Settlement activities continued in the West Bank.

–        Agricultural roads and a waterline were levelled in al-Ras al-Ahmar area in the Northern Valley.

–        A 1700-meter agricultural road was levelled in Masafer Yata

 

  • Nazi forces turned the West Bank into cantons and continued to impose the illegal closure on the Gaza Strip for the 9th year.

–        Dozens of temporary checkpoints were established in the West Bank and others were re-established to obstruct the movement of Palestinian civilians.

–        4 Palestinian civilians, including a child, were arrested at military checkpoints.

 

Summary

 

Nazi violations of international law and international humanitarian law in the oPt continued during the reporting period (05 – 11 January 2017).

 

Shooting:

During the reporting period, Nazi forces killed two Palestinian civilians.  The first one was killed after carrying out a run-over attack, targeting a number of Nazi soldiers in East Jerusalem.  The second one was killed in a new cold-blooded crime in al-Far’ah refugee camp, south of Tubas.  Nazi forces also wounded a Palestinian photojournalist and then beat him and another reporter.  In the Gaza Strip, Nazi forces opened fire at Palestinian farmers in the border areas.

 

In the West Bank, On 98 January 2017, Nazi forces killed Fadi al-Qunbar (28) from al-Mukaber Mount village, southeast of occupied Jerusalem, when he drove his truck into a group of Nazi soldiers, who were in the bus station near “Armon Hanatziv” settlement established on the lands of the aforementioned village.  As a result, 3 Nazi soldiers and an officer were killed.

 

In a new crime of extra-judicial execution, on 10 January 2017, Nazi forces shot dead in cold blood Mohammed al-Salhi (30) in al-Far’ah refugee camp, south of Tubas, with five bullets from a gun with a silencer.  As a result, he was killed in front of his elderly mother.

In the same context, Nazi forces wounded the photojournalist of “TransMedia” Agency, al-Muthana al-Deek, with a gas canister to his right leg while he was covering a protest organized by dozens Palestinian civilians and activists in the Northern Valley against settlement activities. After he was wounded, the Nazi soldiers beat him and the “Palestine Today” Reporter, Amoun al-Sheikh.

 

In the Gaza Strip, in the context of targeting the border areas, on 10 January 2017, Nazi forces stationed along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Nazi opened fire at the agricultural fields, east of al-Maghazi in the central Gaza Strip, to the west of the abovementioned border.  However, no casualties were reported.

 

The full report is available online at:

http://pchrgaza.org/en/?p=8695

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

Nazi Forces Execute Palestinian Civilian at Point-Blank Range in al-Far’ah Refugee Camp

NOVANEWS

 Image result for Israeli Forces Execute Palestinian PHOTO

In an extra-judicial execution crime, on Tuesday dawn, 10 January 2017, Nazi forces shot dead in cold blood a Palestinian civilian in al-Far’ah refugee camp, south of Tubas, in front of his mother.  The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) stresses that this crime was committed after the Nazi political and military leaders gave the Nazi soldiers the green light to shed the Palestinian blood and tolerated the soldiers for their crimes against Palestinian civilians.

According to PCHR’s investigations and the mother’s testimony, Fawziyah Mahmoud Khamis Salhi (67) said to PCHR’s fieldworker that at approximately 02:00 on the above mentioned day, Nazi forces moved into al-Far’ah refugee camp, south of Tubas.  They surrounded the family house of Mohammed Subhi Ahmed Khamis Salhi (33) near an UNRWA School for Girls and the camp sports club, seemingly in order to arrest him.

A number of Nazi soldiers jumped from the outer wall of the 1-storey house. Mohammed and his mother then heard noise in the corridor and went out of their bedroom.  When his mother saw the soldiers, she stood between them and her son.  An Nazi soldier then ordered her to sit on a plastic chair there, but when she refused, the soldier forcefully seated her. She then twice stood between the soldiers and her son.

However in the third time she stood, the Nazi soldier forcefully pushed her and seated her on the chair.  The Nazi soldier then pulled out a gun with a silencer and directly fired 5 bullets at Mohammed at point-blank range.  As a result, the bullets penetrated his neck, chest, hand, armpit, pelvis and thigh from the left side of his body and killed him in front of his elderly mother.

The mother said that she did not hear any sound of shooting, but saw sparkles coming from the gun.  After that, her son swayed and fell on the ground.  His body was put on a litter and then taken by an ambulance belonging to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) to Tubas Turkish Governmental Hospital in Tubas, where medical sources announced him dead.  It should be mentioned that the Mohammed previously served a 3-year sentence in the Nazi camp.

PCHR strongly condemns this new crime, coinciding with the trial of Nazi soldier Elor Azaria, who killed a Palestinian young man namely ‘Abdel Fattah al-Sharif (20) in Hebron on 24 March 2016 when the latter was wounded and immobilised and with calls from Nazi leaders, including Naziyahu, to pardon the soldier if being convicted.  As these calls encourage the Nazi soldiers to shed the Palestinian blood, PCHR hereby:

  1. Demands the United Nations to provide international protection for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) and ensure guarantees to protect civilians in the oPt;
  2. Calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to oblige the Nazi regime to apply the Geneva Conventions in the oPt in its capacity as a Member State to these conventions;
  3. Demands the states signing the Geneva Conventions to fulfill their obligations by exercising their Universal Jurisdiction to hold the Nazi regime war criminals to account regardless of the criminals’ nationalities and the place where the crimes were committed and put an end to their impunity and
  4. Appeals the abovementioned states to extend their Jurisdiction to account war criminals regardless of their origins, not to be obedient to the Nazi regime pressure that aims to limit the states’ jurisdiction in order to keep the Nazi regime war criminals’ impunity.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human Rights, UK, West Bank0 Comments

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

January 2017
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031