Archive | ZIO-NAZI

Nazi regime Bans Arab Parties and Liberal Candidate from Coming Elections


Israel Bans Arab Parties and Liberal Candidate from Coming Elections

Benjamin Netanyahu | Israel Elections

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures as he delivers a statement at the Prime Minister’s residence in Jerusalem, Feb. 28, 2019. Sebastian Scheiner | AP

In Israel, two Palestinian political parties and one liberal Jewish party member have been banned from running in the April 9th election; meanwhile, a radical Jewish candidate stays in, even after Israel’s Attorney General recommended he be banned.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

U.S.A: Undertake an extended tour of the Middle East


Presidential aide, Jared Kushner, has made a surprise decision to undertake an extended tour of the Middle East

Image result for Jared Kushner CARTOON

A spokesman for the President’s son-in-law commented, “I think we can all agree that peace in the region is just moments away. However, Mr. Kushner felt there were still some areas which he hadn’t had the chance to experience. Yemen for example. Have you experienced Yemen in the spring? It’s surprisingly delightful. And does anyone else think that Gaza is shockingly unappreciated as a destination. Well it won’t be ignored this time round.”

The spokesman was adamant that there were no other reasons why Jared might wish to leave the country at this particular moment. “It’s just more fake news from the liberal media. Now if you will excuse us we need to pack for an extended stay in the Saudi ‘Empty Quarter’, there’s no cell phone coverage there so sadly we won’t be able to reply if by chance anyone in Washington wants to get hold of him to answer any questions. We should be back by summer recess, or maybe Thanksgiving.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Middle East, USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Nazis didn’t like Jazz, the Corbynites are following their path


In the last three years we saw the Labour party suspending and harassing its own party members for thought crimes. Now the purge is escalating, the party is now terrorising private citizens. I seem to be their prime target. My crime, I told the truth…


Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Campaigns, UK0 Comments

Four famous Jewish women have one message Naziyahu

Image result for Netanyahu IN NAZI UNIFORM CARTOON
By Mahmoud El-Yousseph
Four famous Jewish women have one message to PM Netanyahu who vilified Palestinians in his campaign: Don’t stigmatize and demonize the Arab minority population.
The women are:
1-  Carole Nuriel, director of the ADL’s Israel office.
2-  Rotom Sela, TV host, model, and actress.
3-  Gal Gadot, an actress and “Wonder Woman” star.
4- Natalie Portman, film actress, producer, writer, and director.
All four women slammed PM Netanyahu and told him one way or the other that stereotyping and stigmatizing Israeli Arabs during his election campaign is unacceptable and immoral. The Arab population is a term Israelis prefer to use when talking about the Palestinians living inside the pre-1948 borders and who makes up 21 percent of the Israeli population.
Netanyahu responded by saying, “There is no problem with Israel’s Arab citizens. They have equal rights.” Never mind that there are 50 laws in Israel that discriminate against Palestinians. Using social media, the women also lectured Netanyahu about who ‘Israel belongs to.’
Those brave women represent the conscience of the silent Israeli Jewish majority. They do give others hope that a just and lasting peace between Palestinians and Israeli is in the only way to go. In addition, who can forget Natalie Portman last year who refused to accept the “Jewish Nobel” Price? The American superstar with dual Israeli and American citizenship did not feel comfortable being in the same room with Netanyahu after the Israeli army snipers killed and injured thousands of peaceful Palestinian protesters. By having the courage to hold Netanyahu accountable, those brave women showed the Crime Minister’s hands being stained with blood, his lips have spoken falsely, and his tongue muttered wicked things.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Is a War With Iran on the Horizon?


Here’s the foreign policy question of questions in 2019: Are President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, all severely weakened at home and with few allies abroad, reckless enough to set off a war with Iran? Could military actions designed to be limited — say, a heightening of the Israeli bombing of Iranian forces inside Syria, or possible U.S. cross-border attacks from Iraq, or a clash between American and Iranian naval ships in the Persian Gulf — trigger a wider war?

Worryingly, the answers are: yes and yes. Even though Western Europe has lined up in opposition to any future conflict with Iran, even though Russia and China would rail against it, even though most Washington foreign policy experts would be horrified by the outbreak of such a war, it could happen.

Despite growing Trump administration tensions with Venezuela and even with North Korea, Iran is the likeliest spot for Washington’s next shooting war. Years of politically charged anti-Iranian vituperation might blow up in the faces of President Trump and his two most hawkish aides, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, setting off a conflict with potentially catastrophic implications.

Such a war could quickly spread across much of the Middle East, not just to Saudi Arabia and Israel, the region’s two major anti-Iranian powers, but Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the various Persian Gulf states. It might indeed be, as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani suggested last year (unconsciously echoing Iran’s former enemy, Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein) the “mother of all wars.”

With Bolton and Pompeo, both well-known Iranophobes, in the driver’s seat, few restraints remain on President Trump when it comes to that country. White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, President Trump’s former favorite generals who had urged caution, are no longer around. And though the Democratic National Committee passed a resolution last month calling for the United States to return to the nuclear agreement that President Obama signed, there are still a significant number of congressional Democrats who believe that Iran is a major threat to U.S. interests in the region.

During the Obama years, it was de rigueur for Democrats to support the president’s conclusion that Iran was a prime state sponsor of terrorism and should be treated accordingly. And the congressional Democrats now leading the party on foreign policy — Eliot Engel, who currently chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Bob Menendez and Ben Cardin, the two ranking Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — were opponents of the 2015 nuclear accord (though all three now claim to have changed their minds).

Deadly Flashpoints for a Future War

On the roller coaster ride that is Donald Trump’s foreign policy, it’s hard to discern what’s real and what isn’t, what’s rhetoric and what’s not. When it comes to Iran, it’s reasonable to assume that Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo aren’t planning an updated version of the unilateral invasion of Iraq that President George W. Bush launched in the spring of 2003.

Yet by openly calling for the toppling of the government in Tehran, by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement and reimposing onerous sanctions to weaken that country’s economy, by encouraging Iranians to rise up in revolt, by overtly supporting various exile groups (and perhaps covertly even terrorists), and by joining with Israel and Saudi Arabia in an informal anti-Iranian alliance, the three of them are clearly attempting to force the collapse of the Iranian regime, which just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

There are three potential flashpoints where limited skirmishes, were they to break out, could quickly escalate into a major shooting war.

The first is in Syria and Lebanon. Iran is deeply involved in defending Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (who only recently returned from a visit to Tehran) and closely allied with Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite political party with a potent paramilitary arm. Weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu openly boasted that his country’s air force had successfully taken out Iranian targets in Syria. In fact, little noticed here, dozens of such strikes have taken place for more than a year, with mounting Iranian casualties.

Until now, the Iranian leadership has avoided a direct response that would heighten the confrontation with Israel, just as it has avoided unleashing Hezbollah, a well-armed, battle-tested proxy force. That could, however, change if the hardliners in Iran decided to retaliate. Should this simmering conflict explode, does anyone doubt that President Trump would soon join the fray on Israel’s side or that congressional Democrats would quickly succumb to the administration’s calls to back the Jewish state?

Next, consider Iraq as a possible flashpoint for conflict. In February, a blustery Trump told CBS’s Face the Nation that he intends to keep U.S. forces in Iraq “because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is the real problem.” His comments did not exactly go over well with the Iraqi political class, since many of that country’s parties and militias are backed by Iran.

Trump’s declaration followed a Wall Street Journalreport late last year that Bolton had asked the Pentagon — over the opposition of various generals and then-Secretary of Defense Mattis — to prepare options for “retaliatory strikes” against Iran. This roughly coincided with a couple of small rocket attacks against Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone and the airport in Basra, Iraq’s Persian Gulf port city, neither of which caused any casualties. Writing in Foreign Affairs, however, Pompeo blamed Iran for the attacks, which he called “life-threatening,” adding, “Iran did not stop these attacks, which were carried out by proxies it has supported with funding, training, and weapons.” No “retaliatory strikes” were launched, but plans do undoubtedly now exist for them and it’s not hard to imagine Bolton and Pompeo persuading Trump to go ahead and use them — with incalculable consequences.

Finally, there’s the Persian Gulf itself. Ever since the George W. Bush years, the U.S. Navy has worried about possible clashes with Iran’s naval forces in those waters and there have been a number of high-profile incidents. The Obama administration tried (but failed) to establish a hotline of sorts that would have linked U.S. and Iranian naval commanders and so made it easier to defuse any such incident, an initiative championed by then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, a longtime opponent of war with Iran.

Under Trump, however, all bets are off. Last year, he requested that Mattis prepare plans to blow up Iran’s “fast boats,” small gunboats in the Gulf, reportedly asking, “Why don’t we sink them?” He’s alreadyreinforced the U.S. naval presence there, getting Iran’s attention. Not surprisingly, the Iranian leadership has responded in kind. Earlier this year, President Hassan Rouhani announced that his country had developed submarines capable of launching cruise missiles against naval targets. The Iranians also began a series of Persian Gulf war games and, in late February, test fired one of those sub-launched missiles.

Add in one more thing: in an eerie replay of a key argument George Bush and Dick Cheney used for going to war with Iraq in 2003, in mid-February the right-wing media outlet Washington Times ran an “exclusive” report with this headline: “Iran-Al Qaeda Alliance may provide legal rationale for U.S. military strikes.”

Back in 2002, the Office of Special Plans at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, under the supervision of neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, spent months trying to prove that al-Qaeda and Iraq were in league. The Washington Times piece, citing Trump administration sources, made a similar claim — that Iran is now aiding and abetting al-Qaeda with a “clandestine sanctuary to funnel fighters, money, and weapons across the Middle East.” It added that the administration is seeking to use this information to establish “a potential legal justification for military strikes against Iran or its proxies.” Needless to say, few are the terrorism experts or Iran specialists who would agree that Iran has anything like an active relationship with al-Qaeda.

Will the Hardliners Triumph in Iran as in Washington?

The Trump administration is, in fact, experiencing increasing difficulty finding allies ready to join a new Coalition of the Willing to confront Iran. The only two charter members so far, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are, however, enthusiastic indeed. Last month, Prime Minister Netanyahu was heard remarking that Israel and its Arab allies want war with Iran.

At a less-than-successful mid-February summit meeting Washington organized in Warsaw, Poland, to recruit world leaders for a future crusade against Iran, Netanyahu was heard to say in Hebrew: “This is an open meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran.” (He later insisted that the correct translation should have been “combating Iran,” but the damage had already been done.)

That Warsaw summit was explicitly designed to build an anti-Iranian coalition, but many of America’s allies, staunchly opposing Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear accord, would have nothing to do with it. In an effort to mollify the Europeans, in particular, the United States and Poland awkwardly renamed it: “The Ministerial to Promote a Future of Peace and Security in the Middle East.”

The name change, however, fooled no one. As a result, Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo were embarrassed by a series of no-shows: the French, the Germans, and the European Union, among others, flatly declined to send ministerial-level representatives, letting their ambassadors in Warsaw stand in for them. The many Arab nations not in thrall to Saudi Arabia similarly sent only low-level delegations. Turkey and Russia boycotted altogether, convening a summit of their own in which Presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Iran’s Rouhani.

Never the smoothest diplomat, Pence condemned, insulted, and vilified the Europeans for refusing to go along with Washington’s wrecking-ball approach. He began his speech to the conference by saying: “The time has come for our European partners to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.” He then launched a direct attack on Europe’s efforts to preserve that accord by seeking a way around the sanctions Washington had re-imposed: “Sadly, some of our leading European partners… have led the effort to create mechanisms to break up our sanctions. We call it an effort to break American sanctions against Iran’s murderous revolutionary regime.”

That blast at the European allies should certainly have brought to mind Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s disparaging comments in early 2003 about Germany and France, in particular, being leaders of the “old Europe.” Few allies then backed Washington’s invasion plans, which, of course, didn’t prevent war. Europe’s reluctance now isn’t likely to prove much of a deterrent either.

But Pence is right that the Europeans have taken steps to salvage the Iran nuclear deal, otherwise known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In particular, they’ve created a “special purpose vehicle” known as INSTEX (Instrument for Supporting Trade Exchanges) designed “to support legitimate trade with Iran,” according to a statement from the foreign ministers of Germany, France, and Great Britain. It’s potentially a big deal and, as Pence noted, explicitly designed to circumvent the sanctions Washington imposed on Iran after Trump’s break with the JCPOA.

INSTEX has a political purpose, too. The American withdrawal from the JCPOA was a body blow to President Rouhani, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and other centrists in Tehran who had taken credit for, and pride in, the deal between Iran and the six world powers (the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, and China) that signed the agreement. That deal had been welcomed in Iran in part because it seemed to ensure that country’s ability to expand its trade to the rest of the world, including its oil exports, free of sanctions.

Even before Trump abandoned the deal, however, Iran was already finding U.S. pressure overwhelming and, for the average Iranian, things hadn’t improved in any significant way. Worse yet, in the past year the economy had taken a nosedive, the currency had plungedinflation was running rampant, and strikes and street demonstrations had broken out, challenging the government and its clerical leadership. Chants of “Death to the Dictator!” — not heard since the Green Movement’s revolt against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection in 2009 — once again resounded in street demonstrations.

At the end of February, it seemed as if Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo had scored a dangerous victory when Zarif, Iran’s well-known, Western-oriented foreign minister, announced his resignation. Moderates who supported the JCPOA, including Rouhani and Zarif, have been under attack from the country’s hardliners since Trump’s pullout. As a result, Zarif’s decision was widely assumed to be a worrisome sign that those hardliners had claimed their first victim.

There was even unfounded speculation that, without Zarif, who had worked tirelessly with the Europeans to preserve what was left of the nuclear pact, Iran itself might abandon the accord and resume its nuclear program. And there’s no question that the actions and statements of Bolton, Pompeo, and crew have undermined Iran’s moderates, while emboldening its hardliners, who are making I-told-you-so arguments to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader.

Despite the internal pressure on Zarif, however, his resignation proved short-lived indeed: Rouhani rejected it, and there was an upsurge of support for him in Iran’s parliament. Even General Qassem Soleimani, a major figure in that country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the commander of the Quds Force, backed him. As it happens, the Quds Force, an arm of the IRGC, is responsible for Iran’s paramilitary and foreign intelligence operations throughout the region, but especially in Iraq and Syria. That role has allowed Soleimani to assume responsibility for much of Iran’s foreign policy in the region, making him a formidable rival to Zarif — a tension that undoubtedly contributed to his brief resignation and it isn’t likely to dissipate anytime soon.

According to analysts and commentators, it appears to have been a ploy by Zarif (and perhaps Rouhani, too) to win a vote of political confidence and it appears to have strengthened their hand for the time being.

Still, the Zarif resignation crisis threw into stark relief the deep tensions within Iranian politics and raised a key question: As the Trump administration accelerates its efforts to seek a confrontation, will they find an echo among Iranian hardliners who’d like nothing more than a face-off with the United States?

Maybe that’s exactly what Bolton and Pompeo want. If so, prepare yourself: another American war unlikely to work out the way anyone in Washington dreams is on the horizon.


A Tribal Camp in South Texas Is Vowing to Resist Trump’s Wall
Self-Funding Candidates Represent Themselves, Not Constituents
Donald Trump Deserves an “F” on Trade
Daniel Ellsberg Praises Chelsea Manning After She Is Jailed Again
With Trillions in Safety Net Cuts, Trump Budget Is a New Level of Cruelty
16-Year-Olds Want to Vote — and States Are Starting to Listen to Them




Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, Iran0 Comments

This Jew Tells Speaker Pelosi: “You May Well Prove Ilhan Omar Correct”


Unfortunately, all the vague media references to Rep Omar’s so-called “anti-Semitic remarks” obscure how truthful and non-hateful those comments were

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) poses for photographs with Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and her family in the Rayburn Room at the U.S. Capitol January 03, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is reportedly still considering a symbolic “show vote” in Congress on an anti-Semitism and “hate” resolution – which would offer all the authenticity and honesty of a Soviet show trial. If Pelosi proceeds, it will prove Rep. Ilhan Omar’s point about the inordinate influence wielded over Congress by the “Israel-right or-wrong”/AIPAC lobby and its power to stifle criticism of Israel.

The anti-Omar resolution, whether mentioning Omar or not, was originated by two Democrats who are among Congress’s most longstanding pro-Israel diehards: Reps. Eliot Engel and Nita Lowey. Both endorsed Bush’s Iraq invasion. Both opposed Obama’s Iran nuke deal. Both supported Trump’s move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

“A large number of proud Jewish Americans—raised to believe in civil liberties and open discussion—are appalled by the campaign to muzzle Rep. Ilhan Omar, as well as Speaker Pelosi’s role in it. We’re also appalled that human-rights-abusing Israel is virtually off-limits to debate.”

I’m a proud Jew raised in a liberal family that supported civil rights and human rights. My experience growing up during the 1950s and 1960s was typical of many Jewish Americans. Like many Jews with this background, I’ve grown increasingly ashamed of Israel.

For 40 years, Israel has been ruled mostly by a series of right-wing governments – more and more openly racist and abusive of Palestinian rights. It’s not the land of tree-planting, kibbutzim and “a country treating its Arab minority nicely” that we were sold as youngsters.

That’s why a large number of proud Jewish Americans—raised to believe in civil liberties and open discussion—are appalled by the campaign to muzzle Rep. Ilhan Omar, as well as Speaker Pelosi’s role in it. We’re also appalled that human-rights-abusing Israel is virtually off-limits to debate.

Most Jews—the likes of Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner excepted—empathize with the refugee experience. Only a rare few cannot be impressed by the life story of Omar, who fled civil-war-torn Somalia and came to the U.S. as a refugee at age 12, knowing only two English phrases: “hello” and “shut up.” Now a Muslim Congresswoman, she’s recently faced hateful bias and threats.

Rep. Omar has made a simple and undeniable point – that AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the funding it influences exert extraordinary power over Congress. Disputing that point is flat-earther terrain. The Capitol Hill farce of an “anti-hate” resolution would provide still more evidence on behalf of her argument.

Unfortunately, all the vague media references to Rep Omar’s “anti-Semitic remarks” obscure how truthful and non-hateful those comments were. You can see a series of her recent tweets here.

Progressive Jews are rushing to her defense because of tweets like this one that speak for us in a way few members of Congress ever have:  “Being opposed to Netanyahu and the occupation is not the same as being anti-Semitic. I am grateful to the many Jewish allies who have spoken out and said the same.”

In his Washington Post column “The dishonest smearing of Ilhan Omar,” Paul Waldman devastatingly countered the recent attack on Omar over her comment at a town hall: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

The initial media frenzy in February over two of Omar’s tweets was so huge that it obscured the fact that the uproar was sparked by a total of seven words – and six of those words are the refrain of a famous Puff Daddy song.

It began when Omar retweeted Glenn Greenwald’s comment about GOP congressional leader Kevin McCarthy’s “attacking the free speech rights” of Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib for criticizing Israel – to which Omar, a known critic of money in politics, simply added the Puff Daddy refrain:  “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.” (Benjamins refer to $100 bills.) When a tweeter asked her who Omar thinks is funding politicians to defend Israel, Omar responded with a one-word tweet: “AIPAC!”

The feeding frenzy over these two flippant but truthful tweets forced Omar to apologize (something Trump has not been forced to do over hundreds of dishonest, racist and/or threatening ones).

Yet if you spend a day on Capitol Hill and talk (off-the-record) with a member of Congress about this topic, you’ll hear plenty about AIPAC’s awesome clout and its ability to unleash “Benjamins”  to bully Congress.  Books and articles have documented this truism.

According to the New York Times, AIPAC allies now want to oust Ilhan Omar from Congress and hope to “punish Ms. Omar . . . with a primary challenge in 2020.”

When the well-funded Israel-right-or-wrong lobby comes after her, we’ll likely see a massive counter-movement of progressive Jews and non-Jews “Standing with Omar” – and through the Internet, matching the other side Benjamin for Benjamin.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Sparked by Ilhan Omar’s ‘Valid Criticism’ of I$raHell

Sparked by Ilhan Omar’s ‘Valid Criticism’ of Israel, House Overwhelmingly Passes Broad ‘Anti-Hate’ Resolution

“We’re happy to see a resolution that condemns real bigotry, rather than going after Rep. Ilhan Omar and her vision of a world free of racism and oppression.”

“This is a dangerous waste of time,” Heidi Hess, co-director of CREDO Action, said in a statement. (Photo: C-SPAN/Twitter)


The House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a non-binding Democratic resolution condemning anti-Semitism, white supremacy, Islamophobia, and other forms of bigotry.

The final tally was 407-23, with 234 Democrats and 173 Republicans voting yes. All of the no votes were Republicans, and one GOP member—Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)—voted present.

Though the resolution does not mention Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) by name, progressive critics perceived the measure as an implicit rebuke of the congresswoman over her criticism of the Israeli lobby and government.

“While valid criticism of Netanyahu, AIPAC, and Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians are being falsely attacked as anti-Semitism, threats by white supremacists are continuing.”
—Rabbi Alissa Wise, Jewish Voice for Peace.

While advocacy groups that have mobilized in defense of Omar applauded House Democrats’ far-reaching condemnation of hatred and bigotry, they were quick to note that the resolution is far from perfect.

“As the anti-Omar resolution was transformed into a broader ‘anti-hate’ resolution—with plenty of rhetoric that progressives support—it unfortunately found no room to say: ‘Criticism of Israel cannot be equated with anti-Semitism.’ That was the message of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in their defenses of Omar,” said Jeff Cohen, co-founder of “Let’s hope the resistance to the original resolution marks a turning point in Congress’ blind support for Israel’s subjugation of Palestinians.”

Linda Sarsour—executive director of MPower Change, a broad coalition of Arab and Muslim groups that helped organize support for Omar—said that it is now time to “get back to work against the rise of white nationalism that threatens all of our communities and build a government and policies that respects every resident of this nation.”

“We are a movement that unequivocally rejects anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, and all forms of bigotry, and expect the same from Democratic leadership,” Sarsour said. “It’s a new day where we no longer will accept attacks on our free speech and stifling of necessary debate on Israeli government policies against Palestinians.”

Rabbi Alissa Wise, deputy director of Jewish Voice for Peace, echoed Sarsour’s warning about white nationalism, saying, “While valid criticism of Netanyahu, AIPAC, and Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians are being falsely attacked as anti-Semitism, threats by white supremacists are continuing.”

“And we all know who white supremacists have their sights set on: Black people, Muslims, Jews, immigrants, and more,” Wise concluded. “We’re happy to see a resolution that condemns real bigotry, rather than going after Rep. Ilhan Omar and her vision of a world free of racism and oppression.”


With a final vote expected as early as Thursday evening, House Democrats released the full text of their resolution condemning anti-Semitism, white supremacy, and Islamophobia.

While the text does not mention Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted it is “not about her,” progressive advocacy groups perceived the resolution as a rebuke of the congresswoman over her criticism of the Israeli lobby.

“This is a dangerous waste of time,” Heidi Hess, co-director of CREDO Action, said in a statement before the text was made public. “Democrats should be spending their time in Congress investigating the purveyors of hate in the Trump White House, not pushing platitudes in order to implicitly condemn one of their own.”

Hess also warned of the unintended consequences of the resolution.

“The next time Rep. Ilhan Omar faces a disingenuous smear, Democratic leaders in the House should have her back, and refuse to police or shame her in order to silence legitimate debate over American foreign policy,” she said.

Watch the floor debate on the resolution:

As Common Dreams reported, Democratic leaders are facing intense backlash from Jewish organizations and their own members, who have pushed back against the resolution both in public and during heated closed-door meetings.

After appearing to indefinitely postpone the resolution Wednesday night, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) announced on Thursday that he would push ahead with a vote despite internal opposition and grassroots protests.

“All Americans should support statements denouncing anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of bigotry,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in a statement. “Unfortunately, this resolution was introduced to silence legitimate criticism of domestic support for the discriminatory and segregationist policies of a foreign government that receives billions of American taxpayer dollars.”

On Twitter, the youth-led Jewish advocacy group IfNotNow credited grassroots pressure with ensuring that “the new House Resolution [is] more inclusive: it now condemns anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and racism, while correctly blaming the rise of such bigotry on white nationalism and white supremacy.”

“It is not a perfect resolution,” IfNotNow added. “Its timing still clearly associates it as a rebuke to Ilhan Omar. It, unfortunately, enshrines U.S. support for the Israeli government, which maintains the fifty-one-year military occupation of the West Bank and siege of the Gaza Strip.”

Read the full text of the resolution:

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments




by Tony Greenstein

In 1984, Rabbi Meir Kahane, the founding leader of the openly racist Kach party, managed to enter the Knesset after securing some 26,000 votes. Despite his rising political profile, however, the far-right rabbi was not welcomed with open arms in the Israeli parliament – whenever he spoke, all the other 119 members of the Knesset (MKs) would walk out.

MKs were so disturbed by Kahane’s presence in the parliament that in August 1985 they even passed a revision to the Electoral Law which banned parties “inciting racism” – including Kach – from participating in future elections.

The problem was that this amendment also disqualified parties which opposed the existence of the Israeli state as a Jewish state. The second anti-racist law in 1986 was even worse. It exempted discrimination on the grounds of religion resulting in Kahane voting for it and the left in the Knesset voting against it!

However, the MKs’ vocal opposition to Kach had nothing to do with the racist ideology that was guiding the party. They were simply concerned about the damage Kach’s success could inflict on Israel’s image on the international arena – before the Supreme Court’s election ban, polls were predicting that the party could gain up to 12 seats in the 1988 elections.

Nevertheless, even if it was mostly for cosmetic reasons, back then, overt racism was still unacceptable in Israeli politics.

However, much has changed in the last 35 years.

Today, heirs of Kahane are being welcomed in by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. What was trefa (forbidden) yesterday, has become kosher today.

Netanyahu’s political calculations

As part of his ongoing election campaign, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly encouraged the far-right Jewish Home party to unite with smaller, even more extremist right-wing parties, including Otzma Yehudit – the party of Kahane’s disciples. The Jewish Home central committee recently approved the merger, paving the way for at least one member of Otzma Yehudit – its leader Michael Ben Ari – to secure a seat in the 21st Knesset in the upcoming April election.

Ben Ari, an avowed Kahanist, was a member of the Knesset between 2009 and 2013. Apart from inciting a pogrom against African refugees in South Tel Aviv, he is famous for tearing up a copy of the New Testament and putting it in a rubbish bin and for referring to Jewish left-wingers as “germs” that need to be eradicated.

In September 2010, in response to being told that for every Israeli killed, six Palestinians had died over the previous 10 years, Ari remarked that “For every one dead on our side, we need to kill 500 and not six.” During 2012’s Operation Pillar of Defense, he stated that “there are no innocents in Gaza…mow them down! Kill the Gazans without thought or mercy!”

This is who Netanyahu has made sure will enter the new Knesset in April.

The reason the prime minister has so eagerly supported Otzma Yehudit – and other extremist parties like it – is because the far-right in Israel commands up to 250,000 votes but is divided between at least four parties. He believes that a failure of these parties to unite could lead to many of them not crossing the electoral threshold (which was raised from 2 percent to 3.25 percent in 2013 in order to exclude the Arab parties from parliament), making way for the rise of a left-wing coalition in the Knesset.

Unlike his predecessors, who had once likened Rabbi Kahane’s racist policy proposals to Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg laws, Netanyahu seemingly has no qualms about dealing with the far right. There are no waters too polluted for the prime minister to fish in.

Some on the Israeli left are acting as if this signals a major shift in Israeli politics. Yet Israel’s Arab population is undoubtedly asking, “What’s new?” After all, they have always suffered violence and institutional discrimination.

What we are witnessing today is not a major shift in Israeli politics, but the public face of Zionist ideology finally catching up with decades of Zionist practice. Israeli Labour governments of the past spoke the language of social democracy as they practised ethnic cleansing. Netanyahu’s new, openly fascist right-wing government, however, has taken the hypocrisy out of Zionism.

Zionism exposed

When Kahane preached that Israel could either be a Jewish state or a democratic one, he was stating a truth that generations of “left-wing” Zionists have glossed over. The Zionist ideology had always given prominence to the state’s Jewish identity over democracy. This is why, when it was founded in 1948, Israel expelled over 750,000 Palestinians, and successive Zionist governments, Labour and Likud alike, opposed mixed marriages and personal relationships between Jews and Arabs.

In this context, the only real difference between mainstream Zionist Israeli parties and the likes of Kach or Otzma Yehudit is that what the former whisper in muted tones, the latter shout from the rooftops.

During his stint in the Knesset, Kahane proposed a series of laws which would make Israel a true “Jewish state”. These proposals included, among others, revocation of citizenship rights of non-Jews, the eventual imposition of slavery on Arabs and other non-Jews, banning non-Jews from living in Jewish neighbourhoods, the expulsion of non-Jews from Jerusalem and eventually Israel, prohibition of sexual relations between Jews and Arabs and forced dissolution of all inter-faith marriages.

While many of these proposals, such as the prohibition of sexual relationships between Jews and Arabs and the forced dissolution of intermarriages, come straight from the 1935 Nazi Nuremberg Laws and appear extreme and unrealistic on the surface, they offer little more than further codification of the existing practices of the Israeli state.

There is no civil marriage in Israel and since religious authorities do not perform interfaith marriages (between a Jew and a member of another religion), they are not permitted in Israel. Kahane’s proposition to ban non-Jews from living in Jewish neighbourhoods is also already a reality. Hundreds of communities in the country are already Jewish only; non-Jews residing in Jerusalem are facing expulsion for the most trivial reasons.

Kahane represented the hidden face of Zionism. Members of the Knesset, both from the left and the right, denounced his ideas and words to keep up appearances, while tacitly supporting the very same racist policies he promoted.

Kahane may have died at the hands of an assassin in 1990, but his ideas have thrived in his absence. Israel’s government no longer feels the need to hide the fact that it embraces the open racism of Kehane’s modern-day followers.

Liberal anxieties

The upcoming election is likely to mark the demise of the so-called Zionist “left” – and the decades-old lie that mainstream Zionists are fundamentally different from racists like Kahane.

This is causing apoplexy among Zionism’s liberal supporters. Batya Ungar-Sargon, opinion editor of the left-wing Jewish-American periodical The Forward, recently published a commentary headlined Netanyahu Just Invited Israel’s Equivalent Of The KKK To Join The Government.

“These are the David Dukes and the Richard Spencers of the Jewish State, people who believe that Jewish sovereignty depends on the oppression, ethnic cleansing and even murder of Israel’s Arab population,” she explained.

The American Jewish establishment has clearly been shaken by Netanyahu’s open association with proud fascists and racists, but above all by his shamelessness.

Most American Jews have long suffered from political schizophrenia – they are progressive on everything bar Palestine. For decades they have turned a blind eye to all sorts of racist atrocities committed by the Israeli state and its leaders.

And what appals them today is not the ideas Otzma Yehudit representatives would bring into the Knesset – which, in fact, are just a vocalisation of accepted Israeli practices. They are just concerned about the political consequences of the Israeli prime minister’s open support for shamelessly racist political forces.

In an interview with Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, Susie Gelman, a prominent Zionist-American donor, recently expressed this sentiment, saying, “Netanyahu’s actions are feeding the estrangement of young American Jews from Israel”. Many other Jewish American leaders have voiced similar concerns.

In response to the deal between Netanyahu and Kahanists, Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted: “There should be no room for racism and no accommodation for intolerance in Israel or any democracy. […] It is troubling that they are being legitimized by this union.”

Where, one wonders, was Greenblatt when the Chief Rabbi of Safed Shmuel Elihayu issued an edict in 2010 that Jews were forbidden to rent rooms and apartments to Arabs? Or when Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur published the King’s Tora, which explained how Jews could legally kill non-Jews, even children and infants?

In this context, members of the Jewish American establishment can be likened to the MKs of the 1980s who protested Kahane’s racist speeches while voting for similar, but more polite, policies themselves. The liberal Jewish establishment’s main concern today is not the institutional racism rampant in Israel or the ethnic cleansing that is taking place before their eyes, but that his “move will hurt Israel’s image and create a rift with Jewish Americans”.

It is clear that Zionism has now come full circle. There was always a tension within socialist Zionism – between their professed universalism and their actual practice. Zionism today has no such dilemmas.

The logic of a Jewish state is that non-Jews are there on sufferance. Just as Jews were not welcome in the ethno-nationalist states of 1930s Europe, so too are Palestinians excluded from the Jewish state today.

There is a large section of Israeli society, in particular, the religious Zionists, for whom the Palestinians represent the Jews’ mythical biblical enemy, the Amalekites. In Exodus 17:14, God told Moses: “I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”

Today these passages are being brought back to life. For those who are aware of the story of Esther, Netanyahu is indeed the Jewish Haman.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Growing US public support for one state shared equally by Israelis and Palestinians falls on deaf ears

US public support for one state in Palestine

By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

Two years of Donald Trump and Binyamin Netanyahu as a Middle East peacemaking team appear to be having a transformative effect – and in ways that will please neither of them.

The American public is now evenly split between those who want a two-state solution and those who prefer a single state, shared by Israelis and Palestinians, according to a survey published last week by the University of Maryland.

And if a Palestinian state is off the table – as a growing number of analysts of the region conclude, given Israel’s intransigence and the endless postponement of Trump’s peace plan – then support for one state rises steeply, to nearly two-thirds of Americans.

But Netanyahu cannot take comfort from the thought that ordinary Americans share his vision of a single state of Greater Israel. Respondents demand a one-state solution guaranteeing Israelis and Palestinians equal rights.

By contrast, only 17 per cent of Americans expressing a view – presumably Christian evangelicals and hardline Jewish advocates for Israel – prefer the approach of Israel’s governing parties: either to continue the occupation or annex Palestinian areas without offering the inhabitants citizenship.

Out of touch

All of this is occurring even though US politicians and the media express no support for a one-state solution. In fact, quite the reverse.

The movement to boycott Israel, known as BDS – Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions – is growing on US campuses, but vilified by Washington officials, who claim its goal is to end Israel as a Jewish state by bringing about a single state, in which all inhabitants would be equal. The US Congress is even considering legislation to outlaw boycott activism.

There is every reason to assume that, over time, these figures will swing even more sharply against Netanyahu’s Greater Israel plans and against Washington’s claims to be an honest broker.

And last month CNN sacked its commentator Marc Lamont Hill for using a speech at the United Nations to advocate a one-state solution – a position endorsed by 35 per cent of the US public.

There is every reason to assume that, over time, these figures will swing even more sharply against Netanyahu’s Greater Israel plans and against Washington’s claims to be an honest broker.

Among younger Americans, support for one state climbs to 42 per cent. That makes it easily the most popular outcome among this age group for a Middle East peace deal.

In another sign of how far removed Washington is from the American public, 40 per cent of respondents want the US to impose sanctions to stop Israel expanding its settlements on Palestinian territory. In short, they support the most severe penalty on the BDS platform.

“Too much influence” on US politics

And who is chiefly to blame for Washington’s unresponsiveness? Some 38 per cent say that Israel has “too much influence” on US politics.

That is a view almost reflexively cited by Israel lobbyists as evidence of anti-Semitism. And yet a similar proportion of US Jews share concerns about Israel’s meddling.

In part, the survey’s findings should be understood as a logical reaction to the Oslo peace process. Backed by the US for the past quarter-century, it has failed to produce any benefits for the Palestinians.

But the findings signify more. Oslo’s interminable talks over two states have provided Israel with an alibi to seize more Palestinian land for its illegal settlements.

Covering for Israeli war crimes

Under cover of an Oslo “consensus”, Israel has transferred ever-larger numbers of Jews into the occupied territories, thereby making a peaceful resolution of the conflict near impossible. According to the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, that is a war crime.

Fatou Bensouda, the chief prosecutor of the court in The Hague, warned this month that she was close to finishing a preliminary inquiry needed before she can decide whether to investigate Israel for war crimes, including the settlements.

The reality, however, is that the ICC has been dragging out the inquiry to avoid arriving at a decision that would inevitably provoke a backlash from the White House. Nonetheless, the facts are staring the court in the face.

Israel’s logic – and proof that it is in gross violation of international law – were fully on display this week. The Israeli army locked down Ramallah, the effective and supposedly self-governing capital of occupied Palestine, as “punishment” after two Israeli soldiers were shot dead outside the city.

The Netanyahu government also approved yet another splurge of settlement-building, again supposedly in “retaliation” for a recent upsurge in Palestinian attacks.

But Israel and its Western allies know only too well that settlements and Palestinian violence are intrinsically linked. One leads to the other.

Violence built into Israel’s settlement project

Palestinians directly experience the settlements’ land grabs as Israeli state-sanctioned violence. Their communities are ever more tightly ghettoised, their movements more narrowly policed to maintain the settlers’ privileges.

Israel has constructed a perfect, self-rationalising system in the occupied territories. It inflicts war crimes on Palestinians, who then weakly lash out, justifying yet more Israeli war crimes as Israel flaunts its victimhood, all to a soundtrack of Western consolation.

If Palestinians resist such restrictions or their own displacement, if they assert their rights and their dignity, clashes with soldiers or settlers are inescapable. Violence is inbuilt into Israel’s settlement project.

Israel has constructed a perfect, self-rationalising system in the occupied territories. It inflicts war crimes on Palestinians, who then weakly lash out, justifying yet more Israeli war crimes as Israel flaunts its victimhood, all to a soundtrack of Western consolation.

The hypocrisy is becoming ever harder to hide, and the cognitive dissonance ever harder for Western publics to stomach.

Institutionalised racism

In Israel itself, institutionalised racism against the country’s large minority of Palestinian citizens – a fifth of the population – is being entrenched in full view.

Last week Natalie Portman, an American-Israeli actor, voiced her disgust at what she termed the “racist” Nation-State Basic Law, legislation passed in the summer that formally classifies Israel’s Palestinian population as inferior.

Yair Netanyahu, the prime minister’s grown-up son, voiced a sentiment widely popular in Israel last week when he wrote on Facebook that he wished “All the Muslims [sic] leave the land of Israel”. He was referring to Greater Israel – a territorial area that does not differentiate between Israel and the occupied territories.

In fact, Israel’s Jim Crow-style policies – segregation of the type once inflicted on African-Americans in the US – is becoming ever more overt.

Last month the Jewish city of Afula banned Palestinian citizens from entering its main public park while vowing it wanted to “preserve its Jewish character”. A court case last week showed that a major Israeli construction firm has systematically blocked Palestinian citizens from buying houses near Jews. And the parliament is expanding a law to prevent Palestinian citizens from living on almost all of Israel’s land.

A bill to reverse this trend, committing Israel instead to “equal political rights among all its citizens”, was drummed out of the parliament last week by an overwhelming majority of legislators.

Americans, like other Westerners, are waking up to this ugly reality. A growing number understand that it is time for a new, single state model, one that ends Israel’s treatment of Jews as separate from and superior to Palestinians, and instead offers freedom and equality for all.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

The UN fails to name and shame firms aiding Nazi Jewish illegal settlements

The UN fails to name and shame firms aiding Israel’s illegal settlements

Boycott Israel - do not but with barcode starting with 729

By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

The United Nations postponed last week for the third time the publication of a blacklist of Israeli and international firms that profit directly from Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

The international body had come under enormous pressure to keep the database under wraps after lobbying behind the scenes from Israel, the United States and many of the 200-plus companies that were about to be named.

UN officials have suggested they may go public with the list in a few months.

But with no progress since the UN’s Human Rights Council requested the database back in early 2016, Palestinian leaders are increasingly fearful that it has been permanently shelved.

That was exactly what Israel hoped for. When efforts were first made to publish the list in 2017, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, warned: “We will do everything we can to ensure that this list does not see the light of day.”

He added that penalising the settlements was “an expression of modern anti-Semitism”.

Both Israel and the US pulled out of the Human Rights Council last year, claiming that Israel was being singled out.

Fear of transparency – and prosecution

Israel has good reason to fear greater transparency. Bad publicity would most likely drive many of these firms, a few of them household names, out of the settlements under threat of a consumer backlash and a withdrawal of investments by religious organisations and pension funds.

The UN has reportedly already warned Coca-Cola, Teva Pharmaceuticals, the defence electronics company Elbit Systems and Africa Israel Investments of their likely inclusion. Israeli telecoms and utility companies are particularly exposed because grids serving the settlements are integrated with those in Israel.

There is an added danger that the firms might be vulnerable to prosecutions, should the International Criminal Court at The Hague eventually open an investigation into whether the settlements constitute a war crime, as the Palestinian leadership has demanded.

The exodus of these firms from the West Bank would, in turn, make it much harder for Israel to sustain its colonies on stolen Palestinian land. As a result, efforts to advance a Palestinian state would be strengthened.

Many of the settlements – contrary to widely held impressions of them – have grown into large towns. Their inhabitants expect all the comforts of modern life, from local bank branches to fast-food restaurants and high-street clothing chains.

Nowadays, a significant proportion of Israel’s 750,000 settlers barely understand that their communities violate international law.

The settlements are also gradually being integrated into the global economy, as was highlighted by a row late last year when Airbnb, an accommodation-bookings website, announced a plan to de-list properties in West Bank settlements.

The company was possibly seeking to avoid inclusion on the database, but instead it faced a severe backlash from Israel’s supporters.

US bullying and UN cowardice

This month the US state of Texas approved a ban on all contracts with Airbnb, arguing that the online company’s action was “anti-Semitic”.

As both sides understand, a lot hangs on the blacklist being made public.

If Israel and the US succeed, and Western corporations are left free to ignore the Palestinians’ dispossession and suffering, the settlements will sink their roots even deeper into the West Bank. Israel’s occupation will become ever more irreversible, and the prospect of a Palestinian state ever more distant.

A 2013 report on the ties between big business and the settlements noted the impact on the rights of Palestinians was “pervasive and devastating”.

Sadly, the UN leadership’s cowardice on what should be a straightforward matter – the settlements violate international law, and firms should not assist in such criminal enterprises – is part of a pattern.

Repeatedly, Israel has exerted great pressure on the UN to keep its army off a “shame list” of serious violators of children’s rights. Israel even avoided a listing in 2015 following its 50-day attack on Gaza the previous year, which left more than 500 Palestinian children dead. Dozens of armies and militias are named each year.

The Hague court has also been dragging its feet for years over whether to open a proper war crimes investigation into Israel’s actions in Gaza, as well as the settlements.

Murdering children

The battle to hold Israel to account is likely to rage again this year, after the publication last month of a damning report by UN legal experts into the killing of Palestinian protesters at Gaza’s perimeter fence by Israeli snipers.

Conditions for Gaza’s two million Palestinians have grown dire since Israel imposed a blockade, preventing movement of goods and people, more than a decade ago.

The UN report found that nearly all of those killed by the snipers – 154 out of 183 – were unarmed. Some 35 Palestinian children were among the dead, and of the 6,000 wounded more than 900 were minors. Other casualties included journalists, medical personnel and people with disabilities.

QQNot only does Israel continue to enjoy generous financial, military and diplomatic support from the US and Europe, but both are working ever harder to silence criticisms of its actions by their own citizens.QQ

The legal experts concluded that there was evidence of war crimes. Any identifiable commanders and snipers, it added, should face arrest if they visited UN member states.

Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, however, dismissed the report as “lies” born out of “an obsessive hatred of Israel”.

Israeli exceptionalism and Western hypocrisy

Certainly, it has caused few ripples in Western capitals. Britain’s opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn was a lone voice in calling for an arms embargo on Israel in response.

It is this Israeli exceptionalism that is so striking. The more violent Israel becomes towards the Palestinians and the more intransigent in rejecting peace, the less pressure is exerted upon it.

Not only does Israel continue to enjoy generous financial, military and diplomatic support from the US and Europe, but both are working ever harder to silence criticisms of its actions by their own citizens.

As the international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement grows larger, Western capitals have casually thrown aside commitments to free speech in a bid to crush it.

France has already criminalised support for a boycott of Israel, and its president, Emmanuel Macron, recently proposed making it illegal to criticise Zionism, the ideology that underpins Israel’s rule over Palestinians.

More than two dozen US states have passed anti-BDS legislation, denying companies and individual contractors dealing with the government of that particular state the right to boycott Israel. In every case, Israel is the only country protected by these laws. Last month, the US Senate passed a bill that adds federal weight to this state-level campaign of intimidation.

The hypocrisy of these states – urging peace in the region while doing their best to subvert it – is clear. Now the danger is that UN leaders will join them.

[Editor’s note: In March 2016 the Israeli Peace Bloc Gush Shalom launched a comprehensive database of information on the location, activities and the evasive tactics used by businesses located in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories. To find out more, click here.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Shoah’s pages


March 2019
« Feb