Archive | April 23rd, 2014

In Bethlehem raid, “I$raHell and the Palestinian Authority are together”



A demonstrator kicks away a tear gas cannister during an Israeli raid on Bethlehem.

(Dan Cohen)

The seamless coordination between the Israeli military and Palestinian Authority forces was on open display during a recent raid on the occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem.

On Friday, 14 March, around 7pm, the Israeli Border Police assaulted the city from the military compound at the site of Rachel’s Tomb. The police spokesperson has been unreachable for comment.

The assault took place on the final evening of the Christ at the Checkpoint conference, which was organized by Palestinian Christians to educate the global church about the reality of injustice faced by those living under occupation. The conference hosted more than 600 attendees, and was labeled a “serious long-term threat by Israeli security” by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, according to Israel Today.

I arrived after the assault had begun. International tourists looked on from their hotel lobbies as tear gas filled the air. A curious few ventured outside during moments of calm.

Approximately fifteen Palestinian youths were on a street next to the Intercontinental Hotel, the site of the conference. They peered from behind walls and hurled stones. Israeli Border Police fired several dozen tear gas canisters, one of which landed on top of the entrance to the Saint Michael Hotel. Another bounced off of a bus. A young girl suffered from tear gas inhalation and a man carried her into the Saint Michael Hotel.

I walked up the street towards the Border Police to photograph them from the side. One policeman attempted to engage me in conversation, asking, “Where are you from?” While firing tear gas, he shouted in English, “Peace and love,” and, “I’m the hero of the day!”

Rubber-coated bullets were fired by the Israeli forces as well.

Though the Israeli assault was rather ordinary for demonstrations in the West Bank, the concluding events put the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority’s coordination with the Israeli military on open display.

Created by Oslo

The Palestinian Authority (PA) was created by the Oslo accords signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization twenty years ago to serve as a temporary governing body during the final years of political negotiations.

The West Bank was divided into three areas: A, B and C. In Area A, which includes major population centers, the PA took full responsibility for civil administration as well as security. However, the Israeli military regularly makes incursions into Area A in violation of the Oslo accords.

In Area B, security is shared by the Israeli military and the PA, though the PA is responsible for civil administration services. In Area C, the Israeli military government controls both military and civil administration services.

The final negotiations never occurred, and the status quo has continued, as was clear during the Bethlehem raid.

“What can we do?”

At 7:50pm, the Israeli commander ordered the police to withdraw into the military compound. Within one minute of the gate closing, a Palestinian Authority security forces vehicle arrived on the scene and a commander stepped out. He paced around the area directly in front of the Israeli sniper tower. Standing just a few meters away from him, I watched him speak on a cell phone. I then looked up to the sniper tower and saw an Israeli policeman on a cell phone.

The PA commander then took the phone away from his face to look at the screen, as if the connection was interrupted. I looked to the Israeli policeman in the tower who made the same motion with his phone. The PA commander then smiled and waved to the Israeli policeman.


An Israeli soldier speaks on a phone, presumably to the Palestinian Authority commander. (Dan Cohen)

A Palestinian Authority commander signals to his forces while on the phone, presumably with the Israeli soldier in the sniper tower.

(Dan Cohen)

A teenage demonstrator ran up the street and threw rocks at the sniper tower. This is typically met with violence from the Israeli military. Instead, the PA commander corralled the stone thrower and forced him back down the street.

Unlike the Border Police, a Palestinian Authority officer ordered myself and another journalist not to take photographs.

Minutes later, additional PA forces arrived in trucks and pushed the demonstrators back, effectively ending the demonstration.

Though the PA has a reputation for brutal crackdowns on Palestinian demonstrations, this incident was rather seamless. The young demonstrators retreated, to the satisfaction of the PA forces.

One young protester put his index fingers parallel to one another and shook his head in shame, stating, “Israel and the PA are together. What can we do?”

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on In Bethlehem raid, “I$raHell and the Palestinian Authority are together”

Palestinan Al Nakba Movie – German Subtitles

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Palestinan Al Nakba Movie – German Subtitles

Do I?


 Posted by: Paul Eisen
This is a great piece by a great man. I found it on Radio Islam

It’s a great piece anyway, but for me it’s just spot on because it raises a question that I think about…well, pretty much all of the time.

“Jews, who want to be decent human beings, have to renounce being Jewish”

By: Kevin MacDonald

Professor at California State University Long BeachFebruary 10, 2009

A topic that is not discussed enough is the screaming, in-your-face, hostile aggression that people must withstand when they dare to trample on Jewish sensibilities.

We are not talking about the sophisticated rationalization one sees in the op-ed pages of the mainstream media, or even the smear techniques of organizations like the ADL or the SPLC. We are talking about interpersonal aggression. There is something absolutely primal about it.

Now comes a refreshingly frank blog post by Karin Friedemann, an ethnically Jewish anti-Zionist. She notes the violent intolerance that defenders of Israel show towards people with different opinions.

American Jews are actually being trained since childhood to interact with non-Jews in a deceitful and arrogant manner, in coordination with each other, to emotionally destroy non-Jews and Israel critics in addition to wrecking their careers and interfering with their social relationships. This is actually deliberate, wicked, planned behavior motivated by a narcissistic self-righteous fury. …
The problem is that non-Jews are taught through emotional pressure and violence via the media and the school system to be very sensitive to Jewish suffering so when a Zionist becomes outraged at them for challenging their world view, the non-Jew really has to fight against his own inner self in a huge battle against his “inner Jew” making him feel inadequate and intimidated. But the Jew doesn’t care how much he or she hurts others. Jews only care about what’s good for the Jews. …

I once reduced a 50 year old man to hysterical sobbing tears because I told him gently and lovingly that Jews were not that unique. I just told him the Jews, like everyone else, have had good times and bad times. Times when they were slaughtered and other times when they slaughtered others. Just like everyone else. Guess what he did next. He emotionally abused me in an insulting way and then cut off all further communication. Jewish behavior is so predictable that it’s truly scary. …
If you mention cutting off the money or if you mention the possible compromise of living with Palestinians as equals in one state they become very angry and start using bullying tactics, unless they have some reason to fear you, in which case they shun you and complain about you to the authorities, try to get you arrested or try and destroy your career or social status through character assassination. …

Zionists all believe in the myth of “1000 years of Jewish suffering” and feel that the world owes them compensation for their ancestors’ “unique” suffering. It’s a criminally insane viewpoint. They cope with the contradictions between their belief that they are the good guys and what Jews are actually doing to their neighbors, both in the Middle East and in the US, by developing mental health issues. Most Zionists are functional schizophrenics.

My take:

– These tactics are not restricted to critics of Zionism. As one who has experienced a barrage of hostile email from my faculty colleagues, I can certainly attest to this. A correspondent sent me the following recently:

I have encountered many liberal, politically correct Jews who react vociferously (almost violently) to the most innocuous comments about any topic related to Israel or Jews. One Jew upon my mentioning that my wife and I had been to Russia spent several minutes virtually frothing at the mouth about Russians. Another upon hearing me say I was sympathetic to the problems of the Palestinians demanded to know who I was and how dare I say such a thing. Often zero tolerance for any difference in opinion.

– The media constantly present images of Jewish suffering”most recently the endless glut of Holocaust movies. But the media ignore instances, such as the early decades of the USSR and now in Greater Israel, where Jews have inflicted horrible suffering. Right now I am reading E. Michael Jones’ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Effect on History. It is striking to read his account of Jewish violence against non-Jews in the ancient world, particularly the persecution of Christians whenever Jews had the power to do so.

Long before Christians had any influence on Roman policy, Christians’ complaints about Jews were not stereotypes based on historical memory but resulted from direct experience with Jews: “Origen understood that Jewish calumny helped to cause Christian persecution, and that Jewish hatred was a fact of life for the Christians, continuing unabated after the repeated defeats of Messianic politics” (i.e., the defeats of Jewish rebels at the hands of the Romans in 70 and 135 ad) (p. 69). This is the basis of my concern on what will happen to whites when Jews become part of a hostile elite in white-minority America.

– Non-Jews absorb these media images and as a result feel inadequate, emotionally intimidated. Eventually they identify with the aggressor, much like a browbeaten hostage or, as Friedemann suggests, an abused spouse. Or they maintain their friendships but studiously avoid talking about anything related to Israel. Non-Jews do the bidding of their inner Jew because they have internalized images of Jewish suffering. They therefore aid and abet Jewish brutality and aggression.

Non-Jews who persist in criticizing the organized Jewish community are threatened with loss of livelihood and social ostracism. As I noted in a previous article the organized Jewish community does not believe in free speech. It is important to keep in mind that when Jews were dominant in the first decades of the Soviet Union, the government controlled the media, anti-Semitism was outlawed, and there was mass murder of Christians and the destruction of Christian churches and religious institutions.

As Friedemann notes, the situation is nothing less than a sign of serious mental health issues for the mainstream Jewish community: “Most Zionists are functional schizophrenics.”

I think this is what happens when people who deal with Jewish issues finally realize that there is no hope for dialogue and begin to think of what to do next. Honest people finally realize that when it comes to critical issues like Israel and multicultural America, the divisions among Jews are an illusion. (Friedemann herself has renounced her Jewish identity.) As Friedemann’s husband, Joachim Martillo, notes, “Jews, who want to be decent human beings, have no choice but to renounce being Jewish and serve the anti-Zionist struggle (right now).”

Exhibit A for this right now is the murderous Israeli invasion of Gaza. We know (see, for example, John Mearsheimer’ s article in The American Conservative) that this invasion occurred after a prolonged period when Israel restricted supplies into Gaza and then attacked tunnels between Gaza and Egypt. We know that the invasion was designed to “to inflict massive pain on the Palestinians so that they come to accept the fact that they are a defeated people and that Israel will be largely responsible for controlling their future.”

The tone of Mearsheimer’s article suggests a dramatic shift in attitude where the usual inhibitions on public discourse are finally beginning to fall, even for a respected academic:

There is … little chance that people around the world who follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon forget the appalling punishment that Israel is meting out in Gaza. … [D]iscourse about this longstanding conflict has undergone a sea change in the West in recent years, and many of us who were once wholly sympathetic to Israel now see that the Israelis are the victimizers and the Palestinians are the victims.

The gloves are coming off. This is what happens when smart and honest people who work hard to get the scholarship right are nevertheless smeared as anti-Semites guilty of the vilest misdeeds. Not surprisingly, Abe Foxman – a premier defender of the racial Zionist status quo in Israel – devoted an entire book to smearing Mearsheimer and Walt. Quite simply, there is no point to talking to such people or taking seriously what they say about us.

We know that the government of Israel is firmly in the hands of the racial Zionists ” followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky and his view of the racial distinctiveness and superiority of the Jewish people. Indeed, the only question in the Israeli election is which brand of racial Zionism will form the next government.

One knows that racial Zionism has completely won the day in Israel when Kadima – the party of Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and the Gaza invasion – is now described by Benjamin Netanyahu as the party of the left. (The LA Times dutifully calls it “centrist” but, as Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery writes, Livni “cries to high heaven against any dialogue with Hamas. She objects to a mutually agreed cease-fire. She tries to compete with Netanyahu and [Avignor] Liberman with unbridled nationalist messages.”) Indeed, Netanyahu’s only worry is that the openly racist Liberman ” a disciple of the notorious Meir Kehane – will take away too many votes from Likud.

The situation is analogous to a US election where Pat Buchanan is the candidate of the far left. (I can dream.)

Avnery analogizes the election to a joke where a sergeant tells his men: “I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you are going to change your dirty socks. The bad news is that you are going to exchange them among yourselves.”

Once again we see at work the general principle that within the Jewish community, the most extreme elements carry the day and pull the rest of the Jewish community with them. As I noted in “Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism,” “over time, the more militant, expansionist Zionists (the Jabotinskyists, the Likud Party, fundamentalists, and West Bank settlers) have won the day and have continued to push for territorial expansion within Israel. This has led to conflicts with Palestinians and a widespread belief among Jews that Israel itself is threatened. The result has been a heightened group consciousness among Jews and ultimately support for Zionist extremism among the entire organized American Jewish community.”

The fanatics keep pushing the envelop, forcing other Jews to either go along with their agenda or cease being part of the Jewish community. Ominously, if elected, Netanyahu promises that a top priority will be “harnessing the U.S. administration to stop the threat” of Iran’s nuclear program.

Incidentally, E. Michael Jones (The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Effect on History, p. 42ff) has expanded this argument to the ancient world. He shows how the Jewish community was pulled in the direction of fanaticism by the Zealots who expelled the followers of Jesus from the synagogue and adopted a disastrous path of revolution against Rome, leading ultimately to the defeats of 70 and 135 a.d.

A good example of the schizophrenia described by Friedemann comes from the fact that around 80% of American Jews voted for Obama but around the same percentage blames Hamas for the escalation of violence and believes that the Israeli response was “appropriate”. These results of the poll on the Gaza invasion were proudly announced by Abraham Foxman of the ADL, an organization that is one of the principal forces in promoting a post-European America. The Jewish left is a pillar of multi-cultural America but strongly supports racial Zionism in Israel.

This same schizophrenia was on display at a recent presentation at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles by Chris Hedges and Mark Potok – he of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The program dealt with the usual bogey-men of the organized Jewish community: Christian fundamentalists, skinheads, David Duke, and (I am gratified to report) The Occidental Quarterly.

In a comment on the alliance between Christian conservatives and Zionists, an audience member mentioned (to stifled applause) that “There are Jewish fascists.” But the moderator, Ian Masters, saved the day when he stated that “the vast majority of American Jews are secular and liberal” – a comment that brought much applause, presumably because it reassured the many Jews in the audience that they weren’t like THOSE Jews. For his part, Potok, that stalwart warrior against white America, expressed his support for what he sees as a beleaguered Israel on the verge of apocalypse at the hands of the Arabs. Schizophrenia indeed.

The politicians who are running Israel are, if anything, more racialist and nationalist than anything even remotely on the horizon in American or European politics. As Avnery notes:
In every other country, Liberman’s program would be called fascist, without quotation marks. Nowhere in the Western world is there a large party that would dare to advance such a demand [to annul the citizenship of Arabs]. The neo-fascists in Switzerland and Holland want to expel foreigners, not to annul the citizenship of the native-born. …

When Joerg Haider was taken into the Austrian cabinet, Israel recalled its ambassador from Vienna in protest. But compared to Liberman, Haider was a raving liberal, and so is Jean-Marie le Pen. Now Netanyahu has announced that Liberman will be an important minister in his government, Livni has hinted that he will be in her government, too, and Barak has not excluded that possibility.

The optimistic version says that Liberman will prove to be a passing curiosity. … There is also a pessimistic version: Fascism has become a serious player in the Israeli public domain. The three main parties have now legitimized it. This phenomenon must be stopped before it is too late.

So I have a suggestion for the Foxmans, the Potoks, the neoconservatives, and the secular Jewish liberals of the world: If you want to fight racism and ethnic nationalism, start in your own backyard. And my suggestion for the rest of us is to get rid of what Friedemann calls the “inner Jew”. I know it’s hard to do. But once you tune out the screaming hostility (and assuming you don’t fear losing your job), it’s easy. Just don’t expect a pleasant or rational conversation.

Kevin MacDonald

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, PoliticsComments Off on Do I?




What’s next then?

by Syarif Hidayat

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.’ With Al-Sisi as Egyptian President, the Greater Israel Project – a long-standing Zionist scheme to steal all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates – could be halfway there? “You can help us or we ‘will overthrow the world’.” – Chaim Weizmann, first president of the State of Israel, arrogantly warned the American leaders and the US-led Western regimes leaders years ago.

‘According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.

Famous Zionist Quotes:

As WWI was ending, Ben-Gurion went on to draw a map of the “Jewish state” to be. This map clearly excluded Damascus (although it was part of Biblical “Eretz Yisrael”), and limited the “Jewish state’s” future northern borders to 20 km south of the Syrian capital. He rationalized this decision as follows: “It is unthinkable that the Jewish state, in our day and age, could include the city of Damascus. . . . This is a large Arab city, and one of the four centers of Islam. The Jewish community there is small. The Arabs will never allow Damascus, their pride, to come under Jewish control, and there can be no doubt that the English, even were it in their power, would agree to such a thing.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 34)

If these are all sound reasons to exclude Damascus from being under Jewish control, then what makes Zionists think that occupied Jerusalem is any different? Although Damascus was never occupied by the Christian Crusaders, Jerusalem was occupied and pillaged, and to liberate it almost a million Muslim and Arab were martyred! Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when their “Promised Land” needed them during the Crusaders’ genocide!

From the beginning, Zionists advocated a “Jewish State” not just in Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights as well. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future “Jewish state’s” frontiers in details as follows: “to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi ‘Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-’Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 87).

In the mid-1930s, Ben-Gurion met George Antonius (an advisor to al-Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was one of the few Palestinians whom Ben-Gurion had contacts with), and suggested that Palestinians should help the Zionists to expand the borders of their future “Jewish state” to include areas under French control, such as southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. In response, Mr. Antonius burst laughing and answered: “So, you propose that what England did not give you [as stated in the Balfour Declaration), you will get from us.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 162)

Ben-Gurion “had a dream” to annex Lebanon

According to Ben-Gurion, Antonius had complained about Zionists who “want to bring to Palestine the largest number of Jews possible, without taking [the Palestinian] Arabs into consideration at all. With this type,” said Antonius, “it is impossible to come to an understanding. They want a 100% Jewish state, and the [Palestinian] Arabs will remain in their shadow.” By the end of their talk, Antonius could, with reason, conclude that Ben-Gurion belonged precisely to this category of Zionists. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)

According to Ben-Gurion, Palestine was a “matter of life and death” for the Jews. “Even pogroms in Germany or Poland, and in Palestine, we prefer the pogroms here.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)

On July 29, 1937, Ben-Gurion stated to the World Convention of Ihud Po’alei Tzion in Zurich that Maronite ruled Lebanon would serve the Christian minority better if it allied itself with the future “Jewish state.” He said: “Having Lebanon as a neighbor ensures the Jewish state of a faithful ally from the first day of its establishment. It is not, also, unavoidable that across the northern side of the Jewish state border in southern Lebanon the first possibility of our expansion will come up through agreement, in good will, with our neighbors who need us.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 88)

Ben-Gurion was enchanted that Jerusalem’s neighboring Palestinian communities had been emptied. He stated to the Mapai Council on February 8, 1948: “From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arab. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)

Ben-Gurion “had a dream” to annex southern Lebanon to the “Jewish state”, and to establish a Christian state north of the Litani River. At the beginning of the 1948 war, he stated: ‘The Muslims rule of Lebanon is artificial and easily undermined. A Christian state ought to be set up whose southern borders would be Litani River. Then we’ll form an alliance with it.”

In the coming years he repeated this idea, and according to Moshe Sharett, Moshe Dayan (who was Israeli’s chief of staff in the early 1950s) responded favorably to this idea and who according to Sharett said: “In his [Dayan’s] view, all we need to do is to find a Christian Lebanese officer, perhaps no higher than a captain, and win him over or buy him with money, so that he would declare himself the savior of Maronite population. Then the Israel army would enter Lebanon, occupy the territory in question and establish a Christian government which would form an alliance with Israel.” Sharett himself considered this an “awful” idea. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 10 & Righteous Victims, p. 497)

What’s ironic that this “awful” idea was precisely executed thirty years later by Manahem Bagin and Ariel Sharon during the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon between 1982-2000.

In a letter Chaim Weizmann sent to the Palestine-British high Commissioner while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937, he wrote:

“We Shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ….. this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 62)

Greater Israel Project is halfway there

Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American columnist in his article titled:”Jewish Al-Sisi Runs Egypt; Now an Israeli-Occupied Territory” published in writes “They just stole the Nile.” The problem is not that Egypt’s new thug-in-chief, General Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi, is a Jew. (His mother, Malikah Titani, is a Moroccan Jew from Asefi, which makes al-Sisi a Jew and an automatic citizen of Israel.)

“If the Egyptian people want to elect a Jew president in a free and fair election – like they elected the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to the Lower House with 73% of the vote, the Upper House with 80% of the vote, the presidency with 52% of the vote, and approved the MB Constitution with 64% of the vote – that’s fine with me,” Dr. Kevin Barrett writes.

The problem is that al-Sisi has concealed his Jewish identity and Israeli connections from the Egyptian people…and destroyed their nascent democracy through deception and mass murder. An even bigger problem: al-Sisi is almost certainly a Mossad agent. That means al-Sisi’s Egypt is not just a brutal, banana-republic-style dictatorship. It is Israeli-occupied territory: The newest and largest province of ever-expanding Greater Israel.

No wonder the Israeli ambassador called al-Sisi “a national hero for all Jews.”

Al-Sisi’s uncle, Uri Sibagh (sometimes spelled as Sabbagh) served in the Jewish Defense League (Hamagein) from 1948 to 1950, made his aliyah to Israel, and became a bigwig in Ben Gurion’s political party, serving as the secretary of the Israeli Labor Party in Beersheba from 1968 to 1981. Uri’s sister – al-Sisi’s mother – presumably emigrated to Egypt on a mission from the Mossad. That mission culminated when the Mossad overthrew President Morsi and installed its agent al-Sisi in the coup d’état of July 3rd, 2013.

The implication: Al-Sisi has been a lifelong Mossad agent. His mission: infiltrate the highest levels of power in an Arab Muslim country. Al-Sisi is today’s version of Elie Cohen, who infiltrated the highest levels of power in Syria under the name Kamal Amin Thabet before he was exposed and hanged in the public square in Damascus.

George H.W. Bush’s famous line, “If the people knew the truth, they would chase us down the street and lynch us” applies – in spades – to al-Sisi.

It has been widely reported in the mainstream media, as well as by more reliable sources, that al-Sisi has long served as the Egyptian military’s liason with Israel.

Israel and the US support al-Sisi coup

Chuck Hagel and Abdul Fattah al-Sisi U.S. Defense Secretary Hagel Makes First Trip To Mideast. Source: Getty Images.

During the coup d’état of July 3rd, al-Sisi was in permanent liason by telephone with the Israeli and American militaries. (Israel promised its full support, and guaranteed that US aid would not be cut off, while the US waffled.) The Egyptian coup, especially its propaganda component, had all the earmarks of an Israeli black op. A massively financed campaign run through Egypt’s Israeli-linked mainstream media (yes, the same folks own big media there as here) repeatedly compared President Morsi to Adolf Hitler! The fact that “Morsi = Hitler” was the number one talking point of the forces behind the coup reveals that those forces were Zionists, not Egyptians. Apparently the Zionists couldn’t stop themselves from making reflexive Dr. Strangelove-style anti-Hitler salutes while they were orchestrating the al-Sisi coup – thereby giving their game away.

Since the coup, Israel has been lavishing praise, money, and support on al-Sisi. Mossad agent al-Sisi has virtually declared war on Palestine by going all-out to close the Gaza border tunnels that keep the people of Gaza alive. Meanwhile, al-Sisi has taken billions of dollars from the Rothschild puppets and likely donmeh crypto-Jews who call themselves the “House of Saud.”

Obviously the Zionist-dominated West and its Middle Eastern puppets will not allow Muslims to elect relatively honest leaders in free elections. Instead, they will use deception and violence to pursue their schemes for regional and global domination.

The Egyptian people – who elected the Muslim Brotherhood by a greater landslide than any US political party has won in all of American history – need a real Islamic revolution to create a genuine democracy. Without it, Egypt will indefinitely remain “a boot stamping on a human face – forever”…and a permanent province of Greater Israel, ruled by a Jewish-Zionist thug who has appointed himself pharaoh, while hiding his real background and loyalties.

What Would el-Sisi Presidency Mean for Israel? in an article titled “What Would an El-Sisi Presidency in Egypt Mean for Israel?” says Egyptian Defense Minister and Field Marshal General Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi on Jan. 27 was cleared by the country’s army to run for president, one day after an interim government announced that presidential elections would be advanced to take place within 30-90 days. Now, just three years after a revolution that toppled longtime secular Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, himself a military commander, Egypt’s current top-ranked army officer has become the country’s most popular political figure.

Many expect El-Sisi to win the presidential election overwhelmingly. What would his rise to power mean for neighboring Israel? “Abdul Fattah El-Sisi is Egypt’s strong man right now, and has been fighting against radical Islam and against the Muslim Brothers (members of the Muslim Brotherhood). This is very positive both for Egypt, but also for Israel and the entire Middle East,” former Israeli Ambassador to Egypt Zvi Mazel told Member of Knesset Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor), Israel’s former defense minister, stated on Israeli radio that the Jewish state is supportive of El-Sisi, but cautioned that El-Sisi’s current popularity is no guarantee that he would be an effective president.

“If he fails as a president, then the current regime that ousted the Muslim Brotherhood would be dissolved,” Ben-Eliezer said. Such a scenario could once again pave the way for the Muslim Brotherhood to return to power “stronger and more determined than before,” he said, a situation that would ultimately be “bad news for Israel and the West.” “We shouldn’t go out on the roofs and cry out in favor of El-Sisi. But what is going on in Egypt is positive for Israel, and you cannot deny it,” Mazel told

The announcement to advance presidential elections came just days after Egyptian courts opened the trial of ousted Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi. In little under two years, Morsi had attempted to monopolize legislative and judicial power, and advanced an agenda to turn Egypt into an Islamic religious state.

Following weeks of imprisonment, Morsi was quoted as shouting at the opening of the trial, “I am the president of the republic, how can I be kept in a dump for weeks?” According to Mazel, Morsi pushed his religious agenda too quickly, while failing to solve Egypt’s pressing economic and social problems. His failed agenda and a restriction on religious freedoms led Egyptians to take to the streets en masse for the second time in just more than two years. Egypt’s military, led by El-Sisi, brought about Morsi’s sudden overthrow.

In addition to pushing forward a religious domestic agenda, Morsi’s regime threatened the longstanding peace treaty between Israel and Egypt on several occasions, and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula was quickly turning into a terror haven—leading Israel to reconsider security along what had been a relatively stable border for three decades. Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt “went through a number of crises” while the Muslim Brotherhood was in power, leading many to worry whether or not it would ultimately hold, Mazel

Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty

“The peace treaty is still in effect after 35 years. So we hope it will continue, and become even stronger once Egypt re-stabilizes,” he said.

Currently, the Egyptian Army has placed troops in the Sinai to crack down against terror cells. The presence of troops in the Sinai could be perceived as a clear violation of the terms of the peace treaty, which prohibit any troop buildup there. Yet Israel’s government recognizes that its options are limited if it wants terror cells on the peninsula defeated, as Israel certainly cannot itself enter Egyptian soil.

“At this point it is not a violation, because Israel doesn’t regard it as a violation,” Mazel said. “We accept—at least temporarily—that some Egyptian troops should be stationed in Sinai, together with helicopters and other equipment to fight terrorism.” “Once this fighting will be finished—and I am not sure it is going to be finished soon—we will sit with the Egyptians and figure out how to reconsider this issue,” he said.

In addition to cracking down on terror in the Sinai, the Egyptian army has unleashed a violent crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that has recently been outlawed. This past month, Egypt’s interim government advanced a constitutional referendum that sought to reverse the efforts of a Muslim Brotherhood-backed constitutional referendum just more than a year earlier.

The new constitution—backed by Egypt’s army—was passed with an overwhelming 98 percent of the vote, demonstrating Egyptian dissatisfaction with the Muslim Brotherhood government. Many observers, including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, have noted that the military’s crackdown on opponents leading up to the referendum may have led to such overwhelming poll results.

Kerry cautioned that the constitutional vote took place in a “polarized political environment.” The State Department and the White House had been outspoken supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood government.

Many Israelis were taken aback by America’s quick withdrawal of support for their longtime ally, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. They were further surprised by America’s instant support for the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the knowledge that the Brotherhood was a longtime fundamentalist organization. “For us in Israel, it is very difficult to understand recent American positions toward Egypt,” Mazel told

“When Morsi was elected, they gave him all this support, despite the fact that any good observer could see that Morsi was working to establish a new Islamic dictatorship, by monopolizing legislative and judicial powers and stuffing all the government ministries with Muslim Brothers,” he said.

“And when the second, or corrective revolution came, the U.S. was against it, and threatened immediately to cut off military assistance,” continued Mazel. “This is hard to understand because this new temporary regime is fighting against the Muslim Brothers and radical Islam in general. And this is in the best interests of the United States, and obviously also in the best interests of Israel.”

According to Mazel, American policy toward Egypt is part of larger policy failings in the Middle East. “With very complicated and twisted policies by the United States toward Iraq, and then what happened in Libya, Syria, and now Iran, many simply do not believe that American policy in the region is rational or reasonable,” he said.

“We try not to put this forward too much, but current U.S. policy is against the Israeli way of thinking, and it is affecting our security,” Mazel added.

According to Mazel, Israeli leaders and citizens alike have been forced to reassess the question of whether American policies are enhancing Israel’s security, despite the fact that American military aid and defense cooperation remain at all-time highs. “There is a moral crisis in Israel with regard to the United States,” Mazel said. “We still need the United States, we lean on the U.S., we love the U.S., but we don’t understand the way that they deal with the Middle East. … America is our guarantor for security, in a way. So it is a big problem.” (HSH)


A Prayer to St. Baruch

From the Jewish Daily Forward, I got this from Michael Robeson

Want to be saved from the eternal fires of hell? Want to get rich? Want to marry the woman of your dreams?
Now you can pray for the holy intercession of St. Baruch Goldstein!

Seeking Salvation? Dial 1 for Baruch Goldstein
By Sigal Samuel

Right-wing activist Baruch Marzel wipes his eyes at the grave of Baruch Goldstein. / Getty Images

These days, you can order almost anything by phone. Books. Movies. Food. Sex. Salvation?
Sure, why not. Salvation. And not just any old kind, but the kind you can only get by virtue of an appeal to one of Israel’s most notorious killers: Baruch Goldstein.

Goldstein murdered 29 Palestinians in Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs 20 years ago, and to this day right-wing Jews still flock to his grave in nearby Kiryat Arba. They go there to pray, hoping that proximity to this “holy man” will help get their prayers through the pearly gates.
But since not everyone can afford to make that pilgrimage, Baruch Marzel — a right-wing activist and Goldstein devotee — has organized a telephone service allowing Jews to outsource their prayers, according to a Walla report cited today in Yeshiva World News.
Call Marzel’s service and you’ll be invited to “Push 1 for a Yeshua,” a salvation. That salvation, which will come by way of a prayer to be said on your behalf at Goldstein’s grave, includes everything from financial and romantic success to improved health and victory in court cases.
Baruch Goldstein
If you’re worried about the spiritual credentials of the person who will be praying on your behalf, don’t be: Only “Jews who are Yirei Shomayim,” God-fearing, will be entrusted with this important task.
If you’re thinking that this whole prayer-by-proxy thing sounds kind of weird — well, it’s nothing new. Thanks to Western Wall Prayers, you can now pay $38 and “a Torah scholar will pray on your behalf at the Kotel for 40 consecutive days ($95 value).” Give a “minimal donation” to a group called Protection on the Road, and “close to 2000 children in our schools will recite Tehilim (Psalms) and additional special tefilos (prayers) of protection for you daily.” Log onto, and for the low-low price of $300 rabbis in Israel will recite the mourner’s prayer for your deceased loved one three times a day, every day, for a whole year.
Generally speaking, though, these pay-to-pray deals are transparent moneymaking schemes. What’s new about Marzel’s telephone service is that he doesn’t seem to be interested in turning a profit.
Instead, he’s doing this out of the goodness of his heart.
A heart that genuinely believes routing prayers through a mass murderer’s grave will make them more pleasing to God.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on A Prayer to St. Baruch

Is the BDS Democratic?


Posted in Dissident Voice

Open letter to Omar Barghouti, Co-founder, PACBI

Dear Omar,

Let me start by saying that you have done a lot for BDS and that BDS has done a lot for the Palestinian cause. It is perhaps for this reason that we should all be concerned with potential corruption of the movement, and you most of all. I refer to changes of wording, changes of direction and changes of priority within the movement.

The change of wording is the infamous four words “occupied in June, 1967″ inserted into the first of three objectives in the mission statement portion of the 2005 BDS Call signed by 173 Palestinian organizations, such that the statement now demands of Israel:

“Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall…” (added phrase in italics)

I understand your argument that this phrase only clarifies the meaning of the original statement, and that it changes the meaning not at all. Even so, who gave you the right to make the change without consulting and getting the approval of the signatories to the original call? Why was it inserted without even telling anyone, such that no one but you even knows when it was done? If it is so uncontroversial, why not get it approved?

Why is the phrase needed, anyway? You argue that it results in no change of meaning. Why, then, is it not superfluous? Since it is a bone of contention, just remove it and be done with it.

I also understand that the offending phrase occurs only in the Introducing the BDS Movement section of the website and that the original wording is preserved elsewhere. However, this is at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. The “Introducing the BDS Movement” section reproduces the three demands from the 2005 Call completely verbatim, except for the added four words, and then proceeds to make the claim that this wording is endorsed by the signatories of the 2005 BDS Call.

This is deceptive and even fraudulent and must be corrected. The altered wording has even been mistakenly quoted by Max Blumenthal in his bookGoliath as being the wording of the original BDS Call. Your misrepresentation has led directly to his error.

However, the wording is not merely a technical problem. The wording is apparently important to you. But why? Could it be that the wording was needed in order to satisfy individuals or groups or interests that demanded this wording? Was it meant as an assurance that BDS would not demand the return of all lands stolen from Palestinians but only those lands that were stolen outside the Green Line?

If this is the case, it would explain why many “soft” Zionists, who want to maintain a Jewish state but give back the West Bank, now participate in BDS, but only against institutions that support the Israeli presence in the West Bank.

In fact, that is the current priority of the movement, with little or no Boycott, Divestment or Sanctions aimed at institutions that deny equal rights to Palestinian citizens of Israel or the Right of Return to Palestinians in theshatat (“diaspora”).

Is this a coincidence or is BDS headed in a different direction than its origins would indicate? Is it no longer a Palestinian movement, but rather a “soft” Zionist movement?

Obviously, people join movements for different reasons, and if Zionists want to boycott organizations that do business with Israel – even if only in the West Bank – their contribution is welcome.

However, it is quite another matter to effectively turn over the reins of the movement to them or to accommodate them by changing the wording of the mission statement. A Palestinian movement that welcomes Zionists that have limited objectives is quite different from a Zionist movement that wants to limit its mission but accepts Palestinians that have wider goals.

Is that what is going on? Perhaps not. Perhaps my concerns are exaggerated. But in that case, please dispel all doubt by removing the four words.

Paul Larudee

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Is the BDS Democratic?


Thanks to the absolutely relentless support we have received from around the world, Northeastern University has backed down on the suspension of Students for Justice in Palestine! We are reinstated and will be fully functional for the fall semester. This is a huge victory for free speech on campus, but also for the entire Palestine solidarity movement in the US. Our fight demonstrates that we will no longer tolerate discussions of Palestine and Israeli crimes being marginalized because some may disagree with us and use their power to try and silence us. Our message was heard at Northeastern loud and clear, so now let’s spread it around the country. Viva Palestine!

This message was sent by Northeastern Palestine Underground using the system. You received this email because you signed a petition started by Northeastern Palestine Underground on “Northeastern University: Reinstate SJP and drop all charges against its members.” does not endorse contents of this message.View the petition


How Monks and Monasteries Saved Civilization and Killed Usury

…by Jonas E. Alexis

Christ and the money changers

Christ and the money changers

In the first century, Christ cast the moneylenders out of the Temple, but they gradually arose again during the thirteenth century, which created economic panic among the peasants.

For example, the French town of Villefrance wrote to King Philip IV in the thirteenth century, saying that moneylenders “are absolutely and utterly destroying the town and district.”[1]

The moneylenders throughout the Middle Ages were involved in exploiting the peasants, and thus were hated. Even philo-Semitic historians such as James Parkes admitted that this was the case, where interest rates ranged between 22 and 173 percent.

Similar exorbitant interest rates were widespread throughout medieval England and France. The people behind all of this of course were Jewish moneylenders.[2] During that period, the word “Judaize” took a radical meaning.

Historian W. C. Jordan declared that it meant “to act like an outsider, to regard others not as brothers but under a different set of rules that permitted forms of exploitation that were forbidden to the circle of brothers and friends.”[3]

Jordan also observed that in the thirteenth century Jews in general “never successfully integrated themselves into the local society. They were always conceived as strangers involved in a business that was both extortionate and perverse.”[4]

This was part of the anti-Jewish reaction of that period, for Jewish authorities “suggested that charging interest to gentiles is a religious obligation for Jews.”[5] As a result of exorbitant interest rates,

“many ecclesiastical institutions went bankrupt and were closed down as a result of debts owed to Jews.”[6]

The moneylenders did not suddenly disappear in the early centuries. They evolved into usurious bankers and settled in private institutions which later controlled the ins and outs of nations.

Usurious contracts, which the Bank of England, the Bank of France, the Bank of Italy, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Canada, and the Federal Reserve have used since their inceptions, cannot be ruled out as a cause of the economic collapse.


This again is why serious Western thinkers through the ages saw usury as immoral. Usurious contracts certainly could not exist without “capitalism,” which makes greed, avarice, and many of the vices that early Church Fathers warn about legitimate.

As we have already seen in previous articles, in a usurious society, Mammon always comes first. From a Christian point of view, people have always come first, and using God’s gifts and talents for the benefit of all mankind should always be the ultimate goal.

It is for this purpose that in the seventeenth century many in the Catholic Church were motivated to help the Indians both spiritually and economically. As an alternative to the colonized thought of early Europeans which drove many of the Indians away from the Gospel, many took the path of self-denial and love that Christ had taught His followers.

As a result, a tremendous shift happened both in the economic and spiritual lives of the Indians. This was an alternative to the greed and avarice which capitalism made sophistically legitimate.[7]


The Christian principle of self-denial got its chance in the monasteries right after the fall of the Roman Empire. It was based on the principle Christ told a rich young ruler.

“If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me” (Matthew 19:21).

From this the Catholic Church deduced that priests or bishops ought to follow Christ rather than wealth, which can become a powerful stumbling block.

Hence, the monasteries were dedicated for people who would follow the principle of not only self-denial, celibacy, and obedience, but would also abstain from worldly attractions such as wealth.

Celibacy was important because “those who did not marry did not need money to support their families, nor did they need the autonomy necessary to use that money wisely as heads of households.” As E. Michael Jones points out,

“The monasteries became wealthy in the mundane sense by ignoring wealth. The individual monks renounced money, but their labors produced enormous wealth for the monasteries. The wealth grew over generations because the monks did not have children or the expenses they require.

“More importantly, their lands were not constantly divided as children inherited the land from their father. The monks who had turned their backs on wealth ended up living lives of wealth, and wealth led to moral decay. The enemies of the Gospel used that moral decay to justify their attack on a supernatural way of life deeply repugnant to the carnal mind.

“Christ told his followers that those who live according to the Gospel will elicit hatred from the carnal; the monasteries were no exception…Wealth can promote its own decline. Carnal clerics fuel resentment and oftentimes the very resentment their own immoral behavior has fostered in others.”[8]


Monasticism became the religious institution that sought to restore balance in pagan societies after the fall of the Roman Empire.[9] Monks were not only interested in prayer and fasting, but in saving a vast strata of life during the Middle Ages.

In fact, had it not been for their laborious work, Europe as we know it would have been a by-gone continent after the fall of the Roman Empire.[10]Cambridge Medieval historian Christopher N. L. Brooke acknowledges,

“The monastic library, along with the cathedral library, became the repository that ensured the survival of some part of the legacy of ancient literature.”[11]

Other leading scholars in this field, such as the late David Herlihy, have made similar remarks.[12] The academic and intellectual life, according to Brooke, began with Cassiodorus, who lived between 485-580 A.D. and who took a great effort to transmit Greek works into the West.

“His library was the last really massive collection of books that the ancient world produced….

“In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when learning revived for good and all, his scheme provided one of the chief foundations for the reintegration of learning, sacred and profane, of Roman literary science and Christian theological science based on the study of the Bible.

“Cassiodorus was one of the most distinguished of a group of men who tried to gather in encyclopedic form the best of ancient learning before the failure of education and the barbarian onslaught destroyed it.”[13]

In addition, throughout the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, monks were highly trained in the scholarly world.[14] Monks also participated in saving what knowledge was left about almost every aspect of life, including agricultural life.[15]

Those monks knew that they were working primarily for the glory of God, and as such they took some of the most “difficult and unattractive” jobs, such as working in swamps, which used to be considered not only a low occupation but “sources of pestilence.”

One of the primary reasons again was that civilization must reflect God’s creation and beauty.


The Benedictine Rule emphasized that monks were obligated to participate not only in worship and contemplation, but also had the responsibility of doing manual work.[16] Benedict declared,

“Idleness is the soul’s enemy, and so at certain times the brothers ought to be engaged in manual work, and again at certain times in spiritual reading.”[17]

The work hours were varied, but on several occasions they would consist of more than twelve hours—from 2 am until 6:30.[18] In general, a typical day for monks “was given to labor, reading, teaching, hospital work, charity, and rest.”[19]

In 1197, when a famine hit a particular place in Europe, 1,500 people were taken care of; one monk remembered that they helped “all the poor who came to us.”[20] During the same crisis,

“A Cistercian abbey in Westphalia slaughtered all its flocks and herds, and pawned its books and sacred vessels, to feed the poor.

“Through their own labor and that of their serfs, the monks built abbeys, churches, and cathedrals, farmed great manors, subdued marshes and jungles to tillage, practiced a hundred handicrafts, and brewed excellent wines and ales.”[21]

In the process of time, “they managed to dike and drain the swamp and turn what had once been a source of disease and filth into fertile agricultural land.”[22]

This was so impressive that nineteenth-century historian Comte de Montalembert admitted,

“It is impossible to forget the use they made of so many vast districts, uncultivated and uninhabited, covered with forests or surrounded by marshes.”[23]

In a nutshell, the monks “taught metallurgy, introduced new crops, copied ancient texts, preserved literacy, pioneered in technology, invented champagne, improved the European landscape, provided for wanderers of every stripe, and looked after the lost and shipwrecked.”[24]

From villages to villages, cities to cities, and countries to countries, monks followed the same method of industry,[25] and thanks to them, Western civilization was restored during the Middle Ages; by that time, the works of art, biography, and history had began to shape Western culture[26] and later set the backdrop for the scientific revolution and the progress in abolishing slavery.[27]

The monks’ contributions to Western civilization were not limited to agricultural life and farming; they also restored the education that was largely destroyed by the barbarians after the fall of the Roman Empire.[28]

Universities, within a few centuries, got built. That monks constituted a central part in preserving a large section of Western civilization has been acknowledged even by some historians who were not sympathetic to monastic life. And all of this was done for the glory of God and for the benefit of His creatures and creation.[29] By the Middle Ages, as philosopher of science David C. Lindberg puts it,

“the church was one of the major patrons—perhaps the major patron—of scientific learning.”[30]

A proper survey of monks’ contributions to Western civilization has been lacking in works written by a number of writers and historians of some repute.[31] Maurice Keen in The Penguin History of Medieval Europe tells us that logic in particular “was uncongenial to the religious, reflective cast of monastic thought. It was not a subject to which the fathers or Holy Writ devoted much attention.”[32]

Within two sentences and with no historical depth and balance, the works of Aquinas, Athanasius, Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, St. Anselm, among others who laid the intellectual foundations of Christendom, were dismissed! However, historian David Herlihy, who was one of the leading scholars in this field, tells us quite the opposite. He writes,

“Christian writers, and the tradition of Christian theology they developed, were instrumental in preserving at least in part classical rhetoric and logic—the fruits of the ordered intellect of antiquity.”[33]

Had it not been for the Church, according to Herlihy, the art of rhetoric, philosophy, and “orderly thought” would not have been preserved into the Middle Ages.[34]

Jewish historian Norman F. Cantor agrees that the Benedictines “were the pioneers in whatever rudiments of agrarian science the early Middle Ages possessed,” yet he goes on to indicate that they got their power from monopolizing others.

In Cantor’s view, their powers increased “as a result of the monastic monopoly of learning.”[35] Congruent with this view is the popular idea that the Church got rich in the Middle Ages because it plundered the wealth of others for its own gain. Moreover, the Church allied with the state primarily for political and lucrative reasons.


There are other historians, however, who try to be fair and honest about the Middle Ages. George Homes in his quite balanced work The Oxford History of Medieval Europe tells us that there were many who converted “for political and financial backing,” but he also acknowledges that

“the Church had scored notable successes in establishing a Christian view of kingship, in setting up enduring centres of education and learning, in moving toward standardization of usages and, most important of all, promoting itself as a distinct elite corporation whose institutional and sacramental structure was intended to lead man to salvation.”[36]

Judith Bennett of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in her widely read college textbook Medieval Europe: A Short History, tells us that Benedictine monks and nuns

“controlled the main repositories of learning, producing most of the scholars of the age and preserving many texts that would otherwise have been forever lost. They were eager vessels of missionary activity, spearheading the penetration of Christianity into the forests of modern-day Germany and later into Scandinavia, Poland, and Hungary.

“They produced scribes to record the business of lay courts, advisers to princes, and candidates for high ecclesiastical offices.

And as recipients of numerous gifts of land from pious donors, they held and managed large estates, some of which were models of intelligent agricultural organization and technological innovation.”[37]

Bennett does not raise the theological plausibility that monks and nuns acquired that much power because they sought first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (and this is perfectly understandable),  and as such they were trusted with worldly goods which could not affect their souls and which they largely used for the glory of God.

In a message to me, Bennett conceded the point that she focuses on “the worldly intrusions that disrupted and guided monastic life that I underplay its spiritual motivations and benefits—both for monastics and for the laypeople for whom they prayed.”[38]

Previously, Bennett likened some of the activities in the monasteries to universities, and stated that there was a “need in secular society for the skills that could be acquired only in monastic schools.”

Judith Bennett

Judith Bennett

Bennett continues to declare that as a result of their dedication, hard work, and the wealth they accumulated through that, Benedictine monks and nuns “had an enormous impact on the world they renounced.”[39]

This of course is consistent with the teaching that Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 6:33, and which monks and nuns in general tried to apply. The only historian who was unashamedly fair on this particular issue was Will Durant.

After the monasteries trained monks and nuns to seek first the kingdom of God, “In the course of time the growing wealth of the communities overflowed into the monasteries, and the generosity of the people financed the occasional luxury of the monks.”[40]

Yet monks, like all other humans, were not immune to worldly temptations.

“Morals fall as riches rise, and nature will out according to men’s means. In any large group certain individuals will be found whose instincts are stronger than their vows. While the majority of monks remained reasonably loyal to their rule, a minority took an easier view toward the world and the flesh.”[41]

John William Draper

John William Draper

What we have been told for more than fifty years by a number of writers is that monks not only drew Europe to backwardness but stopped Western civilization from progressing. In addition, science reputedly moved backward during the Middle Ages and beyond because Christianity was out of touch with scientific enterprise.

This widely held view was popularized by John William Draper in his 1874 book History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science.[42] Draper’s thesis got refined a little by Andrew Dickson White in his 1896 book A History of Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.[43]

Yet those ideas were shown to be demonstrably and hopelessly false.[44] By the end of the twentieth century, the White thesis was completely abandoned by a vast majority of historians of science and intellectuals precisely because it was inadequate and unnecessary.[45]

Historian of science Ronald L. Numbers calls it “the greatest myth in the history of science,”[46] a myth that people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins still hold.[47]

As celebrated historian of science Edward Grant argues in his magnum opus Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550: From Aristotle to Copernicus, the Middle Ages in particular were not “a time of ignorance” but “a period of striking innovation.”[48]

Yet the idea that science is in conflict with Christianity has survived in popular books by the “New Atheists.”[49]And, like Charles Darwin before him, White did not write his book on the basis of the sciences.

Darwin rejected Christianity primarily on the issue of suffering,[50] and White was reportedly motivated by his antipathy toward his sister for embracing Catholicism.[51]

Harvard scholar Julie A. Reuben made the point that White “cloaked his book in anti-Catholic rhetoric,”[52] an argument that later proved to be attractive in secularized Protestant culture which inevitably and indirectly produced racialist groups.[53]

White, who obviously had little knowledge of the history of science and religion, framed the conflict in non-negotiable terms: It is either science, which to White produced truths the Church had suppressed for centuries, or Christianity. In that sense, White also took issues with his fellow Protestants. He wrote,

“The two rival divisions of the Christian church—Protestant and Catholic—were thus in accord on one point: to tolerate no science except such as they considered agreeable to the Scriptures.”[54]

It is no accident that White was confused about the history of science and religion, and that thesis became so embarrassing that no serious scholar in the history of the sciences would advance it today, though it has been repeated ad infinitum in so-called atheist books.


The Protestant Reformation changed a significant number of views. What was considered sinful became normal and what was normal became sinful. We saw in a previous article that the Church universally condemned usury as sinful, but Luther and Calvin superficially said otherwise.

And with the emergence of capitalism, virtually everything turned upside down. It used to be that England was a safe haven for the poor and needy, and one historian noted that a person would only walk a few yards in England without finding a place to stay the night.[55]

As Benedict’s Rule put it, “All guests who come shall be received as though they were Christ.” Thus, “monasteries served as gratuitous inns, providing a safe and peaceful resting place for foreign travelers, pilgrims, and the poor.”[56]

Motalembert cited another historian saying,

“Let them ask Spaniards or Burgundians, or any foreigners whatever, how they have been received at Bec. They will answer that the door of the monastery is always open to all, and that its bread is free to the whole world.”[57]

In several cases it was the job of monks

“to track down poor souls who, lost or alone after dark, found themselves in need of emergency, where a monastic hospital had been established amid the mountains of the Rouergue in the late sixteenth century, a special bell rang every night to call to any wandering traveler or to anyone overtaken by the intimidating forest darkness.”[58]

It is the same thing with monks living near the sea, setting up what we would consider in our modern time “stop signs” warning sailors of dangers ahead. In the case of shipwrecks, monasteries were already mobilized in places like Copenhagen to help.[59]

The monastic life, from its very inception with people like St. Anthony (251-356) in the third and fourth centuries, emphasized a humble spirit with respect to the poor and needy. When a merchant by the name of Apollonius became a monk, he immediately bought medicines and store houses in Alexandria, Egypt, to care

“for all the brotherhood in their sickness, for twenty years going the round of the cells from daybreak till three in the afternoon, knocking at the doors to see if anyone was sick.”[60]

Late Cambridge historian J. B. Bury acknowledges that there were some who wanted to abuse the system, where “impostors and charlatans under the guise of pretended austerities deceived the simple and lived upon alms received on false pretenses,”[61] and that many of those impostors got involved in “ecclesiastical politics and the theological controversies of the time” and spread those politics in places like Syria by the middle of the fifth century where again they immersed themselves in “violent and fanatical” episodes.[62]


But in its ascetic conformity monasticism was generally based on self-denial and was conceived of as a haven for those who wanted to abstain from this world’s pleasure and seek first the kingdom of God.

In the process, work as well as prayer was of primary concern.[63] St. Basil (329-379) followed the same method of charity and taking care of the poor and other fellow men. St. Basil made it clear that

“work is of greater value than austerities, and drew the conclusion that fasting should not be practiced to such an extent as to be detrimental to work. All this represents a new range of ideas.”[64]

In the process, “orphanages were established, separate from the monasteries but close at hand and under the care of the monks, in which apparently children of both sexes were received. Boys also were taken into the monasteries to be educated, and not with the view of their becoming monks.”[65]

Yet monastic life, despite its widespread influence, did not come into full bloom until St. Benedict came along and made it “admirably suited to Western” conditions.[66]

This had tremendous and powerful results, and preserved much of Europe during the chaos after the fall of the Roman Empire.

By the time Charlemagne was crowned in 800, usury was already forbidden in the monasteries and Charlemagne reinforced that teaching. Charlemagne was a powerful force for spreading literacy and he even instructed those in the monasteries:

“Take care to make no difference between the sons of serfs and of freemen, so that they might come and sit on the same benches to study grammar, music, and arithmetic.”[67]

Yet greed later took over many of the monasteries, which indulged in gathering wealth and brought depravity and reproach upon themselves.[68] Sometimes it was negligence and carelessness on the part of the church. Durant writes,

“The papacy for a time entrusted financial affairs in England to the Cahorsian bankers; but their ruthlessness so offended the English that one of their number was murdered at Oxford. Bishop Roger of London pronounced an anathema upon them, and Henry III banished them from England.

Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, lamented on his deathbed the extortions of ‘the merchants and exchangers of our lord the Pope,’ who ‘are harder than the Jews.’”[69]

Durant however goes on to dismiss Jewish participation in money-lending,[70] but recent historical record tells us otherwise.[71]

By 1500, the church had already yielded to outside pressure from businessmen and lawyers that led to the reinforcement of usury. The church’s previous teaching with respect to economic life was strictly ignored. By this time, much of the earlier religious tradition had been secularized, and gradually the church lost its teachings, most particularly with respect to usury.[72]

In the process of time, kings and queens began to have power

“to nominate archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors…Ferdinand and Isabella overrode the popes in filling many ecclesiastical vacancies in Spain. In the Holy Roman Empire, where Gregory VII had maintained against Henry IV the papal right of investiture, Sixtus IV conceded to the emperors the right of nomination to 300 benefices and seven bishoprics.

“The kings often misused these powers by giving church offices to political favorites, who took the revenues—but ignored the responsibilities—of their abbacies and sees. Many ecclesiastical abuses were traceable to such secular appointees.”[73]


In this respect, Durant is more honest than many modern historians who see no difference between those within the church who loved their Mammon and those who wanted to follow the teachings of Christ. Carter Lindberg complains,

“The church could not change its long history of condemning usury, but the church did learn how to profit from what it condemned.”[74]

Who were those who profited from usury? Lindberg never tells us. The law of the United States condemns stealing. Suppose thousands of police officers steal. Does that prove that the law or the police force is a fraud?

Some scholars declare that capitalism evolved during the ninth century among Catholic monks who “were seeking to ensure the economic security of their monastic estates.”[75]

But none of these scholars take into consideration the fact that kings and queens appointed their own “bishops” and “monks,” many of whom were sinful people that ended up following the course of this world, something that was radically different than the ways early monks saw the monasteries.

There is ample evidence which shows that lending money at interest was even practiced among some bishops in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries,[76] but in every case these people were appointees who had been seeking an earthly kingdom.

Durant declared, “As wealth mounts, religion declines,”[77] a statement which seems to reflect what the early church stood for: that seeking wealth for the sake of wealth and building an earthly kingdom by oppressing the poor through usury is contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Businessmen of course were the first to shout for joy when the teachings of the church with respect to usury declined. By the sixteenth century, the selling of indulgences led to a violent reaction which fueled the Reformation.

Yet seldom are these practices placed in comparison to those monks who actually repudiated the practice of usury and even indulgences.

The only person able to do such differentiation (to my knowledge) is Edward Gibbon. Gibbon blamed the Church for the fall of the Roman Empire, calling those monks “unfaithful stewards” who were involved in “rapacious usury.”

But Gibbon also suggested that this was not a widespread phenomenon. Pagans were in awe of the Church’s charity in taking care of the poor and needy; this “materially conduced to the progress of Christianity.”[78]

A final point we should emphasize here is that during the Middle Ages and beyond, the Church established the most highly regarded institutions in the world.

Oxford and Cambridge, along with other universities in places such as Toulouse, Orleans, Naples, Salamanca, Seville, Lisbon, Grenoble, Padua, Rome, Perugia, Pisa, Modena, Florence, Prague, Cracow, Vienna, Heidelberg, Cologne, Ofen, Erfurt, Leipzig, and Rostock were founded solely for the glory of God and the benefit of His creatures.
YouTube – Veterans Today –

[1] Ibid., 66; also E. Michael Jones, “John Law and Paper Money,” Culture Wars, April 2012.

[2] MacDonald, Separation,47.

[3] Ibid., xxiv-xxvi.

[4] Ibid., 47.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] For a brief study, see E. Michael Jones, “Adam Smith, the Jacobite Rising, and the Catholic Alternative to Capitalism,” Culture Wars, June 2012.

[8] E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 156.

[9] See Christopher Brooke, The Age of the Cloister: Monastic Life in the Middle Ages (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2001); David Herlihy, Medieval Culture and Society (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1993).

[10] One historian who has gone to great lengths to document these historical accounts is Christopher Dawson,The Making of Europe.

[11] Christopher Brooke, The Age of the Cloister: The Story of Monastic Life in the Middle Ages (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2003), 52.

[12] David V. Herlihy, Medieval Culture and Society (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1968), 13-17.

[13] Brooke, The Age of the Cloister, 53.

[14] Ibid., 52.

[15] Thomas E. Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2005), 29-30.

[16] David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 154.

[17] Brooke, The Age of the Cloister, 72.

[18] Ibid., 71.

[19] Durant, Age of Faith, 785.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 785-786.

[22] Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, 29.

[23] Ibid., 30.

[24] Ibid., 45.

[25] Ibid., 30-31.

[26] Brooke, The Age of the Cloister, 142.

[27] See Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).

[28] Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, 29, 44-45; Herlihy, Medieval Culture and Society, 13-17.

[29] See Jean Leclercq, The Love for Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture (New York: Fordham University Press, 1982).

[30] Lindberg, Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 151.

[31] See Susan Wise Bauer, The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade (New York: W. W. Norton, 2010); Morris Bishop, The Middle Ages (New York: Mariner Books, 2001); Robert S. Lopez, The Commercial Revolution of the Middle Ages, 950-1350 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

[32] Maurice Keen, The Penguin History of Medieval Europe (New York: Penguin, 1991), 96.

[33] Herlihy, Medieval Culture and Society, 6.

[34] Ibid., 8.

[35] Norman F. Cantor, The Civilization of the Middle Ages (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), 154.

[36] George Holmes, The Oxford History of Medieval Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 45.

[37] Judith Bennett, Medieval Europe: A Short History (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 77.

[38] Personal correspondence with Judith Bennett.

[39] Bennett, Medieval Europe: A Short History, 77.

[40] Durant, Age of Faith: A History of Medieval Civilization (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1050), 786.

[41] Ibid.

[42] John William Draper, History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton, 1874).

[43] Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (New York: Prometheus , 1993).

[44] See for example Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science; Jean Leclercg, The Love for Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture (New York: Fordham University Press, 1982); Edward Grant,Science and Religion,400 B.C. to A.D. 1550: From Aristotle to Copernicus (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004); for similar studies, see Toby E. Huff, The Rise of Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Peter J. Bowler and Iwan Rhys Morus, Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Peter J. Bowler, Monkey Trials & Gorilla Sermons (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007).

[45] See Ronald L. Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010); Gary Ferngren, ed., Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002); John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspective(Cambriege: Cambridge University Press, 1998); David C. Lindberg and Ronald L.

Numbers, God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounters between Christianity and Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986); When Science and Christianity Meet (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).

[46] Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail, 1.

[47] See Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010); Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without a Design (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996).

[48] See Grant, Science and Religion, chapter 1.

[49] See Daniel C. Dennet & Alvin Plantinga, Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

[50] See Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991).

[51] Ronald L. Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), 3.

[52] Julie A. Reuben, The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 34.

[53] For a historical survey on a similar topic, see for example Brad S. Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012).

[54] Ibid., 34.

[55] William Cobbett, A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland (London: Charles Clement, 1824).

[56] Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Civilization, 38.

[57] Ibid., 38.

[58] Ibid., 38.

[59] Ibid., 38

[60] J. B. Bury, Cambridge Medieval History (New York: MacMillan, 1911), 1:523.

[61] Ibid., 1:530.

[62]Ibid., 1:530-531.

[63] Ibid., 1:530-535.

[64] Ibid., 1:528.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Ibid., 1:536.

[67] Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 155-156.

[68] Mooney, Usury, 41.

[69] Durant, Age of Faith, 628.

[70] Ibid., 628-630.

[71] See for example William C. Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989).

[72] Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 156.

[73] Durant, The Reformation, 14-15.

[74] Ibid., 15,

[75] Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2010), 114.

[76] Stark, The Victory of Reason, 55.

[77] Ibid., 60-61.

[78] Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: Penguin, 1994), 1:463.

Posted in EducationComments Off on How Monks and Monasteries Saved Civilization and Killed Usury

Against this I rebel…



There are weapons that are simply thoughts. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy.

So, Ed Schultz, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity walk into a 12th grade Catholic high school Advanced Placement English Classroom and proceed to have Sister Mary Norbert beat them for lousy vocabulary, poor argument, abysmal grammar and general illiteracy. The world is a better place as a result. It didn’t happen…

Rod Serling Interview

Rod Serling was a TV writer and producer in the 50s and 60s. He got fed up and since he was rich, he kind of left it all and spent a lot of time on his yacht going up and down the Erie Canal and the Finger Lakes as well as other places. Used to berth at a Senaca River Restaurant outside of Baldwinsville and drink beer and talk Syracuse Football with my Dad in the 60s and 70s after the Twilight Zone went off the air.

The Twilight Zone was his major TV product as well as a ton of independent TV productions. He gave the censors fits, unintentionally at first, by trying to write stuff that was intelligent, current and culturally challenging. I found an excerpt of this interview online and decided that the whole thing was worth providing. Public intellectuals used to speak this way — imagine Ed Schultz and Sean Hannity having to use this level of logic, clarity and vocabulary. We are all fellow travelers in the great conspiracy of mediocrity. The story of the time that Lassie had puppies and the show got hate mail over showing puppies and the miracle of birth is worth the cost of admission alone, especially since it’s free.

(I pulled the interview from The Internet Archive. I generally use it to look for and listen to concert footage, but it’s an incredible asset — kind of like browsing a really good library or book store with a lot of everything. It’s one of my leading bookmarks, and I recommend it to anyone who might suddenly want to watch an Eisenstein film with the Greatful Dead playing in the background.

Speaking of public intellectuals, one that very few people think of that way is Ray Davies co-founder of the Kinks and cultural provocateur. Davies and his brother Dave made the Gallagher Brothers and the Everly Brothers look like the Brothers Four with their fights, feuds and general hair-pulling. However, they well deserve their place in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and Ray has just been elected to the Songwriter’s Hall of Fame. This was a 2006 commentary on “Yob culture” and fits with Serling in an odd way…

“Jack the lad has become Oscar Wilde
And the followers of style say, “It’s the latest thing”
And William Shakespeare is the schmooze of the week
And anyone who says different is a fuckin’ antique
And Noel Coward has become very hard and the comic says
“Bullocks” and everybody laughs and that’s that

“Style, I mean, never was much, never has been
But the little bit that was was all that we had
And the clown does a belch and we all belch back
And that’s that..”

Ray Davies “Stand Up Comic”

Posted in USAComments Off on Against this I rebel…

Iran nuclear program – All options on the table


630x200_blue graphic banner

…by  Jim W. Dean, VT Editor    with  Press TV,  Tehran

Kerry have played the good cop and bad cop, a role usually assigned to two people

Kerry have played the good cop and bad cop, a role usually assigned to two people

[ Editors Note:  Iran’s public relations people have taken advantage of pulling on the lion’s tail by showing that the ‘all options on the table’ game is one that can be played by both sides.

Even if the US rhetoric is motivated by throwing a bone to the hawks to be able to say they have not been rolled over by the Iranians, the Obama administration is still losing credibility by paying them that much attention when, at this stage of the game, all of their past threat hype has been proven to be bogus.

If the Israelis had been holding any ‘proof’ that could have been used to kill the Iran talks and sanctions removal, they certainly would have used it. We know now, as we always suspected, that they did not. That was made easy by their multi-decade archival record of hysterical claims that Iran soon would have a bomb being dead wrong 100% of the time.

That corporate media would continue to publicize any of the Zionist bomb-threat hype on Iran without any mention of their 100% past inaccuracy record is solid proof that corporate media was an active participant in the hoax.  And if they would do that so brazenly and unapologetically, you can be sure they have engaged in a lot more nefarious geopolitical media spinning.

Being a willing conveyor belt for disinformation on this scale…well…frankly I would have to classify that as a national security threat. Our ‘treasured’ Fourth Estate should have to wear that hair shirt whenever they appear in public.  But like dummies, despite their having whizzed on your shoes, too many of us treat them with respect…an act of craven submission and a disgrace to us all.

Are you sure it is raining?

Are you sure it is raining?

When they spit in your face and you think it is raining, they have nothing but contempt for you, one of the few things I am totally in agreement with them on.

What we will see now, to divert attention from the US having way overplayed the Iran threat, is the inventing of replacement threats.

These will be demands for the Iranians to curtail their defensive military development which has been forced upon them due to years of our threats and trying to trigger a justifiable attack on them, especially during the Bush (43) whacko years where they tried to pull a false flag attack on American troops and blame Iran.

These faux demands are designed to be rejected as an excuse to reimpose sanctions, and the Iranians know this. What the spinmeisters aren’t grasping is the world will know the US wants to continue the hype game, and support for sanctions will break down. You see this already beginning to happen.

It is way past time to start treating people with the disrespect and utter contempt that they have been dishing out. And that not only starts with the militant Zionists, but all who have served them here, politically, in the military command, media, academia, and not least of all…the Christian Zionists…the worst of them all, in their own special way… Jim W. Dean ]

Iran not to step back on nuclear path: Official

Iran says it will not step back on the path to peaceful nuclear know-how, and will move full steam ahead to secure more achievements in that domain.

“Not only will the Islamic Republic of Iran not retreat in the nuclear technology arena, but it will work at a faster pace to [boost] the quality and application of this technology,” said Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi in an address to a group of Iranian Air Force commanders and personnel in Tehran on Monday.

The Iranian nuclear chief added that if the Sextet of world powers – Russia, China, France, the US, Britain and Germany – do not abide by their commitments under last November’s Geneva nuclear deal, Tehran can switch back its nuclear activities to their original state “in a matter of hours.”

Under the Geneva accord, the six world powers agreed to provide Iran with some sanctions relief in exchange for Tehran agreeing to limit certain aspects of its nuclear activities during a six-month period. The accord took effect on January 20th.

“In the area of nuclear research and development, we managed to not accept any constraints and to continue our activities because of Iranian negotiators’ vigilance,” Salehi stated, reassuring that Iran is determined to “safeguard the principle of [uranium] enrichment.”

Salehi further pointed to recent intense negotiations between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Tehran, stressing that bilateral cooperation between Tehran and the agency is “moving forward.”

On Sunday, Iran and the IAEA reached an agreement on seven practical measures to be implemented by Tehran as voluntary measures by 15 May 2014. The two sides also reviewed progress on the implementation of the six initial practical measures that were agreed upon some three months ago.

Tehran and the agency signed a joint statement in November 2013 to outline a roadmap on mutual cooperation on certain outstanding nuclear issues. Under the deal, Iran agreed, on a voluntary basis, to allow IAEA inspectors to visit the Arak heavy water plant and the Gachin uranium mine in the south of Iran.

Posted in IranComments Off on Iran nuclear program – All options on the table

Shoah’s pages