Archive | August 26th, 2014

“Sex Jihad”–Or Talmudic Sexual Perversion?

by Jonas E. Alexis 


Last May, Raymond Ibrahim, a “Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center” and “a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor,” quoted an Arabic documentary video saying that

“The new jihad allows brothers and sisters in Syria belonging to the [al-Qaeda linked] al-Nusra Front to marry each other under the name of jihad because of the lack of girls among fighters of that organization.”[1]

Ibrahim moved quickly to assert, “The rationale and justification of these fatwas is based on the Islamic maxim, ‘necessity makes the prohibited permissible,’ not unlike the more familiar adage, ‘the ends justify the means.’”[2]

For Ibrahim, “Sex Jihad” is intrinsically Islamic and should therefore be repulsive to any thinking person. He wrote unequivocally,

“In other words, because fighting to make the ‘word of Allah,’ or Sharia, supreme is the greatest good, and because sexually-deprived jihadis fighting to do just that may lose morale and quit the theatre of war for lack of women, it is permissible, indeed laudable, for Muslim women—including apparently relatives—to volunteer to give up their bodies to these men so that they can continue the jihad to empower Islam, in accordance with the Koran…”[3]

And then this:

“The fact is, the maxim, ‘necessity makes the prohibited permissible,’ is responsible for any number of seeming contradictions: Muslim women must chastely be covered head-to-toe—yet, in the service of jihad, they are allowed to prostitute their bodies.

“Homosexuality is forbidden—but permissible if rationalized as a way to kill infidels.  Lying is forbidden—but permissible to empower Islam. Suicide is forbidden—but permissible during the jihad—called ‘martyrdom.’  Stealing is forbidden—but the rightful booty of the jihadi who conquers infidels.”[4]

Let us grant Ibrahim this unconvincing premise for the moment. Who, then, is supporting the Syrian jihadists to oust Assad? Iran? Russia? China? Japan? North Korea? Fidel Castro?

And if Ibrahim wants the dwell on “sex jihad,” doesn’t he know that hundreds upon hundreds of American men and women have been literally raped and sexually abused in the military right after the neocons led America into a bloody conflict in Iraq?

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Is Ibrahim really going to tell us that he didn’t know that both the Israeli regime and the Zionist State of America have given weapons and millions upon millions of dollars to the Syrian terrorists? Is he really that dishonest? Or is he using Islam and Christianity to pursue the same old Zionist propaganda in his book Crucified Again?

Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes

Is Ibrahim going to tell us that he didn’t know that Jewish neocon Daniel Pipes sought to support both Assad and the Syrian terrorists at the same time and at the expense of American taxpayers?

Doesn’t he know that the evidence indicates that “the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS),” according to a Snowden document?

Doesn’t he know that “[ISIS leader] Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi took intensive military training for a whole year in the hands of Mossad, besides courses in theology and the art of speech”?

Doesn’t he know that the same terrorist group also worked with the CIA? Doesn’t he know that The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon”? Doesn’t he know that theGuardian blew everything out of proportion by documenting just recently that

“Nearly all of the highest-profile domestic terrorism plots in the United States since 9/11 featured the ‘direct involvement’ of government agents or informants”?

The Guardian continued,

“Some of the controversial ‘sting’ operations ‘were proposed or led by informants,’ bordering on entrapment by law enforcement. Yet the courtroom obstacles to proving entrapment are significant, one of the reasons the stings persist.

“The lengthy report, released on Monday by Human Rights Watch, raises questions about the US criminal justice system’s ability to respect civil rights and due process in post-9/11 terrorism cases.

“It portrays a system that features not just the sting operations but secret evidence, anonymous juries, extensive pretrial detentions and convictions significantly removed from actual plots.

“‘In some cases the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals by suggesting the idea of taking terrorist action or encouraging the target to act,’ the report alleges.


“Out of the 494 cases related to terrorism the US has tried since 9/11, the plurality of convictions – 18% overall – are not for thwarted plots but for ‘material support’ charges, a broad category expanded further by the 2001 Patriot Act that permits prosecutors to pursue charges with tenuous connections to a terrorist act or group.

“In one such incident, the initial basis for a material-support case alleging a man provided ‘military gear’ to al-Qaida turned out to be waterproof socks in his luggage.

“Several cases featured years-long solitary confinement for accused terrorists before their trials. Some defendants displayed signs of mental incapacity.

“Jurors for the 2007 plot to attack the Fort Dix army base, itself influenced by government informants, were anonymous, limiting defense counsel’s ability to screen out bias.”[5]

In 1999, the Guardian noted that

“From 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.”[6]

Is Ibrahim going to tell us that he didn’t know that his Jewish colleague at FrontPage Magazine Ben Shapiro implicitly or covertly supported sex orgies in Russia? Didn’t he know that Jewish neocon Victoria Nuland wanted to “fuck the E.U.”?

Doesn’t Ibrahim know that the Israeli military forces began to broadcast pornography when they took over a Palestinian TV station in Ramallah in 2002?[7]

Doesn’t he know that sex orgies were rampant in places like Abu Ghraib, where “fucking a kid” was the norm, and where this sort of practice was defended by virtually every flaming neoconservative, including Dinesh D’Souza?[8] Here is what Ann Coulter wrote:

“the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter.”[9]

(Yes, it does provoke laughter. And it was not the liberals who were laughing, either. I would encourage Coulter to pick up a copy of Andrew Bacevich’s recent book, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country, and see how.)

Coulter is not finished:

“I suffered more just listening to the endless repetition of those Abu Ghraib stories than the actual inmates ever did.”[10]

Coulter keeps on surprising me. I never would have thought that she was that inept in her thinking. Is she really saying that the neocons would have given the inmates the political freedom in the media to speak their minds if they wanted to detail what happened at Abu Ghraib?

Take Snowden, for example. Didn’t the government and many neocons put a price on his head? Coulter needs to get real.
YouTube – Veterans Today –

mordechai kedar

Let us continue take Ibrahim’s self-serving argument to task. Mordecai Kedar, an Israeli Middle East scholar at Bar-Ilan University, has recently declared,

“The only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped. It sounds very bad, but that’s the Middle East.”[11]

There is more. In 2010, one major Israeli news network declared that

“A new halachic study ruled that seducing an enemy agent for the sake of national security is an important mitzvah…

“The ruling, made by Rabbi Ari Shvat, was included in the latest issue of “Tehumin,” an annual collection of articles about Jewish law and modernity, which is published by the Zomet Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to seamlessly merging Halachic Judaism with modern Israeli life.

“Rabbi Shvat explores the issue of women used to seduce enemy agents in order to cajole information out of them or see them captured.

“The use of ‘Valentine operatives’ or ‘honey traps,’ as they are called in intelligence circles, was applied in the case of atom spy Mordechai Vanunu, and according to foreign media reports, in the recent assassination of senior Hamas operative Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, last January.

The Talmud, Shvat argues,

“ruled that sexual intercourse with a gentile for the sake of a national cause is not only sanctioned, but is a highly important mitzvah.” The rabbi continues,

“Naturally, an unmarried operative should be preferred in ‘honey trap’ cases, but if there is no other choice but to use a married women… her husband should divorce her and marry her again after the fact.”

If Ibrahim really is against sexual politics and ideology, why doesn’t he write articles refuting those rabbis? We would certainly applaud him for doing so.

ISIS in Iraq

ISIS in Iraq

By the end of April 2013, it was obvious to all that the Syrian terrorists were not going to listen to the West, even though the West had been providing weapons to them for months.

In Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, they controlled the power plant and even presided over a court that legislated Islamic law. Ari Ratner, a fellow at the Truman National Security Project and former Middle East advisor in the Obama State Department, declared that those terrorists are “scary,” but Ratner still wanted to oust Assad.[12]

Other countries such as Bahrain are not blind. They began to see that terrorism is a US manipulation. By December 2012, posters across Bahrain declared, “Terrorism is a US Industry.”[13]

In the Tehran Times, it was reported that the West lured al-Qaeda into Syria.[14] Avner Cohen, retired Israeli official, philosopher and historian, and senior research fellow at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, put it this way:

“Hamas, to my regret, is Israel’s creation.”[15]

The United Kingdom too was planning to provide the Syrian rebels with ammunition in December 2012.[16] By the middle of December, the United States signed an official deployment order to send at least four hundred American soldiers to Turkey in order to help oust Assad. Germany and the Netherlands also sent troops there.[17]

NATO had already supported Turkey at the beginning of the month.[18] As the days went by, Europe was largely united in helping the rebels and terrorists oust Assad.[19] Other countries such as France, Turkey, and the Gulf states put their stamp of approval on the Syrian rebels/terrorists.[20]

As it turned out, the United States was training several members of the Syrian rebels/terrorists on the borders of Jordan,[21] just like Bush trained the MEK in order to create a clandestine war against Iran.

Iranian intellectuals such as Professor Muhammad Sahimi wrote against the United States removing the MEK as a terrorist organization,[22] and the US knew very well that the MEK had committed terrorist acts over the years, but once again the Zionist regime seems to have no boundary.

In October of last year, Obama gave a hint of what he was going to do by sending more than 150 US forces to Jordan.[23]

If Ibrahim is complaining about “sex jihad” among the Syrian rebels/terrorists, why doesn’t he quarrel with his Jewish neocons who largely supported the movement in the first place? And if he cannot do that, does he really want us to take him seriously?


Let us suppose that Ibrahim was not aware of any of this. Is he going to tell us that he does not know what the Talmud actually propounds about sexual incest and even Christianity’s founder? Jewish scholar Peter Schaeffer of Princeton writes,

“The most prominent characteristic that dominates quite a number of the rabbinic stories is sex, more precisely sexual promiscuity. Sexual promiscuity is already presented as the foundation story of the Christian sect: its hero is the son of a certain Miriam and her lover Pandera—a mamzer, born out of wedlock (because his mother was married to a certain Stada or Pappos b. Yehuda)…

“The other allusions in our rabbinic texts to sexual promiscuity refer to the bad son, to the frivolous disciple, and to the understanding of Christianity as an orgiastic cult.”[24]

This sexual perversion has largely been one of the perennial paradoxes in Rabbinic Judaism, and it indirectly gave us the Sabbatean cult in the eighteenth century, whose participants

“engaged in secret antinomian rites: they practiced necromancy, masturbated and then smeared the whole body with the semen, permitted or even encouraged incest, practiced wife swapping and group sex, advocated a complete sexual freedom, and ‘permitted perjury, theft, and adultery.”[25]

Moving on to the twentieth century, this sexual ideology ended up producing Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, which largely followed the Sabbatean cult.[26]

If Ibrahim is horrified by the thought that “sexually-deprived jihadis” want to have sex with women, at least they do not want to have sex with their mothers and long to replace their fathers in bed, as Freud preposterously postulated. Or, to put it quite bluntly, those terrorists do not practice literal pedophilia, as the Talmud teaches. Consider this:

“When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is as if one puts the finger into the eye…[as] tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years…

“A Proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.”


As Jewish scholars have acknowledged, the Mishnah Sotah “is often voyeuristic and at times can even be classified as pornographic.”[27]

If Ibrahim is against all that, why doesn’t the public know about this Talmudic interpretation? Listen to this:

“Orthodox Jews convicted of or charged with child sex abuse in Brooklyn should have their identities protected because of the community’s “tight-knit and insular” nature, prosecutors claim

“Rejecting the request under the state’s Freedom of Information Law, the Brooklyn district attorney’s office stated that Orthodox Jews deserve a blanket exemption from the usual public disclosure rules.

“Brooklyn prosecutors, working in the office of District Attorney Charles Hynes, claimed that Orthodox Jews are ‘unique’ in that releasing the names of suspects would allow others in the community to identify their victims.

“‘The circumstances here are unique,’ Assistant District Attorney Morgan Dennehy wrote in an April 16 letter to the Forward.

“‘Because all of the requested defendant names relate to Hasidic men who are alleged to have committed sex crimes against Hasidic victims within a very tight-knit and insular Brooklyn community, there is a significant danger that the disclosure of the defendants’ names would lead members of that community to discern the identities of the victims.’”[28]

Thank God that those Orthodox Jews are not Catholic priests.

 Moving on to the media, why doesn’t Ibrahim write articles about Sarah Silverman, whose tasteless comedy ranges from “fucking a cheese”[29] to “fucking kill” Christ?
YouTube – Veterans Today –

In her own book, Silverman struggled mightily to respond to Bill Donahue’s complaint. Donahue declared that

“Silverman’s filthy diatribe would never be allowed if the chosen target were the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and the state of Israel.”[30]

How does the famous TV personality respond?

“And so I have finally come to understand that whatever I say, I should at least consider that some will view it through the filter of my Jewishness.”[31]

Silverman can silence her critics through her actions. Will she do that?[32]

Finally, if Ibrahim is going to write a book on Islam persecuting Christians, doesn’t he owe us an explanation as to why Christians are being mocked by Jewish comedians such as Larry David in Seinfeld? Will he write books on how Christians are being treated in Jerusalem?


A November 2009 Jerusalem Post article titled “Mouths Filled with Hatred” describes the situation:

“For Christian clergy in the Old City, being spat at by Jewish fanatics ‘is a part of life,’ said the American Jewish Committee’s Rabbi David Rosen, Israel’s most prominent Jewish interfaith activist.”[33]

Although only infrequently brought to light in the media, these incidents are in fact increasingly common, sometimes even a daily occurrence.

“A senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting at a government office in Jerusalem’s Givat Shaul quarter.

“When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked on the window. When the clergyman let the window down, the passerby spat in his face.”[34]

The article asks the question, “Where are the police in all this?” One individual responded,

“The police tell us to catch them and bring them in, but then they tell us not to use violence, so how are we supposed to catch them?”

Another individual complained,

“The police say, ‘Show us the evidence.’ They want the Christians to photograph the people spitting at them so they can make arrests, but this is very unrealistic—by the time you get the camera out, the attack is over and there’s nothing to photograph.”[35]

In another incident, although the police witnessed the spitting personally, they did nothing about it.

“Early this year there were about 100 Orthodox Jewish boys who came past the church singing and dancing. The police were with them—I don’t know what the occasion was, maybe it was a holiday, maybe it had to do with the elections.

“There was a group of Franciscan monks standing in front of the church, and a few of the Jewish boys went up to the monks, spat on them, then went back into the crowd.

“I went up to a policeman and he told me, ‘Sorry about that, but look, they’re just kids.’ When confronted with these reports, the Jerusalem police spokesperson responded, ‘We don’t give interviews on relations between Jews and Christians in the Old City. We’re not sociologists, we’re policemen.’”[36]

There is no doubt that there is deep animus here, an issue clearly illustrated in 2002 when Israeli soldiers set fire to Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity and blamed the Palestinians for it. First, the Israeli military “accused Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat of orchestrating a fire and a gun battle” at the church.

Then “Israeli Lt. Col. Olivier Rafowicz also said that Palestinians have planted bombs and booby traps at the church, the site believed to be the place where Jesus was born.”[37]

Rafowicz defended the position that Israelis did not set the fire on the church, but eyewitness accounts disagree.

“Israeli soldiers tried to storm the building by a roof, opening fire and throwing stun grenades into the church compound. That ignited a fire in the church…

“The Franciscan pastor inside the church, Father Amjad Sabbara, told the BBC that the Palestinian man killed by the Israelis was not shooting at them but had been trying to douse the flames.

“The Israeli soldiers killed him because he was trying to extinguish the flames and save the church. After the Palestinian was murdered, the blaze burned for an hour before Israeli forces allowed firefighters access to extinguish it, destroying altar cloths and ceremonial cups and damaging mosaics inside the Basilica of St. Catherine.”[38]

To put these incidents in perspective, imagine the outrage that would occur if Christian youth in America burned copies of the Talmud, vandalized Jewish synagogues, or spat—even once—on an Orthodox Rabbi. In the face of incidents like these, how then can Rabbinic Judaism continue to claim that it is neutral or even victimized?
YouTube – Veterans Today –

"Jewish Racism To Hate Arabs is not Racism, it is Values"

“Jewish Racism To Hate Arabs is not Racism, it is Values”

As it turns out, people like Ibrahim simply cannot handle the truth. Let me put it quite blunt: I am just appalled when I read many of the stuff that those people put out there—and so-called sophisticated people believe them!

Some of these people are so sophomoric in their thinking that I just wonder how they manage to graduate from college. It is sad to say that perhaps many of these people have never been exposed to rigorous argumentation, despite the fact that some of them have graduated from some of the best colleges in the country.

For example, when people around the world resisted Israel’s bombing of schools and civilians in Gaza, Seth Mandel of Commentary declared that the world needed to start getting comfortable “with Jewish self-defense.”[39] He continued,

“We are constantly told that you can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic; this is undoubtedly true. Israeli officials are criticized in Israel as much as anywhere else.

“But the demonstrations claim to be in protest of Israeli policy or in the name of peace. That sounds awfully nice in theory. In practice, the demonstrators aren’t keen on making such distinctions.”[40]

The evidence for this preposterous idea? It was nowhere to be found. Now here is something you need to think about. Mandel cites the Times of Israel saying that “A pro-Gaza protest in London called for the elimination of Israel.”[41] I checked the source and here is what it actually said,

“Tens of thousands protested in London Saturday afternoon against Israel’s military operations in Gaza, denouncing Israel as a terrorist state and castigating British Prime Minister David Cameron for backing Israel’s right to self-defense against Hamas rocket fire.

“At one point, a woman on the podium shouted ‘from the river to the sea’ — a call for the elimination of Israel — and protesters responded by yelling ‘Palestine will be free.’”[42]

You see how both the Times of Israel and Mandel swiftly and subtly fabricate what the woman was saying? They both invent the phraseology “a call for the elimination of Israel” and then accused their opponents of doing just that!

If that is not evil, what is?

Mandel and the Times of Israel simply cannot see a resistance force against the Israeli genocide in Gaza because to them that would be anti-Semitic.

But whether Ibrahim and others like it or not, people are simply tired of genocide. And if Ibrahim doesn’t believe that it is genocide, we will let them quarrel with Gilad Sharon, son of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Sharon declared in 2012:

“We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. the residents of Gaza are not innocent, they elected Hamas.

“The Gazans aren’t hostages; they chose this freely, and must live with the consequences. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.

“There is no middle path here – either the Gazans and their infrastructure are made to pay the price, or we reoccupy the entire Gaza Strip. Otherwise there will be no decisive victory. And we’re running out of time – we must achieve victory quickly.

“The Netanyahu government is on a short international leash. Soon the pressure will start – and a million civilians can’t live under fire for long. This needs to end quickly – with a bang, not a whimper.”[43]

If Ibrahim cannot formulate a coherent argument against Sharon here, then Ibrahim is beyond political and intellectual redemption.

[1] Raymond Ibrahim, “‘Sex Jihad’ Fatwa Permits Incest in Syria,”, May 2, 2014.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Spencer Ackerman, “Government agents ‘directly involved’ in most high-profile US terror plots,” Guardian, July 21, 2014.

[6] Jason Burke, “Frankenstein the CIA Created,” Guardian, January 17, 1999.

[7] See Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 1054-1055.

[8] D’Souza has recanted on some of his views, but I am waiting for Coulter to concede defeat as well.

[9] Ann Coulter, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2005), 81.

[10] Ann Coulter, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007), 2.

[11] Quoted in Ori Kashi, “Israeli Professor Suggests Rape as ‘Terror Deterrent,’” Jewish Daily Forward, July 22, 2014.

[12] Ben Hubbard, “Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy,” NY Times, April 27, 2013.

[13] John Glaser, “Bahrain Posters: ‘Terrorism is a US Industry,’”, Dec. 11, 2012.

[14] “West Has Lured Al-Qaeda into Syria to Be Killed: Nasrallah,” Tehran Times, December 17, 2012.

[15] Moshav Tekuma, “How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 24, 2009.

[16] Kim Sengupta, “UK Military in Talks to Help Syria Rebels,” Independent, Dec. 11, 2012.

[17] Thom Shanker and Michael R. Gordon, “United States to Deploy Anti-Missile Units in Turkey,” NY Times, Dec. 14, 2012.

[18] Michael R. Gordon, “NATO Backs Defense Plan for Turkey,” NY Times, Dec. 4, 2012.

[19] “EU: All Options Are on the Table to Support Syrian Opposition,” Haaretz, Dec. 14, 2012.

[20] “US Recognizes Opposition as Representative of Syria,” Jerusalem Post, Dec. 12, 2012.

[21] Kelly Mcevers and Rima Marrough, “Syrian Rebels Training on Anti-Aircraft Weapons in Jordan,”, Dec. 12, 2012.

[22] Muhammad Sahimi, “Don’t Remove the MEK from the Terrorist List,”, Jul. 6, 2011

[23] Michael R. Gordon and Elizabeth Bumiller, “US Military Sent to Jordan to Help with Crisis in Syria,” NY Times, Oct. 9, 2012.

[24] Peter Schaeffer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 97.

[25] Pawel Maciejko, The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement, 1755-1816 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 249.

[26] See for example David Bakan, Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition (New York: Dover Publication, 2004).

[27] Danya Ruttenberg, ed., The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism (New York: New York University Press, 2009), 8.

[28] Paul Berger, “Orthodox Abuse Suspects Get Exemption,” Jewish Daily Forward, April 24, 2012.

[30] Sarah Silverman, The BedwetterStories of Courage, Redemption, and Pee (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010), 231.

[31] Ibid.

[32] How can we know that a person is not a criminal? By staying away from crimes!

[33] Larry Derfner, “Mouths Filled with Hatred,” Jerusalem Post, November 26, 2009.

[34] Amiram Barkat, “Christians in Jerusalem Want Jews to Stop Spitting on Them,” Haaretz, October 12, 2004.

[35] Derfner, “Mouths Filled with Hatred,” Jerusalem Post.

[36] Ibid.

[37] “Israelis Blamed Arafat for Bethlehem Church Fire,” CNN News, May 3, 2002.

[38] Michael Hoffman and Moshe Lieberman, The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians (Coeur d’Alene: Independent History and Research 2002), 38.

[39] Seth Mandel, “The Fable Non-Anti-Semitic Gaza Protests,” Commentary, July 28, 2014.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Spencer Ho, “Tens of thousands rally in London against Israel’s Gaza op,” Times of Israel, July 19, 2014.

[43] Gilad Sharon, “A Decisive Conclusion Is Necessary,” Jerusalem Post, November 18, 2012.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on “Sex Jihad”–Or Talmudic Sexual Perversion?

International reply to Ukraine total failure

Death in th park - mother and baby

Death in the park  for a young mother and baby

[ Editor’s Note : “We don’t know her name, or that of her baby, but we will work on finding out. This is recent as it was sent in by Oleg who found it. The father and husband may be a defense fighter, and maybe not.  We will seek out the family. They were not the only ones killed by the large shell. If it can be any solace, they died instantly from the blast, as she is still holding her baby. She had it clutched tightly as the shells came in.

My apologies for those who might feel this is in bad taste. I don’t claim to commune with the dead, but I felt strongly that she would want us to see her like this, and her baby, and not hide it. She wants us to do something. Frankly, I feel this has the potential to capture world attention as one of the most memorable photos of this criminal war.

When I find out who she is, we will do a full article… and then we will go to work rubbing her and her baby in the faces of those that need it. No… I am not using her. I am working for her… because the way I saw it, I really had no other option. To all those out there who have contributed to this whole senseless slaughter, we will be coming for you. We have lots of time, and we will put it to good use… JWD.” ]

Update:  My name was Kristina

Why Mr. Nobel Peace Prize Obama? Why?

Why Mr. Nobel Peace Prize Obama? Why?

Kiev Must Pay Dearly for This – All of it

International reply to Ukraine total failure

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

Press TV has conducted an interview with Jim W. Dean, Veterans Today, from Atlanta, to discuss the situation in Ukraine. You can wath the 3 minute video interview on Press TV here.

This is not an active video window. Please click the link above.

This is not an active video window. Please click the link above.

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Certainly this humanitarian crisis which is now starting to take shape ever since this crisis in Ukraine begun will need an international response at some point. Why not just try to get the parties to sit down and come to a resolution of some sort?

Dean: Actually, the international response has been a total failure, and it appears to me that it has been very organized because these attacks on the civilians to get them to run have been perpetrated primarily to try to create its mass punishment again, which makes us think the Israelis are involved in this because this is their big tool, and they want to undermine their support for the regimes that are running in east Ukraine.

There are a lot of these people that live on the edge because they don’t have a lot of money. And when they leave, they leave with what they can carry, and a lot of them are losing everything they own.

Second, you have the aspect that the general shelling that the Ukraine army is doing plus some of the oligarch brigades, which are nothing more than terror brigades, they’re nothing more than a terror weapon to get people to flee.

The Western response to this has been absolutely horrible. The media has done nothing. So, they in effect have approved and given their okay to have terror used as a weapon against east Ukrainian people for them to achieve some geo-political goal that they have.

Lastly, Lavrov said that the redline for the Russians are that if Russian citizens are killed in substantial numbers, mentioning South Ossetia, which told us that general shelling like they told us in South Ossetia – and you have large numbers of these Russian-refugee-speaking people, they’re also Russian citizens. They have dual passports.

We think this was done to bait Russia into coming in so that there could be a big NATO response. These east Ukrainian people have really gotten the short end of the stick.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on International reply to Ukraine total failure

Zionist censors enable war crimes

By Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor, for Press TV


During the past three weeks, a horrified world has witnessed accelerating Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Those crimes are enabled by the United States, Israel’s biggest backer on the world stage.

Why does the US support Israel? Because Americans have been robbed of the freedom to think and speak freely about Zionism.

The United States of America is supposed to be a bastion of free expression. The courts have ruled that even the most lurid and depraved words and pictures are entitled to Constitutional protection.

Yet in the self-styled Land of the Free, an “apartheid wall of censorship” blocks the free expression of anti-Zionist arguments.

This censorship is not directly imposed by the government. The real enemy of free speech is the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC).

In his book The Power of Israel in the United States, professor James Petras identified the ZPC as the source of that power. The ZPC is led by AIPAC, the most powerful lobby in America. It includes the 51 Major American Jewish Organizations, which are backed by only about one half million of America’s six million Jews. That is less than 10% of the total. But as Petras says, “what a half million!” He adds that “the 51′s hundreds of thousands of activists are strategically placed in institutions, as well as geographically, with a centralized command capable of mobilizing money, media attention and political leverage in any priority, political, cultural or social arena.”

This extremely well-financed mob of 500,000 pro-Israel fanatics can be counted on to make life miserable for anyone guilty of expressing an anti-Zionist opinion, or allowing one to be expressed. I know this from repeated personal experience.

For example, I recently gave an interview on WWUH, a radio station based at the University of Hartford, Connecticut.

Listen to the interview: “WWUH 9/11 Wake-Up Call.”

During the interview, I expressed the same views, and cited the same facts, that are featured in my opinion columns at Press TV. I presented empirical evidence that Israel and its American supporters orchestrated 9/11 in order to trick the USA into destroying or destabilizing “seven countries in five years” – as General Wesley Clark revealed. Those seven countries were the ones blocking Israel’s quest for regional domination.

I also explained why Zionism is morally indefensible and ultimately doomed, but persists by controlling the USA’s Middle East policy.

Predictably, a backlash from the ZPC ensued. A complaint was lodged against WWUH and copied to the University. According to the complaint, I had delivered “an anti-Zionist sermon” and my words were “biased.”

The implication: Americans must never hear anything but the pro-Zionist sermons the mainstream media continually inflicts on them.  Alternative views are forbidden.

The University of Connecticut knows that the ZPC is tightly organized and financed by hundreds of millionaires and a considerable number of billionaires. Zionist complaints like the one targeting my interview come with an implied threat to withhold funding from the University if it continues to allow the free expression of anti-Zionist views.

Such Zionist censorship is a pervasive feature of American university life. While teaching at the University of Wisconsin-Madison I was twice attacked by the legions of the ZPC. The second time, in 2006, after I appeared on Fox News arguing that 9/11 was an inside job, the University lost more than $500,000 in canceled contributions in less than 24 hours. I am currently unemployable in the American academy because any university that hired me would face this kind of financial attack from the Zionists.

It isn’t just the universities that are terrorized by Zionist censorship. The American media, too, is punished on the rare occasions that it diverges even slightly from the pro-Israel party line. A newspaper, magazine, or broadcast outlet that allows an anti-Zionist voice to be heard will be slammed with a barrage of complaints, and perhaps be hit in the pocketbook with an advertising boycott, from the ZPC.

Politicians are censored even more tightly. Whenever an American statesman stands up for the US rather than Israel – as in the cases of William Fulbright, Paul Findley, James Abourezk, Cynthia McKinney, James Trafficant, and many others – they are hounded out of office by the ZPC.

Even presidents are vulnerable. Many analysts believe that Jimmy Carter was made a one-term president by the ZPC due to his attempts to force peace on Israel. Some even argue that John F. Kennedy was removed from office in part because he had staked his life on an attempt to prevent Israel from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Even gatherings of American Muslims are subject to Zionist censorship. Last week when Obama hosted a White House Ramadan iftar (fast-breaking dinner) for Muslims he also invited Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, a notorious racist who recently said the child-killing Israeli military should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama stubbornly intoned the Orwellian mantra “Israel has the right to defend itself” and clearly was not prepared to listen to the views of his Muslim guests.

Shortly after the Ron Dermer fiasco at the White House, I myself was viciously attacked by a Zionist Jew at a Ramadan iftar in Madison, Wisconsin. The Zionist started a conversation about “Israel’s right to defend itself” and proclaimed that Hamas was a terrorist group. When I responded by gently explaining some of the facts about the conflict, the Zionist iftar-infiltrator had a fit and repeatedly called me a Nazi. Then he lodged a complaint with the organizer of the iftar.

Apparently the Muslim-majority perspective cannot be voiced anywhere in America – not even at a Muslim celebration! It seems that every group in America – every civic group, church group, NGO, nonprofit, and even the Muslim groups – are infiltrated by the Zionist thought police, who are dedicated to preventing the American people from hearing any version of events except their own.

Why are the Zionists so desperate to suppress free thought and free debate about the Middle East? The answer is obvious: The Zionist position is indefensible. If Americans knew the horrors that the Zionists have inflicted not only on Palestine, but also on the United States – including the cold-blooded murder of almost 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001 – the bloody Zionist experiment would face its final reckoning.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, GazaComments Off on Zionist censors enable war crimes

NATO invades Ukraine, not Russia: US columnist



NATO invades Ukraine, not Russia: US columnist

… by  Jim W. Dean,  VT Editor  


An American political commentator says Washington’s allegation that Russia is attacking Ukrainian troops is bogus, adding that NATO is currently doing military action in the country.

You can listen to the 4 minute audio interview on Press TV here.

This is not an active window. Please click the link above.

This is not an active window. Please click the link above.

“We were very disappointed to hear the recent comments by General Dempsey. Basically what we feel was a gross exaggeration if he is claiming that Russia is starting to interfere directly in the Ukrainian conflict,” Veterans Today columnist Jim Dean said in an interview with Press TV on Sunday.

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said the Pentagon is looking at possible military responses to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

The Pentagon claimed Russia is directly shelling eastern Ukraine and channeling tanks and other powerful weaponry to pro-Russian forces there in what it characterized as a clear “military escalation” of the conflict.

“It has been claimed that’s a big escalation of Putin actually coming in and firing on a sovereign town, I mean that’s a psychological operation and we feel it an act of disloyalty to the American people to tell us something so fraudulent, if he [Dempsey] is aware and we hope that he’s been given false information by people in his own command. So, it’s bogus,” Dean said.

“Russia knows that NATO will respond by making a big NATO push with military in Ukraine,” he added.

“If anybody wants to find out who is invading and doing military action on a sovereign nation, it’s been done by NATO right now,” the analyst said.

US officials stepped up their rhetoric against Moscow following the shooting down of a Malaysian Airlines passenger jet on July 17 in which all 298 people onboard were killed.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Friday that US intelligence has concluded that President “Vladimir Putin and the Russians are culpable” for the incident.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on NATO invades Ukraine, not Russia: US columnist

Watch: US aid to Zio-Nazi – the real deal


The special relationship between Israel and the United States goes deep, real deep. It’s based on “security”, conflict and, most of all money.

Most of the money is for the Israeli war machine. But with 2,139 people killed – most of them civilians and including 490 children – and over 10,500 wounded in Gaza, and given the Israeli Wehrmacht’s long list of human rights abuses, is this special relationship worth the price?

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Watch: US aid to Zio-Nazi – the real deal

Exclusive: Gaza ceasefire terms revealed


Senior Palestinian sources reveal outlines of a deal dubbed a “victory” by Hamas

Tens of thousands gathered on the streets of Gaza to celebrate the ceasefire (Andrea DiCenzo)

The Israel-Gaza ceasefire agreement is open-ended and includes the opening of the land border with Israel, Palestinian diplomatic sources revealed to Middle East Eye.

Reconstruction materials and humanitarian supplies will also be allowed in while the fishing area will be extended from six to 12 miles, the sources said.

However, the controversial issues of opening up a seaport, ending the aerial blockade and the freeing of Palestinian prisoners have not been finalised and the two sides are expected to resume negotiations at a later date.

The sources did not reveal whether the Rafah crossing with Egypt would also be opened, although analysts told Al Jazeera that the border – largely closed since Mohammed Morsi was overthrown in July 2013 – is likely to be at least partially reopened.

“I don’t think any of the fundamentals have changed,” said Daniel Levy, MENA programme chair at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“Israel didn’t want to remove Hamas and it never defined its goals as removing Hamas from Gaza. Hamas has not been demilitarised. It has been weakened but only slightly, and [the war] did not weaken it politically. It is still standing and it is sending rockets.

“But given the disparity in strength, Hamas has not been able to impose its will on Israel and Gaza will not be opened up to the world. So no real change,” he added.

The ceasefire came into effect at 7pm local time (1600 GMT) on Tuesday.

Hamas was quick to call the deal a “victory” – tens of thousands of Gazans have taken to the streets to celebrate the agreement.

“We have achieved most of our goals and targets – we hit the occupation,” a Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum told media. “In the future the resistance will be about to go to Jerusalem and [the current war] paves the way to our target of reaching al Aqsa and Jerusalem.

“Today, we are telling Israel as the agreement has started – you can go home because of a decision taken by Hamas, not taken by Netanyahu,” he added.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, also confirmed that a ceasefire had been reached, saying that it was time to rebuild Gaza.

“An end to the killing will come at the same time as the entry of humanitarian, medical and building materials,” Abbas said.

Abbas said that he “fully” appreciates Egyptian efforts towards a ceasefire, but said that “we stress again that Qatar has played a role in this regard.”

“John Kerry, US Secretary of State, has exerted some efforts. The disaster there in Gaza is beyond imagination. Stopping the fighting was the main topic that was discussed with the Hamas leaders in Qatar.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also claimed the ceasefire as a victory – his spokesperson said that “Hamas gave in and accepted today the same Egyptian proposal for ceasefire it rejected till now.”

Other Israeli politicians have so far stayed largely tight-lipped on the terms, but it appears that the deal is broadly unpopular. Israel’s Channel 2 news reported that 50 percent of the cabinet – including foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman and economy minister Naftali Bennett – were opposed to the deal’s terms.

“Netanyahu is not saying that it is a victory but he claims that Hamas did not achieve any of its demands, like a seaport or an airport or the unconditional opening of the crossings,” Israeli journalist and analyst Meron Rapoport said.

“He is quite right, at least formally. But when a weaker side is not losing, the stronger side feels it has lost, and this is the general feeling in the public, and it is worse for Netanyahu – in his government. The big question is: what will be the price that Egypt will demand from Israel in exchange for its support. It is quite probable that they will push for a renewal of the peace process and the strengthening of [Abbas].

“This will put Netanyahu under further pressure,” he added.

After news of the ceasefire broke, Gaza’s streets quickly filled with people who came out in the tens of thousands to celebrate.

“There is a massive number of people on the roads – almost everyone is out in the streets and everyone is celebrating,” said MEE’s Gaza contributor Mohammed Omer. “I can see children carrying Hamas flags. Families are all coming outside to breathe the air – many have not been able to do so for a long time, not even during the humanitarian ceasefires we have seen.”

But some analysts suggest that the ceasefire is far from a Hamas victory.

“This is not the victory that Hamas is portraying it as. In agreeing to an indefinite ceasefire and postponing discussion of a deep sea port it has made concessions it previously opposed, and agreed to a proposal that was on the books weeks ago,” Hugh Lovatt, the Middle East Peace Process project officer for the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“In many ways, Hamas and Netanyahu have been playing a high stakes game of poker, with the pressure gradually building on both sides. Pressure on Hamas stemmed from an increasingly high Palestinian high death toll, the assassination of some of its top leaders in Gaza, the steady depletion of its rocket stockpile and a collapsing Palestinian front.

“Netanyahu meanwhile has been seeing his popularity ratings plummet as the conflict dragged on without achieving the “calm” he had promised […] Both sides knew that only a negotiated ceasefire offered a viable exit to the current round of violence, but the longer this went on the higher the stakes. Ultimately it seems it was Hamas that blinked first,” he added.

More than 2,100 Palestinians – mostly civilians – and 69 Israelis, largely soldiers, were killed in the 50 day conflict.


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, GazaComments Off on Exclusive: Gaza ceasefire terms revealed

A Letter from Bonnie Honig to Phyllis Wise


In the midst of a conflict like the Salaita affair, it’s easy for individual voices to get lost. The persons involved, and their fates, get forgotten. Particulars are submerged into principles, the din in the head crowds out the distinctive sights and sounds of the case. That’s why, when I read this letter from political theorist Bonnie Honig to Chancellor Wise and the UIUC community, I knew I was hearing and seeing something different. No one that I know of has written a letter like this, which insists on remembering the specificity of not only Steven Salaita but also Phyllis Wise. Professor Honig has kindly allowed me to reprint it here.

• • • • • 

August 24, 2014

Dear Chancellor Wise, (and Members of the Board of Trustees, and the UIUC community of faculty, staff, and students),

I wrote to you when I heard about the Steven Salaita case a couple of weeks ago and hoped you would reconsider. As I told you then, I am Jewish and was raised as a Zionist, and I was moved by the case. I write now in the hope that you might find some measure of empathy for this man. Please bear with me for 2 pages….

I do not know Prof. Salaita, but I must say that as I read about the case I was struck by what I can only describe as a certain smug and uncivil tone in his critics, who seemed very assured about what sort of speech is within the bounds of propriety, and what is not. To be clear: I do not grant that speech that lacks propriety justifies the treatment Prof Salaita has received. I leave that point aside since others — John Stuart Mill, Brian Leiter, others – have ably addressed it.

I want to draw your attention to the issue of “empathy.”

This is what I thought at the time this story first broke: Here is a man of Palestinian descent watching people he may know, perhaps friends, colleagues, or relatives, bombed to bits while a seemingly uncaring or powerless world watched. He was touched by violence and responded in a way that showed it. In one of the tweets that was most objected to (Netanyahu, necklace, children’s teeth), Salaita commented on a public figure who is fair game and who was promoting acts of terrible violence against a mostly civilian population. I found that tweet painful and painfully funny. It struck home with me, a Jew raised as a Zionist. Too many of us are too committed to being uncritical of Israel. Perhaps tweets like Prof. Salaita’s, along with images of violence from Gaza and our innate sense of fair play, could wake us from our uncritical slumbers. It certainly provoked ME, and I say “provoked” in the best way – awakened to thinking.

That is what I thought. I also, though, felt something. I felt that whoever wrote that tweet was tweeting his own pain. And I felt there was something very amiss when he was chided for his tone, by people who were safely distant from all of it, while he was watching people he maybe knew or felt connected to die as a result of military aggression. This, frankly, seemed evil. And then to have the major charge against him in the UIUC case be that he lacked empathy: now that seemed cruelly ironic. The real charge, it seems to me, is that he suffers from too much empathy.

What kind of a person would Prof Salaita be if he did not respond more or less as he did!? What kind of a teacher? What kind of community member?

Meantime, even under duress, he is careful about a key thing: His published tweets distinguish Zionism from Jews and others. In the one tweet about anti-Semitism, he puts that term in scare quotes. I don’t know if I would be as nuanced were I in the same situation. Certainly many of my Zionist or Netanyahu-supporting friends and relatives are not: they do not take the trouble to make the analogous distinctions in their commentaries on the situation.

Anyone involved in this case who is incapable of empathy for Salaita at the moment could themselves perhaps learn something about empathy from the very person who has been charged with lacking it. May I ask you: Surely you are not incapable of empathy for his plight, both now (stranded between institutions) and in July (watching from afar as people to whom he presumably feels connected die or are wounded)?

May I add, further, that, as befits the picture I have here painted, there is no actual evidence in the teaching record that Prof Salaita lacks the empathy and tolerance expected of teachers in the classroom. The repeatedly stated ‘concern’ that he is lacking in this way is not only unpersuasive. It is also painful because it may well stick: based on nothing but ignorant or self-serving fears, it may well have a lasting impact on a blameless person’s career and fortunes.

Can you not find a way to resolve the situation to the advantage of both UIUC AND Prof. Salaita? Decisions like this one are the sort that haunt the people who make them for years to come, so I hope you will indeed be able to open your heart in your consideration of the matter. It is not too late. At the very least I urge you and UIUC to stop charging Prof. Salaita with being wanting in vague and either irrelevant or personal ways. That just adds insult and injury to injury. Another irony there: your stated position is that words matter, so much so that other commitments must fall before them. So the responsibility to choose them carefully seems to me to land especially heavily on you and your institution. I do not see you rising to that challenge. This too, I want to suggest, should be hard to live with.

In the meantime, I stand in solidarity with the thousands of academics worldwide who, regrettably, cannot accept invitations henceforth to speak at UIUC or to do any other sort of support work (tenure or promotion letters etc) for your institution. I say regrettably because I have been happy to visit in the past, as a keynote speaker and lecturer. I hope you can understand my position. Simply put, to act in any other way would be wrong.

Thank you for your consideration.

Bonnie Honig, Nancy Duke Lewis Professor, Brown University, Providence, RI

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on A Letter from Bonnie Honig to Phyllis Wise

What the MFA got wrong on Gaza


In parallel to the fighting that rages on with devastating force in Gaza and Israel, there is another fierce battle being fought – this one over narrative. Last week, the Israeli foreign ministry released a video and newsletter entitled “The Myth of an Israeli Siege on Gaza”. We provide clarification for some of the main points that appear.

Gisha also shies away from using the term “siege” as to do so would be to insinuate that Israel didn’t already have control, prior to 2007, of most of Gaza’s land crossings, its sea and airspace and restrict travel through them. A “siege” consists of surrounding a certain area in order to compel armed forces within it to surrender. International law permits laying siege to an area, provided that the siege has a specific military purpose and that it ends once this purpose is attained. Moreover, under international law the besieging forces must allow humanitarian aid to enter the area and let civilians leave. Israel has not cited clear goals to subdue the Gaza Strip and does not allow civilians to leave, thus its policy on Gaza cannot be referred to as a “siege”.

The MFA cites transit of goods in to Gaza as evidence that there is no “siege”. The communique is correct in noting that Israel allows Gaza residents to purchase fuel, water and electricity that is transferred by Israeli companies to Gaza. Other goods that are purchased by private sector traders and international organizations are also transferred at Kerem Shalom Crossing. In 2012, Gaza purchased goods from Israel in the amount of 1.3 billion shekels. The key word being that Gaza buys these products – they are not supplied or provided by Israel.

The MFA neglects to mention however what Israel doesn’t allow out of Gaza – namely that it blocks the marketing of Gaza-made and grown products in what were once Gaza’s primary markets – Israel and the West Bank. Before 2007, 85% of Gaza’s outgoing goods were sold in Israel and the West Bank. Israel’s ongoing ban on Gaza’s access to these markets explains why the rate of export stands at just 2% of pre-2007 rates.

Israel notes that it restricts just a “short list” of “dual use” items but the list contains the basic building blocks of construction: cement, steel and gravel. Yes, these items have been used to build tunnels. They are also the foundation for building schools, hospitals, homes, and critical civilian infrastructure. Preventing their entry to the Gaza Strip following such extensive damage caused by bombardments in this and previous military operations is tantamount to withholding basic humanitarian necessities such as fuel, electricity and water. Creative and immediate solutions must be found to allow entry of construction materials but not allowing them in or allowing them in small quantities is unacceptable.

Gaza does indeed have some malls and restaurants, as do most places in the world. The presence of a mall in a country or territory certainly does not say a lot about whether conditions of poverty and injustice are also present. Restrictions on movement to and from Gaza – on exit of goods, on movement of people and on entrance of construction materials – have lowered purchasing power in the Strip. Extensive damage to at least 360 factories and workshops in Gaza in this military operation promise to lead to increased unemployment and even lower purchasing power. On the eve of the hostilities, the unemployment rate stood at 45% and more than 63% among young people. The closure perpetuates dependency on outside aid and prevents the emergence of an independent economy.

On movement of people, the criteria for travel indicate that restrictions exceed what is needed for security. For example, parents who receive exit permits can bring along children under the age of six, but not seven or eight year olds. A woman can request a permit to visit her sick mother in the West Bank but would not be able to request a permit to visit an ailing aunt or grandmother. A Palestinian employee of an international organization may be eligible to request a permit, but not one from a Palestinian organization providing critical services to the population. These and other restrictions indicate a desire to reduce movement, not just protect security. During the first half of the year, 6,000 exits of Palestinians were recorded at Erez on average per month compared to over 500,000 per month in 2000 – or about 1%.

The MFA newsletter also claims that in the first five months of 2014, Israel allowed 60,000 people from Gaza to cross into Israel, including a large number of businesspeople. This is misleading. Based on the army’s own figures, this is actually closer to the number of crossings in both directions during this period, not the “number of people” or just crossings into Israel. One should also bear in mind that businesspeople, like foreign staff of international organizations and foreign journalists, sometimes cross Erez multiple times per week or month.

In truth, Israel sells just 5 million cubic meters of water to Gaza annually. There is infrastructure in place for the transfer of twice this amount, yet for various political reasons, it appears the decision to turn the tap on has yet to be made. Regarding electricity, again, Gaza purchases electricity from the Israeli Electric Corporation. Even when all the lines damaged over the course of the hostilities are repaired, this supply would still only account for less than a third, not a half, of demand in Gaza. The sole power plant in Gaza, which provided the only local source of electricity, albeit in small amounts, was recently bombed by Israel.

There is no doubt that Israel has legitimate security concerns and the authority to decide by which routes and procedures goods and civilians transit to and from Gaza. That same authority – derived from Israel’s ongoing control of Gaza and Gaza’s dependence on Israel – remains subject to an obligation to facilitate as normal a life as possible for the people of Gaza. Instead of fulfilling that obligation, Israel has established a civilian closure over Gaza severely limiting movement of people and goods through restrictions that either serve no security purpose or cause hardships that are clearly excessive in relation to the marginal security benefits they might yield.

Hamas’s human rights violations, abuses of power and misuse of resources are no excuse for Israel to shun its obligations. More can be done to protect the security and rights of Israelis and Palestinians. Israel’s using access restrictions as a bargaining chip for this and previous ceasefire negotiations should be an indication that not all Israel’s policies stem from concrete security needs and that restrictions can be reversed not as a concession to Hamas but as a proactive step towards generating stability and respect for rights.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on What the MFA got wrong on Gaza

Colonization by Bankruptcy: The High-stakes Chess Match for Argentina


Map of Argentina

Global Research

If Argentina were in a high-stakes chess match, the countrys actions this week would be the equivalent of flipping over all the pieces on the board. David Dayen, Fiscal Times, August 22, 2014

Argentina is playing hardball with the vulture funds, which have been trying to force it into an involuntary bankruptcy. The vultures are demanding what amounts to a 600% return on bonds bought for pennies on the dollar, defeating a 2005 settlement in which 92% of creditors agreed to accept a 70% haircut on their bonds. A US court has backed the vulture funds; but last week, Argentina sidestepped its jurisdiction by transferring the trustee for payment from Bank of New York Mellon to its own central bank. That play, if approved by the Argentine Congress, will allow the country to continue making payments under its 2005 settlement, avoiding default on the majority of its bonds.

Argentina is already foreclosed from international capital markets, so it doesnt have much to lose by thwarting the US court system. Similar bold moves by Ecuador and Iceland have left those countries in substantially better shape than Greece, which went along with the agendas of the international financiers.

The upside for Argentina was captured by President Fernandez in a nationwide speech on August 19th. Struggling to hold back tears, according to Bloomberg, she said:

When it comes to the sovereignty of our country and the conviction that we can no longer be extorted and that we cant become burdened with debt again, we are emerging as Argentines.

. . . If I signed what theyre trying to make me sign, the bomb wouldnt explode now but rather there would surely be applause, marvelous headlines in the papers. But we would enter into the infernal cycle of debt which weve been subject to for so long.

The Endgame: Patagonia in the Crosshairs

The deeper implications of that infernal debt cycle were explored by Argentine political analyst Adrian Salbuchi in an August 12th article titled Sovereign Debt for Territory: A New Global Elite Swap Strategy. Where territories were once captured by military might, he maintains that today they are being annexed by debt. The still-evolving plan is to drive destitute nations into an international bankruptcy court whose decisions would have the force of law throughout the world. The court could then do with whole countries what US bankruptcy courts do with businesses: sell off their assets, including their real estate. Sovereign territories could be acquired as the spoils of bankruptcy without a shot being fired.

Global financiers and interlocking megacorporations are increasingly supplanting governments on the international stage. An international bankruptcy court would be one more institution making that takeover legally binding and enforceable. Governments can say no to the strong-arm tactics of the global bankers collection agency, the IMF. An international bankruptcy court would allow creditors to force a nation into bankruptcy, where territories could be involuntarily sold off in the same way that assets of bankrupt corporations are.

For Argentina, says Salbuchi, the likely prize is its very rich Patagonia region, long a favorite settlement target for ex-pats. When Argentina suffered a massive default in 2001, the global press, including Time and The New York Times, went so far as to propose that Patagonia be ceded from the country as a defaulted debt payment mechanism.

The New York Times article followed one published in the Buenos Aires financial newspaper El Cronista Comercial called Debt for Territory, which described a proposal by a US consultant to then-president Eduardo Duhalde for swapping public debt for government land. It said:

[T]he idea would be to transform our public debt default into direct equity investment in which creditors can become land owners where they can develop industrial, agricultural and real estate projects. . . . There could be surprising candidates for this idea: during the Alfonsin Administration, the Japanese studied an investment master plan in Argentine land in order to promote emigration. The proposal was also considered in Israel.

Salbuchi notes that ceding Patagonia from Argentina was first suggested in 1896 by Theodor Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, as a second settlement for that movement.

Another article published in 2002 was one by IMF deputy manager Anne Krueger titled Should Countries Like Argentina Be Able to Declare Themselves Bankrupt? It was posted on the IMF website and proposed some new and creative ideas on what to do about Argentina. Krueger said, the lesson is clear: we need better incentives to bring debtors and creditors together before manageable problems turn into full-blown crises, adding that the IMF believes this could be done by learning from corporate bankruptcy regimes like Chapter 11 in the US.

These ideas were developed in greater detail by Ms. Krueger in an IMF essay titled A New Approach to Debt Restructuring, and by Harvard professor Richard N. Cooper in a 2002 article titled Chapter 11 for Countries published in Foreign Affairs(mouthpiece of the powerful New York-Based Elite think-tank, Council on Foreign Relations). Salbuchi writes:

Here, Cooper very matter-of-factly recommends that only if the debtor nation cannot restore its financial health are its assets liquidated and the proceeds distributed to its creditors again under the guidance of a (global) court (!).

In Argentinas recent tangle with the vulture funds, Ms. Krueger and the mainstream media have come out in apparent defense of Argentina, recommending restraint by the US court. But according to Salbuchi, this does not represent a change in policy. Rather, the concern is that overly heavy-handed treatment may kill the golden goose:

. . . [I] n todays delicate post-2008 banking system, a new and less controllable sovereign debt crisis could thwart the global elites plans for an orderly transition towards a new global legal architecture that will allow orderly liquidation of financially-failed states like Argentina. Especially if such debt were to be collateralized by its national territory (what else is left!?)

Breaking Free from the Sovereign Debt Trap

Salbuchi traces Argentinas debt crisis back to 1955, when President Juan Domingo Perón was ousted in a very bloody US/UK/mega-bank-sponsored military coup:

Perón was hated for his insistence on not indebting Argentina with the mega-bankers: in 1946 he rejected joining the International Monetary Fund (IMF); in 1953 he fully paid off all of Argentinas sovereign debt. So, once the mega-bankers got rid of him in 1956, they shoved Argentina into the IMF and created the Paris Club to engineer decades-worth of sovereign debt for vanquished Argentina, something theyve been doing until today.

Many countries have been subjected to similar treatment, as John Perkins documents in his blockbuster exposéConfessions of an Economic Hit Man. When the country cannot pay, the IMF sweeps in with refinancing agreements with strings attached, including selling off public assets and slashing public services in order to divert government revenues into foreign debt service.

Even without pressure from economic hit men, however, governments routinely indebt themselves for much more than they can ever hope to repay. Why do they do it? Salbuchi writes:

Here, Western economists, bankers, traders, Ivy League academics and professors, Nobel laureates and the mainstream media have a quick and monolithic reply: because all nations needinvestment and investors if they wish to build highways, power plants, schools, airports, hospitals, raise armies, service infrastructures and a long list of et ceteras . . . .

But more and more people are starting to ask a fundamental common-sense question: why should governments indebt themselves in hard currencies, decades into the future with global mega-bankers, when they could just as well finance these projects and needs far more safely by issuing the proper amounts of their own local sovereign currency instead?

Neoliberal experts shout back that government-created money devalues the currency, inflates the money supply, and destroys economies. But does it? Or is it the debt service on money created privately by banks, along with other forms of rent on capital, that create inflation and destroy economies? As Prof. Michael Hudson points out:

These financial claims on wealth bonds, mortgages and bank loans are lent out to become somebody elses debts in an exponentially expanding process. . . . [E]conomies have been obliged to pay their debts by cutting back new research, development and new physical reinvestment. This is the essence of IMF austerity plans, in which the currency is stabilized by further international borrowing on terms that destabilize the economy at large. Such cutbacks in long-term investment also are the product of corporate raids financed by high-interest junk bonds. The debts created by businesses, consumers and national economies cutting back their long-term direct investment leaves these entities even less able to carry their mounting debt burden.

Spiraling debt also results in price inflation, since businesses have to raise their prices to cover the interest and fees on the debt.

From Sovereign Debt to Monetary Sovereignty

For governments to escape this austerity trap, they need to spend not less but more money on the tangible capital formation that increases physical productivity. But where to get the investment money without getting sucked into the debt vortex? Where can Argentina get funding if the country is shut out of international capital markets?

The common-sense response, as Salbuchi observes, is for governments to issue the money they need directly. But printing money raises outcries that can be difficult to overcome politically. An alternative that can have virtually the same effect is for nations to borrow money issued by their own publicly-owned banks. Public banks generate credit just as private banks do; but unlike private lenders, they return interest and profits to the economy. Their mandate is to serve the public, and that is where their profits go. Funding through their own government-issued currencies and publicly-owned banks has been successfully pursued by many countries historically, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, China, Russia, Korea and Japan. (For more on this, see The Public Bank Solution.)

Countries do need to be able to buy foreign products that they cannot acquire or produce domestically, and for that they need a form of currency or an international credit line that other nations will accept. But countries are increasingly breaking away from the oil- and weapons-backed US dollar as global reserve currency. To resolve the mutually-destructive currency wars will probably take a new Bretton Woods Accord. But that is another subject for a later article.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 200+ blog articles are at

Posted in South AmericaComments Off on Colonization by Bankruptcy: The High-stakes Chess Match for Argentina

Palestinians reach long-term truce with Nazi Regime


Palestinian resistance groups and Israeli officials have reportedly reached an agreement on a permanent ceasefire for the besieged Gaza Strip.

According to Palestinian sources, the Palestinians and Nazi Regime agreed to a permanent ceasefire on Tuesday.

“The contacts that have been going on have agreed a permanent ceasefire, a (deal to) end the blockade and a guarantee that Gaza’s demands and needs will be met,” media quoted a senior unnamed Palestinian official as saying.

Meanwhile, Mussa Abu Marzuk, a senior official from the Palestinian resistance group Hamas said the truce marks a victory for the Palestinians. He added that the truce is expected to be officially announced in the Egyptian capital Cairo.

The developments come as previous temporary ceasefires have failed to produce a deal between the two sides.

The contentious subject at the Cairo talks has been the issue of the Nazi blockade of the impoverished territory.

The Palestinian resistance movement Hamas wants the seven-year siege of Gaza, which has crippled the coastal enclave and tightly restricted the movement of goods and people, to be removed.

The Palestinians also demand that the coastal territory be allowed to open an airport and seaport.

Nazi Army launched an aerial military campaign against Gaza in early July, but Tel Aviv later expanded its operation with a ground invasion.

More than 2,137 Palestinians, including around 570 children, have been killed so far in the Israeli onslaught on Gaza. Some 11,000 others have been wounded.

Most of the victims were civilians, including children, women and the elderly.

Tel Aviv says 68 Israelis have been killed in the conflict, but Hamas puts the number at more than 150.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, GazaComments Off on Palestinians reach long-term truce with Nazi Regime

Shoah’s pages