Archive | April 22nd, 2015

Ex-NATO Chief Calls for Holy Crusade Against Russia in the Name of “Democracy”


Rasmussen’s case for war is built on a stack of lies.

Rasmussen has blood on his conscience and paint on his shoulders

In his op-ed in Project Syndicate, ex-NATO chief and former Danish PM Anders “Fog of War” Rasmussen calls for war against Russia in the name of democracy and the ever so elusive “Western values”.  “The current conflict between Russia and the West is, at its core, a clash of values,” he announces to start with, but then through a seriously convoluted brain process arrives at the conclusion that “It is about democracy.” In his mind the latter must be the distilled sublime product of the former.  And since it is about democracy, Mr. Fog of War reasons, “the West must respond accordingly.”

I cannot fathom why on earth this concept, “democracy”, this linguistic abstraction, stirs such passions in a man who, by all formal counts, should rank among the best that his nation, with its long traditions of progress, has produced. Isn’t this guy in actual fact taking us a thousand years back and calling for a Holy Crusade against Russia? The crusades were military campaigns in the name of a God and true interpretation of the scripture. They were sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages with the ostensible goal to restore Christian access to holy places in Jerusalem. In reality, they were aggressive Western expansion attempts driven by economic and political reasons, fueled by personal ambitions and served to the European sheeple packaged in lofty religious causes.

Rasmussen, the former High Priest of NATO, is driven by all these exactly same considerations. He is supporting the NATO war effort to take a stranglehold of Russia with the actual aim to create a global hegemony led by the Western elite. As in the Middle Ages, so today, the idea of a war for the sake of pure conquest does not sell with the herds — if the pasture is good enough, then why bother — therefore, all you need to do is replace God with Democracy and the Ten Commandments with Western Values. (What easy work for the modern day apostles, the Western stink tanks — they do not actually have to spell out what these “values” are, not even in a list of ten).

I will not here expound on my view of what democracy is; suffice to say that it cannot be defined as a concept but rather as a result of social practices and societal conditions which enable the practices. I have elaborated on this in my book All is Art, where the second part is dedicated to this question under the title “Democratic Competition”.  (From page 182 of this file).

Instead I will here treat you to a sample of what kind of “values” Rasmussen stands for as evidenced by the op-ed in question. These values are all firmly rooted in lies, as we will see.

1. Rasmussen writes: “Russian authorities recently threatened to aim nuclear missiles at Danish warships if Denmark joins NATO’s missile-defense system. This was obviously an outrageous threat against a country that has no intention of attacking Russia.”

In fact: Denmark is part of an anti-Russian war coalition which is — through vicious propaganda, economic warfare and military actions — continuously closing in on Russia with the aim to conquer it or force a regime change that would install a pliant Western puppet leader.

2. Rasmussen: “Russia’s leaders know very well that NATO’s missile defense is not directed at their country. .. we repeatedly emphasized that the purpose was to defend Alliance members from threats originating outside the Euro-Atlantic area [Iran]”.

In fact: We all know this is total baloney.

3. Rasmussen: “Recall how the Ukrainian conflict began: Tens of thousands of Ukrainian citizens from all parts of society demanded, in overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations, an association agreement with the European Union. “

In fact: We know very well that the protests where not peaceful and amounted to a Western managed, violent coup d’état.

4. Rasmussen: “No one was calling for a pogrom against Ukraine’s Russian-speakers, despite the Kremlin’s claims to the contrary.”

In fact: From the very beginning of Maidan, the protests where fiercely anti-Russia and soon resulted in unheard of physical harm and mass-murder against the population that identified themselves as Russian.

5. Rasmussen: “And NATO membership was not part of the deal.”

In fact: It was very much so.

6. Rasmussen: “Yet Russia reacted swiftly and harshly. Long before violence engulfed the protests, Russian officials began accusing the demonstrators of being neo-Nazis, radicals, and provocateurs.”

In fact: It is proven beyond any doubt that the most active part of the demonstrators were precisely neo-Nazis, radicals and provocateurs. And that the regime that came into power very much adopted their war cries and utilized those forces in their terror campaign all across Ukraine.

7. Rasmussen: “As soon as Ukraine’s then-President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kyiv, Russian President Vladimir Putin began engineering the annexation of Crimea.”

In fact: Here Rasmussen has a point, save for the word “annexation”. Funny, though, as the common Western line was always that Putin had been “scheming” this for years.

8. Rasmussen: “For Russia, the threat posed by the Ukrainian protesters was existential. In demanding change, freedom, and democracy – right on Russia’s doorstep, no less – the protesters challenged Putin’s model of “sovereign democracy,” in which the president eliminates all opposition, restricts media freedom, and then tells citizens that they can choose their leaders. The Kremlin feared that if the Ukrainians got what they wanted, Russians might be inspired to follow their example.”

In fact: So much nonsense that it does not deserve a comment. Shortly, we have seen what kind of “change, freedom, and democracy” they got under the new Western backed oligarch and neo-facsist regime.

9. Rasmussen: “That is why Russia’s leaders have been so keen to label Ukraine’s leaders as Russophobes and fascists.”

In fact: Russia does not need to do any labeling here; the Ukraine leaders and their subservient media speak for themselves

10. Rasmussen: “It is why they have portrayed the Baltic States for years as dysfunctional oppressors of their Russian citizens.”

In fact: The Baltic states have, ever since their independence, run an oppressive apartheid system denying vast portions of their populations – mainly Russian ethnic nationals – even citizenship. And Fog of War knows that very well, coming from the neighboring country.

11. Rasmussen: “And it is why they are now portraying the EU as decadent, immoral, and corrupt.”

In fact: I have not seen Kremlin engaged in this, although I definitely think they should more actively call out these ignominious characteristics of the EU, which Rasmussen so correctly identified.

12. Rasmussen: ”The Kremlin is trying desperately to convince Russians that liberal democracy is bad, and that life under Putin is good. That requires not only spreading damaging lies at home, but also sowing violence and instability among its neighbors.”

In fact: Russia under Putin is much more a true liberal democracy in the classical sense of the concept. Life under Putin may not be as good as we all would like it to be, but it is for sure better than ever in Russian history and continuously improving, which cannot be said for the EU countries. “Sowing violence and instability in the world” — that is clearly the business of NATO and its member states.

After having enumerated this list of lies, Rasmussen concludes: “Despite whatever pain we incur, we must maintain – and, if necessary, deepen – sanctions against Russia and reinforce NATO’s front line. “

How long will the good Europeans be willing to sacrifice all they have for these warmongering lies?

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Ex-NATO Chief Calls for Holy Crusade Against Russia in the Name of “Democracy”

EU’s I$raHell-Palestine policy is out of touch with reality

Would you buy stolen goods?

Alan Hart writes:

In a letter calling on European Union foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini to promote and implement a 2012 plan to mark produce and products for the European marketplace from the Israeli-occupied West Bank, 16 EU foreign ministers stated that what they are requesting is “an important step in the full implementation of EU longstanding policy in relation to the preservation of the two-state solution”.

If that’s what they truly believe, the 16 who signed the letter – they included the foreign ministers of Britain and France but not Germany – are clearly out of touch with reality because the two-state solution has long been dead, killed by Israel’s on-going colonisation and ethnic cleansing by stealth.

There are, of course, two other possible explanations.

One is that those who signed the letter (as well as their EU ministerial colleagues who didn’t) are entertaining the hope that the Palestinian Authority can be bullied and bribed into accepting a two-state solution on Israel’s terms – terms which would leave Israel in occupation of large chunks of the West Bank and the Palestinian “state” little more than a collection of disconnected Bantustans, with Israel’s various security services still in overall control.

The other possibility is that those who signed the letter (as well as their EU ministerial colleagues who didn’t) know that the two-state solution is dead but must go on pretending it isn’t because the only alternative if there is ever to be justice for the Palestinians is one state with equal political and human rights of every kind for all. And that is something European governments do not want to think about. Why?

If Zionism does not resort to a final ethnic cleansing, the day is coming when the Arabs of what is today Greater Israel will outnumber the Jews, so one state for all would lead in time to the de-Zionisation of it. The end of the Zionist enterprise. That being so, the obvious implication is that getting to the point where a one state solution might be possible would require the EU to play its necessary part in putting Israel on notice that unless it ends its defiance of international law and becomes serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could accept, it will be isolated and subjected to sanctions of the kind that played a major role in pushing South Africa’s apartheid regime to its end.

In my analysis, there is one main reason why European leaders do not want to think about that option. They are frightened, perhaps terrified is a more appropriate term, of being falsely accused of anti-Semitism by Zionism’s sickeningly self-righteous and deluded leaders who never miss an opportunity to play their Nazi holocaust blackmail card.

They seized the opportunity to play that card again in response to the letter signed by the 16 European foreign ministers, and the first to do so was Avigdor Lieberman, still the Zionist state’s foreign minister while Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu struggles to complete the business of cobbling together a coalition government.

Evoking the memory of the Nazi holocaust, Lieberman said this:

I have a suggestion for them on how to label, They can label all products from Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights with a yellow star. I think that is extremely fitting to the cynical and hypocritical position expressed in this letter.

(The yellow star of Nazi Germany was a patch Jews were ordered to sew on their outer garments to mark them out for persecution.)

Translated, Lieberman’s message was to the effect that if European leaders go ahead with the plan to label Israeli produce and products from the occupied West Bank, they will be regarded as the new Nazis and proof of the truth of what Zionist propaganda has always asserted: that the world has always hated Jews and always will. (This assertion is nonsense of the most diabolical kind but Zionism’s success in promoting it is the reason why most Israeli Jews and very many Jews of the world have closed minds and are beyond reason on the matter of justice for the Palestinians.)

It seems to me that if the EU is to have a role in seeking to advance a real peace process, it must begin by issuing what could be called a policy guidelines indicator statement. It would say in the most explicit terms that criticism of, and opposition to, Israel’s occupation and on-going colonisation of the West Bank is not a manifestation of anti-Semitism and is a proper response to Israel’s defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians.

And such a statement could add that the prime cause of the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism and the creeping transformation of it into anti-Semitism is the Zionist state’s policies and actions.

However diplomatically it was worded, the underlying message of such a policy guidelines indicator statement would be that EU governments were no longer going to allow themselves to be blackmailed by the playing of the Nazi holocaust card into supporting Israel right or wrong.

That’s what is needed if the EU is to come to grips with reality on the ground in Israel-Palestine and play its necessary role in stopping the countdown to catastrophe for all.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Europe, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on EU’s I$raHell-Palestine policy is out of touch with reality

What the UK parties say about Palestine

British-Zionist collusion

100-year betrayal of the Holy Land set to continue

By Stuart Littlewood

Britain’s ferocious warmongering in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and efforts to destabilise Syria, caused havoc in those countries and earned us a reputation for human misery making. This week our misbegotten chickens came home to roost in an unbearably distressing way as desperate refugee-migrants drowned at sea hundreds at a time.

Everyone is baying for the blood of the human traffickers while nobody from among Westminster’s “elite” has yet been arrested for war crimes.

We must remember that Britain’s capacity for making life hell for innocent peoples of the Middle East goes back much further. It is nearly 100 years since we created what Lord Sydenham called “a running sore in the East” by promising not the Jewish people but Zionist extremists a homeland for Jews in Palestine, without consulting the indigenous Muslim and Christian Arabs.

And this year marks the centenary of the McMahon-Hussein Agreement of October 1915 in which Sir Henry McMahon, acting on behalf of the British government, met with Sharif Hussein of Mecca and made what were taken to be a series of promises to the Arab people for their help in defeating Germany’s ally Turkey. Hussein reasonably interpreted the correspondence from McMahon as a clear indication that Palestine would be given to the Palestinians once the war had ended.

This was before Arthur Balfour’s infamous letter to Lord Rothschild. McMahon’s prior promises were later disputed by the British government.

“No Jewish state, thank you,” said Jews

After the war the Zionists, hitching a ride on the British request to be granted a mandate over Palestine in order to implement the Balfour Declaration, asked to submit their proposal for Palestine to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. They claimed that

the land itself needs redemption. Much of it is left desolate. Its present condition is a standing reproach. Two things are necessary for that redemption – a stable and enlightened government, and an addition to the present population which shall be energetic, intelligent, devoted to the country and backed by the large financial resources that are indispensable for development. Such a population the Jews alone can supply.

Prominent US Jews opposed the idea and handed President Woodrow Wilson a statement objecting to the Zionists’ plan, asking him to submit it to the peace conference. The statement, presented by Congressman Julius Kahn on on behalf of 31 other prominent US Jews and published in the New York Times on 5 March 1919, said the scheme to reorganise the Jews as a national unit with territorial sovereignty in Palestine

not only misrepresents the trend of the history of the Jews, who ceased to be a nation 2,000 years ago, but involves the limitation and possible annulment of the larger claims of Jews for full citizenship and human rights in all lands in which those rights are not yet secure. For the very reason that the new era upon which the world is entering aims to establish government everywhere on principles of true democracy, we reject the Zionistic project of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

Foreseeing the problems with uncanny accuracy, it went on to say that the fundamental principles of democracy assert equal rights for all citizens of a state, irrespective of creed or ethnic descent and

should be applied in such a manner as to exclude segregation of any kind… Any such plan of segregation is necessarily reactionary in its tendency, undemocratic in spirit and totally contrary to the practices of free government…

We ask that Palestine be constituted as a free and independent state, to be governed under a democratic form of government recognising no distinctions of creed or race or ethnic descent… We do not wish to see Palestine, either now or at any time in the future, organised as a Jewish state.*

So, responsible Jews wanted no such thing as a two-state set-up. But Wilson apparently failed to put their document before the conference. The rest is history.

As a result of Zionist chicanery and the Western powers’ compliance, Palestinian Muslims and Christians have been under the longest and cruellest military occupation in recent history, with millions driven from their lands and homes at gunpoint and still living in refugee camps. Those who remained are regularly massacred, live in fear of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment – even the children – and have their lives disrupted and made unbearable in every way imaginable. And their economy is paralysed.

Such ingratitude on the part of “Great” Britain.

Backsliders all

So, how do the present political parties of Britain, the chief architect of this Middle East powder keg, view the Palestinians’ fate and what do they propose doing about it?


In October, Labour leader Ed Miliband ordered his MPs in parliament to back the motion to recognise Palestine as an independent state. Today he has cooled and sings a different tune:

What we said at the time of that vote was that it was a vote about the principle of recognition. And clearly a decision about when recognition would take place was dependent on how it would constructively help negotiations.

“I am not going to get into, today, speculation about when that would precisely be. That is a judgement we would have to take at the time.

The Labour Party election manifesto says:

We remain committed to a comprehensive two-state solution – a secure Israel alongside a viable and independent state of Palestine. There can be no military solution to this conflict and all sides must avoid taking action that would make peace harder to achieve. Labour will continue to press for an immediate return to meaningful negotiations leading to a diplomatic resolution.

They are either completely out of touch with the reality or they’re supporting the Zionists’ game-plan designed to buy more time by once again shunting Palestinians’ claims to freedom and independence into the sidings. And once again Labour pleads security for Israel and only viability for the Palestinians. Why can’t they at least be even-handed?


The Conservatives’ manifesto states:

We will support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, robustly defending the right of Israel to protect its security, while continuing to condemn illegal settlement building, which undermines the prospects for peace. We will stand up for the freedom of people of all religions to practise their beliefs in peace and safety, for example by supporting persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

That noble offer, however, does not extend to the persecuted Christians and Muslims under Israeli occupation in the Holy Land. It would annoy their very dear friends in the thuggish Israeli regime.

The Conservatives “continue to reject Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea” but cannot bring themselves to mention, let alone reject, the Israelis’ illegal annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and their ongoing brutal occupation of the Holy Land.

Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats say they

remain committed to a negotiated peace settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which includes a two-state solution. We condemn disproportionate force used by all sides. We condemn Hamas’s rocket attacks and other targeting of Israeli civilians. We condemn Israel’s continued illegal policy of settlement expansion, which undermines the possibility of a two-state solution. We support recognition of the independent state of Palestine as and when it will help the prospect of a two-state solution.

Another mealy-mouthed statement that makes no commitment to immediate action and leaves plenty of wriggle room for Israel to prolong its occupation indefinitely.

Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats calls for an end to the occupation. Neither is even-handed in its framing of the situation. And the Conservatives insult us with double-speak.

United Kingdom Independence Party

You’d think that a relative newcomer like the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) would be untrammelled by Zionist dogma. Far from it. A couple of years ago, in its foreign affairs policy statement Out of the EU, into the world (now taken down but click here for more details), UKIP said it

fully supports the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state… Israel is surrounded by hostile states committed to its destruction. The tiny state has been the frequent victim of rocket attacks and suicide bombings from terrorist groups, almost all deliberately targeting civilians. Israel has every right to respond with proportionate force to these attacks, and a UKIP government would do the same were Britain similarly threatened.

UKIP rejects the notion that Israel should be punished through sanctions or cancellation of trade deals (such as the EU-Israel Association Agreement) for defending itself from attack… It is not for us to set the boundaries for any peace deal. This is an issue the Israelis and Palestinians must work out between themselves…

It read like it was written in Tel Aviv.

UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, has been described by the Jewish Chronicle as “a good friend of Israel”. The party’s secretary, Michael Zuckerman, set up a Friends of Israel group in the party. “There is tremendous support for Israel within UKIP,” Zuckerman told the newspaper. The group has the backing of party leader Farage and others among their MEPs, he said.

In its 2015 manifesto UKIP merely says: “We want to see a peaceful, two-state solution in Israel and the Palestinian territories.”

Scottish National Party

The SNP ‘s guidance to election candidates recommends that when questioned by the media they should say: “I consider the construction of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be illegal and unjustifiable. Yes, these settlements are recognised as illegal under international law.”

If asked further views they are authorised to say:

  • ”SNP MPs voted in favour of the recognition of Palestine in a vote on the issue on 13 October 2014. The Scottish government has also urged the UK government to formally recognise the State of Palestine.”
  • ”The SNP view the blockade [of Gaza] as collective punishment.”
  • ”The Scottish government strongly discourages trade with companies active in Israeli settlements which are recognised as illegal under international law. Scottish government has published guidance for public purchasers on dealing with companies that may be involved in illegal Israeli settlements.”

But when it came to their election pledge the SNP simply said: “We will call on the next UK government to pursue a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine and to support the formal recognition of a Palestinian state.”

The parties are so busy dancing to the hardline Zionist tune that they fail to acknowledge the original Jewish wish for there to be no Jewish state at all. They’re all pressing for a two-state arrangement arrived at by endless, futile and utterly discredited negotiation. They claim to be champions of international law but are not prepared to let the law settle it.

For decades international law has been a stranger to the Holy Land. It is never allowed to visit. Why not? Because Western leaders, who rush to wrap themselves in the rule of law and the UN Charter when dealing with regimes they don’t like, have been instructed by their puppet masters to love and cherish the Zionist thugs of the Tel Aviv regime.

“Law” and “justice” are words that seldom if ever pass the lips of our politicians when discussing the “Palestine Question” – or shouldn’t that be properly called the “Israel Question”?

In the UK there is still no rush, it seems, to deliver law or justice to the situation after 100 years of betrayal.


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on What the UK parties say about Palestine

Fearing the Loss of Hegemony: The Concept of US Retreat

By Binoy Kampmark
Global Research
The Road to Armageddon: The Insane Drive for American Hegemony Threatens Life on Earth

A hegemon is supposed to solve international crises, not cause them. – Christopher Layne, The American Conservative, May 1, 2010

Nothing upsets those drunk on imperialist virtue than the fact it might end. Such romances with power do have a use-by-date, going off like old fruit. Eventually, the crippling contradictions will win through in the end. The days of the US empire are numbered – but then again, they always were.

The recent round of spring meetings at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank flutter with suggestions that American economic power is being shaded, be it by the republics own dysfunction, or the emergence of other powers like China. People cant be too public about these things, argues Arvind Subramanian, chief economic advisor to the Indian government, but I would argue this is the single most important issue at these spring meetings.[1]

This would come as a surprise for some. The various theorists on international theory, many slumming at The Weekly Standard, form the praetorian guard of arm chair defenders of American virtue and power. Max Boot, writing a piece for the magazine in October 2001, typified this by arguing that the attacks of the previous month were a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation.[2]

The problem is Barack Obama. They see the Obama administration as a regime in retreat, which is the theme of Bret Stephens near fictional work. Indeed, America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming World Disorder already gives its readers two issues to stumble over: that there is an isolationism to speak of, and that disorder would be a genuine problem.

The first issue. For Stephens, the Obama retreat is reflected by the choice made by the president when he came to office determined to scale down Americas global commitments for the sake of what he likes to call nation building at home.[3] Stephens assiduously ignores the vast, expansive and dangerous robotic reach of American power, typified by remote drone strikes, the backing of proxy regimes and such negotiating endeavours as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If only the isolationism argument was true.

President Warren Harding, in 1921, is said to have placed the US on the pathway to isolationism with his anti-League of Nations stance, and the winding down of the post-war military machine. Vast expenditure without proper consideration for results, he warned, is the inevitable fruit of war. Wars, rather than being the efficient earners for a state, were wasteful enterprises. Avoid those security alliances that become, more often than not, stifling and awkward embraces.

Therein was born the myth of American insularity, one of considered geopolitical withdrawal. Such an assessment would ignore continued US involvement in the international financial system as indeed, the biggest creditor economy and its engagement in various international organisations, including, to a limited degree, the League itself. This was Washington without the fangs.

But Stephens, like his colleagues of that most myopic brand of history the idea of empire can see no reason for America to retreat from anything. Take, for instance, the adventurism in the Middle East. There was no strategic or even political requirement to get out of Iraq once we had succeeded in pacifying the country.

The efforts of such pacification continue to linger in their destructive toll, though armchair militarists get goggle-eyed when it comes to the empirical world. Conservative columnist George Will was left wondering what the missing factor was in the state building process and came to a simple, if impossible conclusion. Iraq is just three people away from democratic success. Unfortunately, the three are George Washington, James Madison, and John Marshall.

Then comes the issue of disorder, which takes the contractarian idea that, to achieve order in the international system, deals must be made with hegemons, whether you want to or not. Stability is something gained by bedding the brute across the ocean, and smaller states need to cosy up to bigger ones with tarted up appeal.

This system of perceived order was deemed a matter of virtue rather than good, old fashioned avarice on the part of the great power. By dampening great-power competition and giving Washington the capacity to shape regional balances of power, argues Stephen M. Walt, primacy contributed to a more tranquil international environment.[4] Tranquillity, however, remains a matter of degree.

Empires do check into the old home, get on the non-solids and eventually die from natural causes. Yet Stephens is cautious to suggest that, while America is in retreat, it is not in decline. This is in stark contrast to others, like Christopher Lane of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, who sees the US as increasingly unable to play the hegemons assigned role.

In any case, a power dedicated to causing more mayhem than policing stability doesnt deserve any titles in the hegemonic department. The otherwise war loving David Frum had to concede after Obama pushed the US into another conflict in 2011 that, Three wars is a lot, even for the United States. In Laynes final summation, The epoch of American dominance is drawing to a close, and international politics is entering a period of transition: no longer unipolar but not yet fully multipolar.[5]

When the curtains will be finally drawn on the act that is American empire is not for anybody to say, though the clock ticks with its usual grinding music. The nature of its power will continue to change, with other powers emerging from the chrysalis. The question will be whether such a process takes place slowly, or whether the empire ages disgracefully.

Posted in USAComments Off on Fearing the Loss of Hegemony: The Concept of US Retreat



 we cannot repeat too often that judaism is a religion of peace 2

Palestinian worker in Herzliya was stabbed by a Jewish man who reportedly shouted “Death to Arabs.”

The 27-year-old victim, a street cleaner  was slightly injured in the Monday morning attack. Zionist Police captured the attacker, who the injured man described as being Jewish with a Russian accent, Haaretz reported.

The suspect reportedly later confessed to the attack, which he said had nationalistic motives.


Battle of the Jewish billionaires: Adelson vs. Saban


Adelson and Saban.

When Sheldon Adelson goes to bat against Haim Saban in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, one thing’s for sure: It’s not good for Israel.

ed note–yet another manifestation of what we have been covering here now for sometime, the present gangwar taking place between left and right wing Zionist elements for control over how the conquest of the Middle East and the world will proceed. 


Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban, a major donor and fundraiser for the Democratic Party and one of those closest to the Clintons, was not happy with the results of the 2008 election campaign. He apparently foresaw U.S. President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, the agreement with the Iranians and perhaps even the present frigid atmosphere in relations between Jerusalem and Washington. I met with him in December 2008, a moment before Obama assumed office, for an interview in his home in Malibu.

The view was breathtaking. A waiter offered me a soft drink, and Saban hissed: “And me you don’t bring anything. They always screw the blacks.” This comment led to a discussion of the new president. “I’m very, very worried,” he said repeatedly. He said that he had heard from people close to Obama that he intended to subject Israel to new standards of work with the administration, commenting that Obama’s attitude towards the Middle East would probably be diametrically opposed to that of his predecessors. He was apparently still disappointed at Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the primaries. He explained that he hadn’t raised money for Obama. After politely praisingObama, he added that his relationship with him was “much less warm” than his rapport with the Clintons. In their home he walks around barefoot and in shorts.

Starting this week Saban can probably take off his shoes again. He is returning to the arena with all his financial resources, assuming that Clinton becomes the Democratic presidential candidate. She will be opposed by an as yet unknown Republican candidate, but if it’s Jeb Bush, Governor Chris Christie or another black horse like Marco Rubio, we can assume that no less stormy than the public contest will be the war behind the scenes – between the major fundraiser for the Democrats and the biggest donor to the Republicans (of all times), Sheldon Adelson, who invested at least $93 million in Mitt Romney in 2012 and lost.

Adelson declared at the start of the present campaign that this time he would focus on the candidate with the best chances (after losing time and money financing Newt Gingrich in the 2012 primaries), and that he would invest far greater sums than in the past if necessary.

All this means that the coming election campaign will be characterized by a behind-the-scenes battle between the two pro-Israel philanthropists, controlled by the business-government connections of the puppet masters. Although they live in the United States their thoughts are with a small country in the Middle East, and they are deeply involved in its political and business world out of a desire to influence its government, by acquiring media outlets, among other things. For those who think that Obama was “bad for the Jews” and that the agreement with Iran is a disaster this is good news, but it’s not at all certain that it’s good news for Israel – certainly not over the long term.

U.S. politics have always been drowing in demonic quantities of money, which are only increasing. But due to the stability of the administration, the presidential system, the constitution and other checks and balances, the Americans are able to limit the influence of money. That’s why the $93 million that Adelson contributed to Romney didn’t help him, nor did the tens of millions he invested in other Republicans.

Here, on the other hand, there are no such balances, and therefore in Israel Adelson has much more influence on policymakers than in the United States. Some people even think that the attempts to legislate against his free newspaper were the reason why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dissolved the government. Adelson can only dream of such influence on the U.S. administration, but meanwhile he uses his connections with Netanyahu in order to split the Jewish community in the United States between right and left. Some members of this community are angry that he is using Israel to influence U.S. politics.

Already from the start of the Republican primaries (which some are calling “Adelson’s primaries”) he demonstrated how every one of his candidates will have to pay a price in the form of support for Israel. Adelson is said to have forced Chris Christie to apologize for using the routine term “occupied territories” to describe Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip.

Saban is less divisive, but the coming election campaign where he is confronting Adelson will force him to prove that Clinton is better for the Jews, for Israel and perhaps even for Netanyahu. After all, both Saban and Adelson are interested in emphasizing the connection between their candidate and Israel, and to obscure past disputes. This may be good for the candidate and for business. But how is Israel supposed to convince the Americans that Israel’s interests, especially its security interests, are beyond any political dispute, if its patrons are so deeply involved in the domestic election campaign of the United States?

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Battle of the Jewish billionaires: Adelson vs. Saban

Jewish group slams mixed martial arts


linking sport to Abu Dhabi government and anti-Israel attacks

Legalizing mixed martial arts in New York could benefit a major anti-Israel force, according to a group of Jewish leaders.

Legalizing mixed martial arts in New York could benefit a major anti-Israel force, according to a group of Jewish leaders.

ALBANY — The fight against mixed martial arts has escalated, with a group of prominent New York Jewish leaders saying that legalizing the controversial sport could benefit a major anti-Israel force.

The group has penned a letter to “friends of the Jewish community” that will go to state lawmakers and run in Jewish publications highlighting the fact that the Abu Dhabi government owns a 10% stake in the sport’s biggest league — the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

Abu Dhabi is part of the United Arab Emirates, which the Anti-Defamation League ranked as one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the world, the letter says.

“This is a country that refuses to recognize Israel as a nation, refuses to allow Israeli citizens to travel in their country, and has banned the teaching of the Holocaust in their schools,” the letter says.

NYC PAPERS OUT. Social media use restricted to low res file max 184 x 128 pixels and 72 dpi

Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, executive vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis, is among those who signed the letter, which emphasizes the fact that the Abu Dhabi government owns a 10% stake in the sport’s biggest league — the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

Until now, the fight against legalizing MMA, which has been banned in New York since 1997, has focused mainly on criticism that the sport is barbaric, anti-woman and anti-gay — claims league officials vehemently deny.

This is the first time Jewish leaders as a group have weighed in.

“At a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise, we cannot stand by while Albany cuts a deal with a company whose profits will go directly into the hands of an enemy of Israel,” the letter says. “It is our hope that New York will continue its proud tradition as a staunch friend to the Jewish community by rejecting the legalization of mixed martial arts and saying no to a company and country that is clearly no friend of Israel.”

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) used to be a co-sponsor of the bill to legaliza MMA, which has been banned in the state since 1997.MIKE GROLL/AP

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) used to be a co-sponsor of the bill to legaliza MMA, which has been banned in the state since 1997.

A television ad with a similar theme will run in the near future.

Among the 17 leaders who signed the letter are Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, executive vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis; Yoel Schonfeld, a rabbi for the Orthodox Union and Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills synagogue in Queens; Rabbi David Keehn of the Queens Jewish Community Council, and Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a principal with Bernstein Global Wealth Management and the son of two Holocaust survivors.

Ultimate Fighting Championship officials fought back Sunday by saying that Abu Dhabi is not only considered an ally of the United States, but also has dealings with major New York City developers like Sam Zell and Stephen Ross and ownership stakes in “iconic” New York City real estate like the Chrysler Building and the Time Warner Center in Columbus Circle.

UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones holds his championship belt for the fans during the UFC 178 Ultimate Media Day at the MGM Grand Hotel/Casino last year in Las Vegas.

UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones holds his championship belt for the fans during the UFC 178 Ultimate Media Day at the MGM Grand Hotel/Casino last year in Las Vegas.

“This desperate, misinformed, last-minute attack borders on racial and ethnic stereotypes that have no place in public discourse,” said Ultimate Fighting Championship spokesman Steven Greenberg.

Assemblyman Phil Goldfeder (D-Queens), an Orthodox Jew who is a co-sponsor of the mixed martial arts legalization bill, said, “It offends me that there are those who will use any excuse to play politics with our economy. This is just another tactic by the opposition to cloud the real issue.”

The state Senate has passed an MMA legalization bill the past five years, only to see it die in the Assembly.

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) used to be a co-sponsor on the legalization bill,giving hope to supporters that it may pass before the end of the legislative session in June.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish group slams mixed martial arts




Ed-note (Sabba) –  This article asks whether money sealed the israeli-saudi alliance. No, it did not. What sealed their alliance is far deeper and weighs much heavier than some billions of US Dollars.

Sheikh Imran Hosein rightly points out that these 2 states are sisters. It is the same power which acted as a midwife at their birth (Britain), it is the same power which is nurturing them, protecting them, defending them (the USA ).

The similarities between wahhabism and orthodox judaism are so striking that it is impossible not to see thru this ‘Mask of Zion’: wahhabism is nothing more than judaism with an islamic mask.

Wahhabis impose on their women what is called ‘niqab’ or the full veil: the only other people who impose on their women a full ‘niqab’ are some orthodox jews.

Wahhabis forbid their women to drive – like some of their brethren within the orthodox jewish community.

Wahhabis forbid their men to wear trousers that fall down to the heels/ankles: the maximum length of men’s trousers should be somewhere between the ankle and the calf muscles – like their orthodox jewish cousins.

Wahhabi law has death penalty for the victims of rape – as ordained by the Torah and as forbidden by Islam (Islam teaches the opposite: it is the rapist who is condemned to death).

Wahhabis use lapidation method, mainly against women, for adulterers and fornicators – as ordained in the Torah and again forbidden by the Quran.

Wahhabis like their jewish brethren have a profound hatred for Shia Muslims so much that they, for the first time in Islamic history, publicly declared them ‘unbelievers’ (while jews are OK because they are ‘people of the Book’).

Wahhabis, like their jewish brethren also share the same hatred for Christians.

Etc. etc. etc.

In fact, not only are these 2 states sisters, but Yehudi Arabia, being the older sister, is in truth the main protector of the jewish state. They had to first create the jewish state of yehudi Arabia before they could create the jewish state in Palestine (cut off the head of the Islamic Ummah by putting their own men – the ibn saud – in charge of Mecca and Medina and in the process completely paralyzing the entire world of Islam).

And just like they created saudi arabia before they could create israel, the Holy Land and the world at large will not be free until Arabia is freed first. As long as the Arabian Peninsula is occupied, Palestine will remain occupied. Once Saudi Arabia falls, everything else will fall because Yehudi Arabia is perhaps the strongest shield israel has.


Leaked emails reveal Jewish Hollywood execs at work for I$raHell


Image result for JEWISH Hollywood CARTOON

By Alastair Sloan

Top Hollywood bosses enjoy a strong relationship with the Israeli government and various pro-Israel lobbying groups across the United States, according to a cache of Sony internal emails leaked to Wikileaks and published for the first time last week.

The emails reveal a dinner between Sony executives and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; the presenter of American X-Factor chiding actress Natalie Portman aggressively for her views on Israel; meetings between top entertainment chiefs and the Israeli consulate-general; close ties between Sony’s Co-Chairperson and various pro-Israel lobbying groups; and film chiefs planning, in detail, a new documentary about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, about which the emails also reflect rising concern.

Amy Pascal, Co-Chairperson of Sony Pictures Entertainment from 2006 until 2015, was signed up to regular email updates on the security situation in Israel, from a right-wing pressure group called The Israel Project. The group was described by Jewish Daily Forward in 2010 as a Zionist group which, “Stokes Fear of Islam for Political Profit.” The Israel Project has been admonished by the more liberal pro-Israel lobby group J-Street for taking a pro-settler stance. The daily emails sent to Pascal by The Israel Project had subject lines like “Protect Israel from a Nuclear Iran”, “Fighting Anti-Israel Hate” and “Hamas Agrees to Ceasefire then Breaks It, Again”. Most of the emails, which were being sent as often as once a day, contained requests for financial donations.

Pascal also received an email from the Anti-Defamation League, an anti-Semitism watchdog with close links to the Israeli government, thanking her personally for being amongst eighteen entertainment executives whose names were displayed prominently in an ADL advert in VarietyThe Jewish Journal, and The Hollywood Reporter. The advert quoted Golda Meir from 1957: “We can forgive them [the Palestinians] for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with them when they love their children more than they hate us.” The quote was prefaced with additional commentary from ADL: “As talk turns to the future of Gaza, these haunting words of Golda Meir are as current as today’s headlines. She could have been talking about Hamas.”

Another leaked email exchange shows Pascal, who has since left Sony, being invited to “an intimate salon style discussion” at a J-Street supporter’s home, in August 2014. The email emphasised that a special guest would be in attendance, J-Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami. Pascal declined the invitation as she was on holiday in Vietnam, but responded, “I’m in for next steps and want to know how to get myself educated [sic].” J-Street bills itself as a “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” organisation and is regarded as the liberal element of the US pro-Israel lobby.

Another email that Pascal received and responded to shows an organisation called Creative Community for Peace, “a group of influential music execs… which battles the BDS movement… which tries to stop artists performing in Israel” reminding Pascal that they had taken her and her husband on a trip to Israel back in 2007.

“At that time,” wrote David Lonner, a top Hollywood executive and Advisory Board Member for CCP, “the war with Hezbollah had just ended and our community had exhibited a great deal of apathy and some ignorance on what Israel was up against.” Lonner added: “My hope in the end, was that if there was another crisis, we would not be silent. 7 years have passed since our trip and tragically we are in another crisis with Hamas.”

Lonner than claimed that CCP worked with Rihanna, Paul McCartney and Alicia Keys when international pressure nearly prevented them from playing concerts in Israel. The email asked for Pascal’s and her husband’s signatures on another appeal, this time to “support Israel” during the Toronto Film Festival. Pascal replied to the email, “Count on both us.” [sic]

Pascal and her husband Bernard Weintraub also received a personal invitation to attend a private event in September last year with the Israeli Consul-General, according to another email in the leaked archive. Held at the home of media lawyer and marketing tycoon Michael Kassan, the event was billed as “A Special Briefing on the Situation in Israel by David Siegel, Consul General of Israel in Los Angeles, and Jay Sanderson, President and CEO of The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles.” The evening included “cocktails and hors d’oeuvres,” and guests were advised to wear “Business Casual Attire.”

Another top Sony executive, Michael Lynton, was also emailed by Israeli intelligence operative and veteran film producer Arnon Milchan, arranging for him to have an “intimate dinner” with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The dinner was later held at Milchan’s private home in Malibu.

One of the most extraordinary exchanges in the leaked emails came as Hollywood executives discussed Ken Loach’s call for “a complete cultural boycott of Israel”. “Enough with this pathetic limousine liberals ignorant bs,” responded Ben Silverman, Executive Producer of hit shows like The Office, Ugly Betty and The Tudors.

Silverman then claimed that Gazans watching Loach’s films will “be lined up and shot in the street for doing so.” He asserted that anyone

“with a wife, daughter, mother or sister knows the evil anti woman rhetoric of the sharia Islamists and it is time to draw attention to the fact that you can have a voice and a choice in our democracies and you can have nothing but hate in their monarchies and dictatorships who thrive on censorship that would never allow their works to be shown. Let’s go gents. We can’t lie down. We must stand up.”

Hollywood star Natalie Portman is copied on the email. She complained that she doesn’t want her personal email address shared with a group of people she doesn’t know. Ryan Kavanaugh, a well-known producer, reported billionaire and Variety magazine’s 2011 “Showman of the Year,” then reproached her sarcastically.

“Sorry. You are right jews being slaughtered for their beliefs and cannes members calling for the boycott of anything Israel or Jewish is much much less important than your email address being shared with 20 of our peers who are trying to make a difference. my deepest apologies.

I know that you don’t care so I’ll leave it alone, but I had lunch yesterday with Israel consulate general who brought J street up to me. He was so perplexed confused and concerned when he heard you supported them that he begged me to connect you two. I told him how you felt, you didn’t want to hear from or speak to anyone who disagrees with your position. Three times he said “buts she’s Jewish and smart.”

Just thought you should know”

In another round-robin email, Hollywood executives discussed making a documentary about the recent resurgence in anti-Semitism. The well-respected independent film producer and agent Cassian Elwes suggested,

“How about we all club together and make a documentary about the rise of new anti-Semitism in Europe I would be willing to contribute and put time into it if others here would do the same. Between all of us I’m sure we could figure out a way to distribute it and get it into places like Cannes so we could have a response to guys like Loach. Perhaps we try to use it to rally support from film communities in Europe to help us distribute it there.”

Copied in on the email are dozens of Hollywood names, including Natalie Portman and fellow actress Scarlett Johansson, executives at Lionsgate ProductionsMGM and Fox, X-Factor presenter and producer of “Keeping up with the Kardashians” Ryan Seacrest, and several high profile actors’ agents. One unidentified executive called the proposed documentary “A brilliant idea.” Also copied is Amy Pascal of Sony, who writes “Me too,” in response.

Jason Binn, the owner of luxury shopping website Gilt, then offered to promote the film to its nine million members and the three million readers of his luxury magazine DuJour.

Glenn Feig, owner of the entertainment law firm Reder and Feig, offered pro bono legal services for the planned documentary, before copying in his client Ram Bergman, producer of the upcoming Star Wars Episode VIII and Star Wars Episode IX, and the thriller Looper, which starred A-Listers Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Also copied in on the email discussion about the upcoming film is Elliot Brandt, who was named in September 2014 as National Managing Director for the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobbying and political financing organisation. The emails reveal anxiety amongst the predominantly Jewish film executives regarding the rise of anti-Semitism.

One round-robin email, sent out by Bart Rosenblatt of Code Entertainment, is entitled “Too close to home.” It details a hate crime at Emory University in October 2014 in which swastikas were scrawled onto a Jewish fraternity house. Executives also emailed each other articles from The Guardian newspaper saying that anti-Semitism “was at its worse since the Nazis”, and an article claiming that Germany is now a no-go area for Jews.

Producer Ryan Kavanaugh wrote

“We can continue to be silent and pretend this isn’t happening because it is not in our country yet. We can ignore the anti-Semitism akin to pre ww2 Germany… now lining the streets of London, France, Germany and around the world. We all may think we’re protected here in the free US. We are not. It had now hit our doorstep and yet we remain silent?”

Another producer, Ron Rotholz, argued that

“many lines are being crossed … it’s a new reality for us. The tacit and subtle recognition of Hamas as a legitimate government with legitimate policies and a legitimate charter, by Western governments is a hate crime on a global scale”

Rotholz also called out the UK’s National Union of Students:

“In the UK as you well know there has been a shocking rise in anti-Israel and anti-Semitism on university campuses here, both in terms of faculty and students and student orgs such as the potent and powerful NUS ( Natl Union of Students which holds great weight within the natl. Labour Party ).

The NUS has a long history of anti-Israel leadership and policy and their rhetoric and policies have become much more aggressive in the last year or so … The intimidation of Jewish students, and those who support Israel in UK universities both by administrators, faculty and students is widespread, commonplace and alarming … it’s a dire situation and quite shocking in a nation which prides itself on tolerance and civility.”

Those working on the anti-Semitism documentary also discussed who should present the film. One producer said that the project would need “a really good director who on the face of it doesn’t seem completely biased, so that we can show something that gets the message across without making it seem like propaganda.”

Organisers also planned to lean heavily on European institutions to make the film, anticipating good support. One executive wrote,

“I think we will get full cooperation from the impt media in europe, the eu, the current conservative govt. in the uk, the current govt in france, angela merkel in germany, many academics ( def at Oxford, Cambridge, LSE ) and of course, major jewish orgs in the uk france germany and in most eu countries … This documentary is an essential tool for spreading our message.”

Hollywood has often been accused being the propaganda arm of the Israeli government. These leaked emails appear to confirm that this is indeed the case.


Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Leaked emails reveal Jewish Hollywood execs at work for I$raHell

Palestine: Zio-Nazi Jewish settlers torch Christian school


It is not the first time to target Christian property in the occupied Palestinian territories.

jews hate Jesus
Zio-Nazi occupation does not care about the Palestinian property, be it Muslim or Christian houses, cemeteries, worship places; even if they are hundreds of years old.

Days of Palestine, Jerusalem –Zio-Nazi Jewish settlers have torched a Christian religious school in Jerusalem, wrote phrases offensive to Jesus Christ on its walls.

The fire was set to one of the school rooms and a toilet used by priests and Palestinian students of Christianity inside the school.

According to a Christian official in the school, the blaze came on tens of books and an amount of stationary. However, the whole school became black because of the smoke.

Zio-Nazi Police spokeswoman Luba Samri confirmed in a statement that unidentified people had committed a crime of “national proportions.”

She noted that the attackers also sprayed graffiti on the walls of the school. The graffiti is offensive to Jesus Christ.

A Christian PLO official said that Muslim and Christian places of worship have been increasingly targeted by Jews.

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fully responsible for these crimes,” Dimitri Diliani said in a statement.

Diliani called on the United Nations to offer protection for Palestinians and their places of worship.

On Wednesday, a group of Zio-Nazi Jewish settlers set fire to a mosque near the southern West Bank city of Bethlehem and sprayed racist graffiti against Arabs and Muslims on its walls, according to a Palestinian official.

Several attacks, called the ‘Price Tag,’ by Zio-Nazi Jewish settlers targeting Muslim houses of worship have recently been reported in areas across the self-proclaimed Jewish state and the occupied West Bank.


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Palestine: Zio-Nazi Jewish settlers torch Christian school

Shoah’s pages