Archive | January 2nd, 2018

36,898 Killed in Iraq During 2017

At least 36,898 people were killed, and 8,753 were wounded in Iraq during 2017. These figures should be considered lowball estimates, especially considering that the number of casualties being reported publicly was reduced. During 2016, 52,369 people were killed 21,795 were wounded. The Iraqi government chose to censor information about security casualties and perhaps even civilian ones. Consequently, at the end of 2016, the United Nations was hectored into limiting the number of casualties it was allowed to compile on the ground.

The breakdown is as follows: at least 9,036 civilians killed, and another 6,607 wounded. However, Kurdish intelligence reported, in July, a belief that at least 40,000 civilians were killed in Mosul alone. Certainly, many bodies remain uncounted under the rubble left by the battle for Mosul, or in unmarked mass graves. The number of civilian wounded dropped considerably despite security campaigns across Iraq. This is unlikely to be true.

At least 1,696 security personnel were killed and 1,827 were wounded. In September, Coalition forces revealed that over 1,200 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the Mosul campaign alone, nearly doubling the number of dead.

Among the militants, at least 24,276 were killed, and 309 were wounded. Unlike the civilian and security casualties, the number of militant dead could be an exaggeration, or it could also be a low number.

Among foreign military forces, 33 were killed or died while in Iraq. The U.S. lost 17 personnel (four in hostile events). The Turks lost 14, while another 10 were wounded. France lost one member in a hostile attack. A British servicemember was also killed. Iran lost at least one soldier. In March, officials admitted that 2,100 Iranian servicemembers were killed in Iraq or Syria, so the number of dead personnel must be higher, but is not being included in this compilation.

Iraq also executed at least 111 prisoners. Some analysts believe the number is higher.

At least 546 members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (P.K.K.) were also killed.

At least four people were killed, and five more were wounded in recent violence:

Four militiamen were wounded in a highway bombing near Riyadh.

A bomb in Radwaniya wounded a tribal fighter.

An airstrike killed three militants in Sansal.

An ISIS mufti was killed Houd al-Zour, along with a number of companions.

Posted in Middle East, IraqComments Off on 36,898 Killed in Iraq During 2017

Nazi Ruling Party Votes for Push to Annex Parts of West Bank

Israel Ruling Party Votes for Push to Annex Parts of West Bank
By enacting civilian law over settlements, move could streamline procedures for their construction and expansion

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party unanimously urged legislators in a non-binding resolution on Sunday to effectively annex Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, land that Palestinians want for a future state.

By enacting civilian law over settlements, the move may streamline procedures for their construction and expansion. That land is currently under military jurisdiction and Israel’s defence minister has a final say on building there.

The settlers are subject to Israeli civilian law.

“The time has come to express our Biblical right to the land,” Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan told a meeting of Likud’s Central Committee, according to the Jerusalem Post.

He added that Israel should not miss the opportunity of having in the White House US President Donald Trump, who Erdan said does not believe settlers are an obstacle to peace. He downplayed the role of the overwhelming majority of the rest of the international community.

Likud Central Committee votes to unanimously accept resolution calling on party’s leaders to formally annex West Bank and increase settlement expansion 

Netanyahu’s party votes for resolution calling on Israel to annex West Bank, increase settlements

While most Likud ministers support the move, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not commented; however, he hasn’t prevented the vote, which he did with contentious issues in the past

“We are telling the world that it doesn’t matter what the nations of the world say,” Erdan told the crowd. “We must recognise this sovereignty.”

Jamal Juma’a, Palestinian activist and coordinator of the Stop the Wall campaign, told MEE:

“It’s clear that this is part of the consequences of Trump’s decision concerning Jerusalem, this is part of the ongoing process of annexation of the West Bank, it is another slap to international law.”

Netanyahu is not bound to follow the resolution. He did not attend the meeting, which attracted several hundred delegates including ministers, legislators and party officials. The Likud Central Committee is the party’s governing body.

The prime minister says he still supports a two-state solution with the Palestinians, although he has also pushed for Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank, which has been under Israeli occupation for 50 years.

In October, Netanyahu decided to postpone a vote on a controversial bill that critics say would amount to the de facto annexation of Israeli settlements surrounding Jerusalem.

Deemed illegal

The bill had been expected to be voted on by a ministerial committee in a move that would fast-track its progress through parliament.

Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in the Six-Day War of 1967. It later annexed East Jerusalem in a move never recognised by the international community.

It sees the entire city as its indivisible capital, while the Palestinians want the eastern sector as the capital of their future state.

Israeli settlements are deemed illegal under international law and widely seen as the main obstacle to peace.

More than 600,000 Jewish settlers live in the occupied West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem among 2.9 million Palestinians, with frequent outbreaks of violence.

Likud’s Central Committee counts around 3,700 members, and according to Israeli media about 1,500 were present for Sunday’s vote.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Ruling Party Votes for Push to Annex Parts of West Bank

Free Ahed Tamimi. Sign this petition!


Image result for Ahed Tamimi photo

Ahed Tamimi, 16, was arrested ( kidnapped actually ) by Israeli forces in the middle of the night. Since she was a young child, she has been active in weekly demonstrations against Israel’s theft of her family’s land in occupied Nabi Saleh. But as Tamimi stands against Israeli occupation, she underscores: whenever a people face oppression, we must show solidarity. Israeli soldiers shot Ahed Tamimi’s relative in the head, leaving the teenage boy in a coma, and then invaded her family home. She demanded that the occupying Israeli soldiers leave her property immediately, shouting “don’t touch me” and “leave!” Now she’s in Israeli military detention, where 75% of Palestinian children report assault.

AHED TAMIMI will go to trial on Christmas Day for slapping an Israeli soldier, illegally trespassing on her property, the day after her 15-year-old cousin was shot in the face. In December 2011, Mustafa Tamimi was killed during a protest in the village when an Israeli soldier shot him in the face with a tear gas canister. One year later, Israeli soldiers shot and killed Rashadi Tamimi in the village. One wonders why the “slap” is the Crime?

Sign this petition:

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on Free Ahed Tamimi. Sign this petition!

US-Saudi nuclear talks: A barometer for whither the Middle East?


US-Saudi nuclear transfer

By James M. Dorsey

Talks aimed at transferring US nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia serve as an indicator of where the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is heading as well as the strength of the informal Saudi-Israeli alliance against Iran. The possible transfer could spark a new arms race in the Middle East and constitutes one explanation why Saudi responses to President Donald J. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel were muted and limited to rhetorical statements.

Mr Trump’s decision was perhaps most challenging for the Saudis, who as custodians of Islam’s two holiest cities, would have been expected to play a leading role in protecting the status of the city that is home to the faith’s third holiest site. Saudi Arabia was represented at this the recent summit of Islamic countries in Istanbul that recognised East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine by its foreign minister, Adil al-Jubayr, rather than the king, crown prince or another senior member of the ruling family.

The difficulty for the Saudis goes beyond their close cooperation with Israel, willingness to increasingly publicly hint at what long was a secret relationship, and their position as the USA’s closest friend in the Arab world, who reportedly was willing to endorse a US-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace plan in the making that would fail to meet the minimum demanded by Palestinians and Arab public opinion.

In the president’s [Trump] latest effort, his administration is weighing allowing Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium as part of a deal that would ensure that bids by Westinghouse Electric Co. and other US companies to build nuclear reactors in the kingdom are successful.

With Mr Trump backing Saudi efforts to counter Iranian influence in a swath of land stretching from Asia to the Atlantic coast of Africa despite mounting US criticism of the kingdom’s conduct of its military intervention in Yemen, Riyadh has a vested interest in maintaining its close ties to Washington. While having been put in an awkward position, international condemnation of Mr Trump’s Jerusalem move has also increased Saudi leverage.

Mr Trump’s support for Saudi Arabia as well as his transactional approach to foreign policy that aims to further US business interests holds out the promise of tipping the Middle East’s military balance of power in favour of the kingdom.

In the president’s latest effort, his administration is weighing allowing Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium as part of a deal that would ensure that bids by Westinghouse Electric Co. and other US companies to build nuclear reactors in the kingdom are successful. Past US reluctance to endorse Saudi enrichment and reprocessing of uranium has put purveyors of US nuclear technology at a disadvantage.

Saudi Arabia agreed with the US in 2008 not to pursue enrichment and reprocessing but has since backed away from that pledge. “They wouldn’t commit, and it was a sticking point,” said Max Bergmann, a former special assistant to the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Testifying to Congress in November, Christopher Ford, the US National Security Council’s senior director for weapons of mass destruction and counterproliferation, refused to commit the Trump administration to the US restrictions. The restrictions are “not a legal requirement. It is a desired outcome”, Mr Ford said. He added that the 2015 international agreement with Iran that severely restricts the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme for at least a decade, made it more difficult for the United States to insist on limiting other countries’ enrichment capabilities.

Saudi Arabia plans to construct 16 nuclear power reactors by 2030 at a cost of an estimated $100 billion. Officially, Saudi Arabia sees nuclear power as a way of freeing up more oil for export in a country that has witnessed dramatic increases in domestic consumption and contributing to diversification of its economy. It would also enhance Saudi efforts to ensure parity with Iran in the kingdom’s ability to enrich uranium and its quest to be the Middle East’s long-term, dominant power.

Saudi Arabia has large uranium deposits of its own. In preparation of requesting bids for its nuclear programme, Saudi Arabia in October asked the US, France, South Korea, Russia and China for preliminary information. In addition to the United States, the kingdom has in recent years concluded a  number of nuclear-related understandings with China as well as with France, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and Argentina.

Mr Trump’s apparent willingness to ease US restrictions services his campaign promise to revive and revitalise America’s nuclear industry and meet competition from Russia and China. Saudi contracts are crucial for Westinghouse, a nuclear technology pioneer whose expertise is used in more than half of the world’s nuclear power plants. Westinghouse declared bankruptcy in March because of delays in two US projects.

Dropping restrictions on Saudi enrichment could not only fuel Saudi-Iranian rivalry that has wreaked havoc across the region, but also encourage other recipients of US nuclear technology to demand similar rights.

A deal that would lift US restrictions in return for acquiring US technology could enmesh Saudi Arabia in bitter domestic political battles in Washington evolving around alleged Russian interference in the election that brought Mr Trump to office. Controversial Trump campaign aide and short-lived national security advisor Michael Flynn sought to persuade Israel to accept the kingdom’s nuclear program as part of his efforts to promote Russian nuclear interests in the Middle East.

Mr Trump’s willingness, against the backdrop of uncertainty about his readiness to uphold US adherence to the 2015 agreement with Iran, could unleash an arms race in the Middle East and North Africa. Mr Trump recently refused to certify to Congress that Iran was compliant with the agreement.

Dropping restrictions on Saudi enrichment could not only fuel Saudi-Iranian rivalry that has wreaked havoc across the region, but also encourage other recipients of US nuclear technology to demand similar rights. The United Arab Emirates and Egypt have accepted restrictions on enrichment in their nuclear deals with US companies as long as those limitations were imposed on all countries in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia has long been suspected of having an interest in ensuring that it would have the ability to develop a military nuclear capability if ever deemed necessary. For decades, Saudi cooperation with nuclear power Pakistan has been a source of speculation about the kingdom’s ambition.

Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, asserted that Saudi Arabia’s close ties to the Pakistani military and intelligence during the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s gave the kingdom arms’ length access to his country’s nuclear capabilities.

“By the 1980s, the Saudi ambassador was a regular guest of A.Q. Khan,” or Abdul Qadeer Khan, the controversial nuclear physicist and metallurgical engineer who fathered Pakistan’s atomic bomb,” Mr Haqqani said in an interview.

Similarly, retired Pakistani Major-General Feroz Hassan Khan, the author of a semi-official history of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, has no doubt about the kingdom’s interest.

“Saudi Arabia provided generous financial support to Pakistan that enabled the nuclear programme to continue, especially when the country was under sanctions,” Mr Khan said in a separate interview. Mr Khan was referring to US sanctions imposed in 1998 because of Pakistan’s development of a nuclear weapons capability. He noted that at a time of economic crisis, Pakistan was with Saudi help able “to pay premium prices for expensive technologies.”

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security said in a report earlier this year that it had uncovered evidence that future Pakistani “assistance would not involve Pakistan supplying Saudi Arabia with a full nuclear weapon or weapons; however, Pakistan may assist in other important ways, such as supplying sensitive equipment, materials and know-how used in enrichment or reprocessing.”

The report said it was unclear whether “Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may be cooperating on sensitive nuclear technologies in Pakistan. In an extreme case, Saudi Arabia may be financing, or will finance, an unsafeguarded uranium enrichment facility in Pakistan for later use, either in a civil or military program,” the report said.

The report concluded that the nuclear agreement with Iran dubbed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) had “not eliminated the kingdom’s desire for nuclear weapons capabilities and even nuclear weapons… There is little reason to doubt that Saudi Arabia will more actively seek nuclear weapons capabilities, motivated by its concerns about the ending of the JCPOA’s major nuclear limitations starting after year 10 of the deal or sooner if the deal fails,” the report said.

Rather than embarking on a covert programme, the report predicted that Saudi Arabia would, for now, focus on building up its civilian nuclear infrastructure as well as a robust nuclear engineering and scientific workforce. This would allow the kingdom to take command of all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle at some point in the future.

“The current situation suggests that Saudi Arabia now has both a high disincentive to pursue nuclear weapons in the short term and a high motivation to pursue them over the long term,” the Washington Institute said.

Posted in USA, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on US-Saudi nuclear talks: A barometer for whither the Middle East?

Nazi regime: EU Deal excluding settlements



Nazi regime has approved an agreement with the EU that includes a provision excluding funding for settlements, seemingly consenting to the EU’s boycott of settlements.

The agreement centers on Israel’s part in the EU’s ENI Cross-Border Cooperation in the Mediterranean (CBC Med) program, which provides funds for projects for non-EU countries in the Mediterranean area, such as Israel, Egypt and Jordan, Haaretz reports. The projects are largely focused on promoting development, education, technology and environmental sustainability.

As per EU policy, the ENI CBC Med agreement contains a provision which excludes areas outside Israel’s 1967 borders from receiving grants. This means Israeli settlements inside the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (which were occupied by Israel in the conflict) cannot receive funding under the program.

Israeli settlements inside Palestinian territories are considered both an impediment to the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, and to be in violation of a number of UN resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israel’s Culture and Sport Minister, Miri Regev, voiced her objections to the agreement to the cabinet secretary earlier in the month. She fought against the deal at the cabinet meeting, the Jewish Press reports, but no other minister agreed to second her motion to delay the vote pending further debate.

The deal was given final approval by the government Sunday, after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed off on the measure last week. It’s also been approved by the Justice Ministry and Foreign Ministry, Haaretz reports. The foreign ministry is said to have led the charge for Israel to be part of the program.

The agreement is at odds with the Israeli government’s stance on settlements, which it continues to develop within the occupied territories in disregard of the EU and others’ condemnation. Netanyahu is also a fierce opponent to the international Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which calls for boycotts and sanctions against Israel.

“My fundamental position is that the Israeli government should reject agreements from the outset that require us on a de facto basis to boycott portions of the homeland or populations living in the Golan Heights, Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] other than with very limited exceptions,” Regev wrote in her letter.

“I do not see the justification to compromise and with one hand sign the agreement while with our other demanding that the world give de facto recognition to our right to a united Jerusalem and even to move embassies to Israel’s capital,” she added.

Aside from the settlement matter, Regev’s letter to Cabinet Secretary Tzachi Braverman also took issue with the text of the agreement referring to the Palestinian Authority “as if it were a neighboring country.”

It is “not acceptable to me,” she said.

 The far-right Regev managed to halt a similar agreement with the EU last year. A Creative Europe culture and media program contained a similar provision excluding settlements, and, although Netanyahu had given consent, Regev stopped it from going ahead. Earlier this month, Regev succeeded in forcing  the NBA remove a reference to Palestine as being “occupied territory.”

Read more:

Enough is enough’: Norway’s trade unions vote to boycott Israel over Palestine

Posted in Europe, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi regime: EU Deal excluding settlements

Nazi Policeman Urinating on Face of Hand-cuffed Palestinian


The detective led the detainee to the police station restroom, the indictment states, and allegedly urinating in the detainee’s face after failing to close the stall door

ed note–keep in mind that compared to other things that have taken place in the past, including Judaic bloodbaths such as those taking place at Deir Yassin (where young Arab girls were brutally raped and murdered by God’s chosen land thieves and pregnant Arab mothers-to-be literally had their bellies slit open and the babies in them ripped out and killed) that what took place with this hebraic cop urinating on the face of a Palestinian Gentile is almost ‘gentle’ in its delivery.

Also keep in mind that the only reason that this cop finds himself in the clutches of Judaic legal measures is because of the internet and the growing awareness on the part of many around the world exactly what ‘Jewish values’ are as they exist within the ‘Jewish state’, and that the powers that be know that if some kind of show is not made in dealing with this that it could go down very badly for Israel and that therefore all the Jrama we are witnessing with regards to any ‘investigation’ and any subsequent prosecution is just for show and merely an application of Israel’s motto ‘by way of deception, we shall make war’.


The Justice Ministry’s police conduct investigation unit has filed criminal charges against a policeman from the Israel Police station in the West Bank settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim for allegedly urinating in the face of a bound Palestinian at the station.

According to the indictment, which was filed several weeks ago, the policeman, Ya’akov Ben-Nissim Cohen, urinated on the Palestinian, Mohammed Warani, in the station’s restroom.

The filing of the indictment for abuse came on the orders of the High Court of Justice in February after Warani filed a petition with the court challenging the Justice Ministry’s decision to close the file against Cohen, even though under interrogation Cohen had admitted some of the allegations against him.

According to the indictment, the incident occurred in 2007, when Cohen was working as a detective at the station. That night, November 6, Warani, and another Palestinian, both of whom were from the West Bank town of Al-Eizariya, adjacent to Ma’aleh Adumim.

While Warani was handcuffed and blindfolded, Cohen led him to the police station restroom, the indictment states, and sat Warani on a toilet seat in a narrow bathroom stall and kicked the detainee’s legs in an effort to close the stall door. After not managing to close the stall, Cohen allegedly climbed up on a ledge to close the door and then proceeded to urinate in Warani’s face.

Under interrogation, Cohen initially denied the allegations against him but when told that his DNA had been found on Warani’s clothing, Cohen admitted to “an unusual incident,” the indictment alleges.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi Policeman Urinating on Face of Hand-cuffed Palestinian

Global Warfare. Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran


Recent news reports point to a so-called “secret plan” to destroy and destabilize Iran, the first step of which is a color revolution.

The fact of the matter is that these not so secret plans to wage war on Iran have been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since the mid-nineties as outlined in Michel Chossudovsky’s 2010 article published below (scroll down):

“The medium term strategic objective is to target Iran and neutralize Iran’s allies, through gunboat diplomacy. The longer term military objective is to directly target China and Russia.

While Iran is the immediate target, military deployment is by no means limited to the Middle East and Central Asia. A global military agenda has been formulated.

The deployment of coalition troops and advanced weapons systems by the US, NATO and its partners is occurring simultaneously in all major regions of the World.

The recent actions of the US military off the coast of North Korea [2010] including the conduct of war games are part of a global design.” (Michel Chossudovsky, August 1, 2010)


Global Warfare. Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran

By Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research

August 1, 2010

Humanity is at a dangerous crossroads. War preparations to attack Iran are in “an advanced state of readiness”. Hi tech weapons systems including nuclear warheads are fully deployed.

This military adventure has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board since the mid-1990s. First Iraq, then Iran according to a declassified 1995 US Central Command document.

Escalation is part of the military agenda. While Iran in 2010], is the next target together with Syria and Lebanon, this strategic military deployment also threatens North Korea, China and Russia.

Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America’s NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated.

This is a coordinated endeavor of the Pentagon, NATO, Israel’s Defense Force (IDF), with the active military involvement of several non-NATO partner countries including the frontline Arab states (members of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative), Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia, among others. (NATO consists of 28 NATO member states  Another 21 countries are members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), The Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative include ten Arab countries plus Israel.)

The roles of Egypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (within the extended military alliance) is of particular relevance. Egypt controls the transit of war ships and oil tankers through the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States occupy the South Western coastlines of the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. In early June [2010], “Egypt reportedly allowed one Israeli and eleven U.S. ships to pass through the Suez Canal in ….an apparent signal to Iran. … On June 12, regional press outlets reported that the Saudis had granted Israel the right to fly over its airspace…” (Muriel Mirak Weissbach,  Israel’s Insane War on Iran Must Be Prevented., Global Research, July 31, 2010)

In post 9/11 military doctrine, this massive deployment of military hardware has been defined as part of the so-called  “Global War on Terrorism”, targeting “non-State” terrorist organizations including al Qaeda and so-called “State sponsors of terrorism”,. including Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan.

The setting up of new US military bases, the stockpiling of advanced weapons systems including tactical nuclear weapons, etc. were implemented as part of the pre-emptive defensive military doctrine under the umbrella of the “Global War on Terrorism”.

War and the Economic Crisis

The broader implications of a US-NATO Israel attack on Iran are far-reaching. The war and the economic crisis are intimately related. The war economy is financed by Wall Street, which stands as the creditor of the US administration. The US weapons producers are the recipients of the US Department of Defense multibillion dollar procurement contracts for advanced weapons systems. In turn, “the battle for oil” in the Middle East and Central Asia directly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The US and its allies are “beating the drums of war” at the height of a Worldwide economic depression, not to mention the most serious environmental catastrophe in World history. In a bitter twist, one of the major players (BP) on the Middle East Central Asia geopolitical chessboard, formerly known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, is the instigator of the ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Media Disinformation

Public opinion, swayed by media hype is tacitly supportive, indifferent or ignorant as to the likely impacts of what is upheld as an ad hoc “punitive” operation directed against Iran’s nuclear facilities rather than an all out war. War preparations include the deployment of  US and Israeli produced nuclear weapons. In this context, the devastating consequences of a nuclear war are either trivialised or simply not mentioned.

The “real crisis” threatening humanity, according to the media and the governments, is not war but global warming. The media will fabricate a crisis where there is no crisis: “a global scare” — the H1N1 global pandemic– but nobody seems to fear a US sponsored nuclear war.

The war on Iran is presented to public opinion as an issue among others. It is not viewed as a threat to “Mother Earth” as in the case of global warming. It is not front-page news. The fact that an attack on Iran could lead to escalation and potentially unleash a “global war” is not a matter of concern.

The Cult of Killing and Destruction

The global killing machine is also sustained by an imbedded cult of killing and destruction which pervades Hollywood movies, not to mention the prime time war and crime TV series on network television. This cult of killing is endorsed by the CIA and the Pentagon which also support (finance) Hollywood productions as an instrument of war propaganda:

“Ex-CIA agent Bob Baer told us, “There’s a symbiosis between the CIA and Hollywood” and revealed that former CIA director George Tenet is currently, “out in Hollywood, talking to studios.” (Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham, Lights, Camera… Covert Action: The Deep Politics of Hollywood, Global Research, January 31, 2009).


The killing machine is deployed at a global level, within the framework of the unified combat command structure. It is routinely upheld by the institutions of government, the corporate media and the mandarins and intellectuals of the New World Order in Washington’s think tanks and strategic studies research institutes, as an unquestioned instrument of peace and global prosperity.

A culture of killing and violence has become imbedded in human consciousness.

War is broadly accepted as part of a societal process: The Homeland needs to be “defended” and protected.

“Legitimized violence” and extrajudicial killings directed against “terrorists” are upheld in western democracies, as necessary instruments of national security.

A “humanitarian war” is upheld by the so-called international community. It is not condemned as a criminal act. Its main architects are rewarded for their contributions to world peace.

With regard to Iran, what is unfolding is the outright legitimization of war in the name of an illusive notion of global security.

A “Pre-emptive” Aerial attack directed against Iran would lead to Escalation

At present [2010] there are three separate Middle East Central Asia war theaters: Iraq, Af-Pak, and Palestine.

Were Iran to be the object of a “pre-emptive” aerial attack by allied forces, the entire region, from the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan, would flare up, leading us potentially into a World War III scenario.

The war would also extend into Lebanon and Syria.

It is highly unlikely that the bombings, if they were to be implemented, would be circumscribed to Iran’s nuclear facilities as claimed by US-NATO official statements. What is more probable is an all out air attack on both military and civilian infrastructure, transport systems, factories, public buildings.

Iran, with an an estimated ten percent of global oil and gas reserves, ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. The oil reserves of the U.S. are estimated at less than 20 billion barrels. The broader region of the Middle East and Central Asia have oil reserves which are more than thirty times those of the U.S, representing more than 60% of the World’s total reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Research, December 2004).

Of significance is the recent discovery in Iran of the second largest known reserves of natural gas at Soumar and Halgan estimated at 12.4 trillion cubic feet.

Targeting Iran consists not only in reclaiming Anglo-American control over Iran’s oil and gas economy, including pipeline routes, it also challenges the presence and influence of China and Russia in the region.

The planned attack on Iran is part of a coordinated global military road map. It is part of the Pentagon’s “long war”,  a profit driven war without borders, a project of World domination, a sequence of military operations.

US-NATO military planners have envisaged various scenarios of military escalation. They are also acutely aware of the geopolitical implications, namely that the war could extend beyond the Middle East Central Asia region. The economic impacts on the oil markets, etc. have also been analyzed.

While Iran, Syria and Lebanon are the immediate targets, China, Russia, North Korea, not to mention Venezuela and Cuba are also the object of US threats.

At stake is the structure of military alliances. US-NATO-Israel military deployments including military exercises and drills conducted on Russia and China’s immediate borders bear a direct relationship to the proposed war on Iran. These veiled threats, including their timing, constitute an obvious hint to the former powers of the Cold War era not to intervene in any way which could encroach upon a US-led attack on Iran.

Global Warfare

The medium term strategic objective is to target Iran and neutralize Iran’s allies, through gunboat diplomacy. The longer term military objective is to directly target China and Russia.

While Iran is the immediate target, military deployment is by no means limited to the Middle East and Central Asia. A global military agenda has been formulated.

The deployment of coalition troops and advanced weapons systems by the US, NATO and its partners is occurring simultaneously in all major regions of the World.

The recent actions of the US military off the coast of North Korea including the conduct of war games are part of a global design.

Directed primarily against Russia and China, US, NATO and allied military exercises, war drills, weapons deployments, etc. are being conducted simultaneously in major geopolitical hotspots.

-The Korean Peninsula, the Sea of Japan, the Taiwan Straits, the South China Sea threatening China.

-The deployment of Patriot missiles in Poland, the early warning center in the Czech republic threatening Russia.

-Naval deployments in Bulgaria, Romania on the Black Sea, threatening Russia.

– US and NATO troops deployments in Georgia.

– A formidable naval deployment in the Persian Gulf including Israeli submarines directed against Iran.

Concurrently the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Caribbean, Central America and the Andean region of South America are areas of ongoing militarization. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the threats are directed against Venezuela and Cuba.

US “Military Aid”

In turn, large scale weapons transfers have been undertaken under the banner of US “military aid” to selected countries, including a 5 billion dollar arms deal with India which is intended to build India’s capabilities directed against China. (Huge U.S.-India Arms Deal To Contain China, Global Times, July 13, 2010).

“[The] arms sales will improve ties between Washington and New Delhi, and, intentionally or not, will have the effect of containing China’s influence in the region.” quoted in Rick Rozoff, Confronting both China and Russia: U.S. Risks Military Clash With China In Yellow Sea, Global Research, July 16, 2010)

The US has military cooperation agreements with a number of South East Asian countries including Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia, involving “military aid” as well as the participation in U.S.-led war games in the Pacific Rim (July -August 2010). These agreements are supportive of weapons deployments directed against The People’s Republic of China. (See Rick Rozoff, Confronting both China and Russia: U.S. Risks Military Clash With China In Yellow Sea, Global Research, July 16, 2010).

Similarly and more directly related to the planned attack on Iran, the US is arming the Gulf States (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) with land-based interceptor missiles, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) as well as sea-based Standard Missile-3 interceptors installed on Aegis class warships in the Persian Gulf. (See Rick Rozoff,  NATO’s Role In The Military Encirclement Of Iran, Global Research, February 10, 2010).

The Timetable of Military Stockpiling and Deployment

What is crucial in regards to US weapons transfers to partner countries and allies is the actual timing of delivery and deployment. The launch of a US sponsored military operation would normally occur once these weapons systems are in place, effectively deployed with the implementation of personnel training. (e.g India).

What we are dealing with is a carefully coordinated global military design controlled by the Pentagon, involving the combined armed forces of more than forty countries. This global multinational military deployment is by far the largest display of advanced weapons systems in World history.

In turn, the US and its allies have established new military bases in different parts of the world.  “The Surface of the Earth is Structured as a Wide Battlefield”. (See Jules Dufour, The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases , Global Research, July 1, 2007).

The Unified Command structure divided up into geographic Combatant Commands is predicated on a strategy of militarization at the global level. “The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.” (See Jules Dufour, The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases , Global Research, July 1, 2007

Source: DefenseLINK-Unified Command Plan

World War III Scenario

“The World Commanders’ Areas of Responsibility” (See Map above) defines the Pentagon’s global military design, which is one of World conquest.  This military deployment is occurring in several regions simultaneously under the coordination of the regional US Commands, involving the stockpiling of US made weapons systems by US forces and partner countries, some of which are former enemies, including Vietnam and Japan.

The present context is characterised by a global military build-up controlled by one World superpower, which is using its numerous allies to trigger regional wars.

In contrast, the Second World War was a conjunction of separate regional war theaters. Given the communications technologies and weapons systems of the 1940s, there was no strategic “real time” coordination in military actions between broad geographic regions

Global warfare is based on the coordinated deployment of a single dominant military power, which oversees the actions of its allies and partners.

With the exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Second World War was characterized by the use of conventional weapons. The planning of  a global war relies on the militarization of outer space. Were a war directed against iran to be launched, it would not only use nuclear weapons, the entire gamut of new advanced weapons systems, including electrometric weapons and environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) would be used.

The United Nations Security Council

The UN Security Council adopted in early June a fourth round of sweeping sanctions against The Islamic Republic of Iran, which included an expanded arms embargo as well “tougher financial controls”. In a bitter irony, this resolution was passed within days of the United Nations Secrity Council’s outright refusal to adopt a motion condemning Israel for its attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters.

Both China and Russia, pressured by the US, have endorsed the UNSC sanctions’ regime, to their own detriment. Their decision within the UNSC contributes to weakening their own military alliance, the Shanghai  Cooperation organization (SCO), in which Iran has observer status. The Security Council resolution freezes China and Russia’s respective bilateral military cooperation and trade agreements with Iran. It has serious repercussions on Iran’s air defense system which in part depends on Russian technology and expertise.

The Security Council resolution grants a de facto “green light” to wage a pre-emptive war against Iran.

The American Inquisition: Building a Political Consensus for War

In chorus, the Western media has branded Iran as a threat to global security in view of its alleged (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. Echoing official statements, the media is now demanding the implementation of punitive bombings directed against Iran so as to safeguard Israel’s security.

The Western media is beating the drums of war. The purpose is to tacitly instil, through repeated media reports, ad nauseam, within people’s inner consciousness, the notion that the Iranian threat is real and that the Islamic Republic should be “taken out”.

A consensus building process to wage war is similar to the Spanish inquisition. It requires and demands submission to the notion that war is a humanitarian endeavor.

Known and documented, the real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance, yet realities in an inquisitorial environment are turned upside down: the warmongers are committed to peace, the victims of war are presented as the protagonists of war. Whereas in 2006, almost two thirds of Americans were opposed to military action against Iran, a recent Reuter-Zogby February 2010 poll suggests that 56 % of Americans favor a US-NATO military action against Iran.

Building a political consensus which is based on an outright lie cannot, however, rely solely on the official position of those who are the source of the lie.

The antiwar movement in the US, which has in part been infiltrated and co-opted, has taken on a weak stance with regard to Iran. The antiwar movement is divided. The emphasis has been on wars which have already occurred (Afghanistan, Iraq) rather than forcefully opposing wars which are being prepared and which are currently on the Pentagon’s drawing board. Since the inauguration of the Obama administration, the antiwar movement has lost some of its impetus.

Moreover, those who  actively oppose the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, do not necessarily oppose the conduct of “punitive bombings” directed Iran, nor do they categorize these bombings as an act of war, which could potentially be a prelude to World War III.

The scale of antiwar protest in relation to Iran has been minimal in comparison to the mass demonstrations which preceded the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq.

The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance.

The Iran operation is not being opposed in the diplomatic arena by China and Russia; it has the support of the governments of the frontline Arab states which are integrated into the NATO sponsored Mediterranean dialogue. It also has the tacit support of Western public opinion.

We call upon people across the land, in America,  Western Europe, Israel, Turkey and around the world to rise up against this military project, against their governments which are supportive of military action against Iran, against the media which serves to camouflage the devastating implications of a war against Iran.

The military agenda support a profit driven destructive global economic system which impoverishes large sectors of the world population.

This war is sheer madness.

World War III is terminal. Albert Einstein understood the perils of nuclear war and the extinction of life on earth, which has already started with the radioactive contamination resulting from depleted uranium. “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

The media, the intellectuals, the scientists and the politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the untold truth, namely that war using nuclear warheads destroys humanity, and that this complex process of gradual destruction has already commenced.

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor, Justice and the entire international legal system are turned upside down: pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized. Opposing the war becomes a criminal act.

The Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.

It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow human beings.

It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and the police state as the sole avenue.

It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.

Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.

This profit driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

Let us reverse the tide.

Challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.

Break the American inquisition.

Undermine the US-NATO-Israel military crusade.

Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.

Bring home the troops.

Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal war.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. he can be reached at the website



**NEW: Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War

click to order

by Michel Chossudovsky


Related Articles 

“War without Borders”: Obama’s “Long War” 
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-05-15
VIDEO: Will US-NATO Start World War III by Attacking Iran?
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-02-20

Any kind of military action directed against Iran would immediately lead to escalation

Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2009-10-11

When fiction becomes truth and truth becomes fiction. When a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor.

US-NATO Military Agenda: The Destabilization of Pakistan
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2009-04-17

9/11 and the “American Inquisition”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-09-11

Anybody who opposes the American Inquisition is a heretic conspiracy theorist or an accomplice of the terrorists.
The Eurasian Corridor: Pipeline Geopolitics and the New Cold War 
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-08-22

The ongoing crisis in the Caucasus is intimately related to the strategic control over energy pipeline & transportation corridors.

“Naval Blockade” or All Out War Against Iran?
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-08-13

AUDIO: “Iran: All Out War or Economic Conquest” 
Radio Interview
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-07-19

Planned US Israeli Attack on Iran: Will there be a War against Iran? 
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-05-14

Since the mid-1990s, as part of strategic “sequencing” of “in war theater operations”, USCENTCOM had formulated plans to invade first Iraq and then Iran.

The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend “The Western Way of Life” 
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-02-11

For NATO and the Pentagon, the option of a nuclear first strike is indispensable.

Bush’s World War Three
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-10-17

The specter of a nuclear holocaust, which haunted the world for half a century has been relegated to the status of “collateral damage”.

VIDEO: America’s “Long War”. From the Truman Doctrine to the NeoCons
The History of US War Crimes
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-07-05

It is a profit driven military agenda. The “Global War on Terrorism” is a Fabrication.

“Islamic Terrorists” supported by Uncle Sam: Bush Administration “Black Ops” directed against Iran, Lebanon and Syria
– by Prof Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-05-31

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a “Black Op” to destabilize Iran

The War on Iran.
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-04-01

The US war games were conducted at a time of diplomatic tension and confrontation. Both the US and Iran are on a war footing

The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy 
From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-02-05

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.

Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?.
Detailed article published in February 2006
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-07

The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts & realities upside down. It states that nuclear weapons are “safe” and their use will ensure “minimal collateral damage”.

Nuclear War on Iran
Detailed review first published in January 2006
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-07

Planned US-Israeli Nuclear Attack on Iran
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-07

The “Demonization” of Muslims and the Battle for Oil
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-04

Muslim countries possess three quarters of the World’s oil reserves. In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Global Warfare. Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran

Foreign Intervention Behind Iran Protests. CIA Instigated Street Violence?



Iranian President Hassan Rouhani attributes days of violence to foreign intervention, saying:

“The enemies of the Islamic Republic of Iran are angry with the glory, success, and the progress of the Iranian nation, and they have vowed to get the regional troubles into Iran, but, sure, the people and officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to them.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry expressed a similar view, saying

“(e)xternal interference destabilizing the situation (in Iran) is unacceptable.”

Lethally shooting around 20 or Iranians through New Year’s day, including at least one policeman, suggests foreign interference.

What’s going on resembles March 2011 protests in Daraa, Syria. US-supported armed protesters fired on police, instigating conflict.

Security forces responded to violent armed insurgents, killing civilians and police, attacking government offices.

What began in Daraa, spread elsewhere in Syria, things escalating into Obama’s war, unresolved nearly seven years later.

Events are also similar to late 2013, early 2014 Euromaidan violent protests in Kiev. The Obama administration’s coup involved snipers, killing and injuring hundreds of civilians and police, firing on them with automatic weapons from Kiev’s Philharmonic Hall.

Witnesses saw them carrying military-style bags used for sniper and assault rifles with optical sights.

Ahead of the uprising, Maidan leaders practically lived at Washington’s embassy in Kiev. US-supported putschists toppled Ukraine’s democratic government.

Fascist tyranny replaced it – the most brazen European coup since Mussolini’s 1922 march on Rome.

Events in Iran also eerily similar to earlier CIA-instigated street violence in Venezuela, scores killed, hundreds injured – a US-orchestrated color revolution attempt to replace Bolivarian social democracy with fascist tyranny.

Tactics included shootings, roadside bombs, arson and other vandalism against state facilities, barricades of burning rubbish, blocking roads, destroying a food storage depot, and holding a maternity hospital under siege.

Later, a helicopter attacked the Interior Ministry and Supreme Court. Other disruptive tactics were used.

Since early in Hugo Chavez’s tenure, Washington sought regime change. The Trump administration is committed to ousting President Nicolas Maduro, perhaps a renewed attempt to come this year.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali Shamkhani said a “proxy war” is being waged against the Islamic Republic on streets and via social media.

He blamed Washington, Britain and Saudi Arabia for what’s going on.

“Based on our analyses, around 27 percent of the new hashtags against Iran are generated by the Saudi government,” he explained.

Israel’s dirty hands are involved, long wanting its main regional rival eliminated, pro-Western puppet rule replacing the Islamic Republic.

A “small and minority group” is responsible for rioting, lawbreaking and violence, Rouhani said.

Reportedly, Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is now in charge of cracking down on elements responsible for violence if it continues – ongoing since December 28.

On Monday, a policeman was lethally shot, three others wounded from gunfire, the death toll mounting, anti-government armed gunmen responsible.

Maryam Rajavi from the so-called People’s Mujahedin of Iran called on Washington, Brussels and the Security Council to intervene. The CIA-supported group calls for toppling the Islamic Republic violently.

Trump and Netanyahu expressed support for protesters. Reportedly, Washington and Israel may try to assassinate IRGC al-Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani.

He’s in charge of Iranian anti-terrorist operations in Syria.

Things remain volatile. They bear the disturbing earmarks of an attempted US-orchestrated color revolution.

Iran is well aware of what’s going on, its security forces trained and able to confront made-in-the-USA violence and instability.

Posted in USA, C.I.A, IranComments Off on Foreign Intervention Behind Iran Protests. CIA Instigated Street Violence?

The US- Nazi regime New “Secret” Anti-Iran Plans

The US and Israel’s New “Secret” Anti-Iran Plans

While Russia strives to move Syria on from a stage of war and bloody anarchy to one of peace, stability and reconstruction — by inviting all parties to next month’s Sochi conference to agree a roadmap including a new constitution and presidential and parliamentary elections – the US and Israel are drawing up plans to detonate the region and plunge it into new wars on the pretext of confronting the Iranian threat.

Israel’s Channel 10 has revealed that a secret agreement was reached on 12 December, following talks between Israeli national security advisor Meir Ben-Shabbat and his US counterpart H R McMaster, for the two sides to take action and devise scenarios against Iran on several fronts. This reportedly entails measures aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, rolling back its presence in Syria, and confronting its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon. The White House later confirmed the existence of the agreement after news of it was leaked to media.

Two major developments are expected to unfold in the region in the new year. First, the collapse of the Islamic State (IS) and its loss of most of its territory in Syria, and secondly, the defeat of the American project in Syria. This was based on using armed opposition groups to topple the regime of President Bashar al-Asad, and was thwarted by the Syrian Arab army’s steadfastness, the intervention of Russia, and the support of allies like Iran and Hezbollah, putting Syria on the threshold of a new phase of national reconciliation and renewal.

Against this backdrop, the current US administration fears its influence in the region is receding in favour of Russia and China and of regional powers such as Iran and Turkey. The Israeli occupation state, for is part, is alarmed by the strength of Hezbollah and its growing military capabilities, and fears the consequences of it emerging triumphant from the Syrian conflict and being able to devote is attention fully to confronting the Israeli threat and opening new attrition fronts against it in South Lebanon and southwestern Syria.

Neither Channel 10 nor the White House gave away details of the plans and scenarios that the US and Israel might pursue against Iran and Hezbollah. But it is obvious that one of these scenarios is to try to destabilize Iran from within by engineering disturbances or protests and activating a number of armed separatist groups. Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin-Salman, one of the Trump administration’s closest Middle Eastern allies, said as much openly in a TV interview some months ago. He warned his country was going to ‘take the war inside Iran’ as a pre-emptive measure – meaning before Iran tries to take the ‘war’ into Saudi Arabia. It would not be surprising if the demonstrations held on Friday in several Iranian towns in protest at inflation were in some part a product of that strategy.

It is doubtful that any US and Israeli scheme to remove Iran and its influence from Syria and Lebanon would stand much chance of succeeding, unless it envisages all-out war. Even then, it would be a dangerous gamble that could have catastrophic consequences, particularly for the Israeli occupation state. If the US’ Patriot missiles were unable to intercept the handful of home-made rockets fired by Yemen’s Houthis against Saudi cities, Israel’s Iron Dome system is unlikely to fare better against Hezbollah’s more advanced and accurate missiles, especially if they are fired in their hundreds, if not thousands, against Israeli cities.

The threat faced by Israel has been compounded. The main threat is from within: from the stirring of a new Palestinian uprising and the prospect of it developing into a campaign of armed resistance. This is not unlikely given the recent firing of missiles from the Gaza Strip at Israeli settlements to is north, and the emergence into the open of Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s alliance with Iran – with Qasem Soleimani,head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Brigade, boasting of having been in direct contact with the two Palestinian Islamist groups’ military commanders.

Israel and the US’ threats may be tantamount to psychological warfare, or they could be aimed at reassuring their frightened Arab allies and prompting them to spend tens of billions more dollars on American weaponry. Either the way, the coming year may prove to be a frightening one for the US and its Israeli ally. They may try their luck, but the outcomes will definitely not be to their liking. For the region is changing — and fast.


Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on The US- Nazi regime New “Secret” Anti-Iran Plans

Jewish Identity Politics and the Struggle to Liberate Palestine


Jewish identity politics complicate the Palestinian response to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Sometimes it seems impossible to address the crux of the matter, the Jewish state Nakba in Palestine, without being subjected to attacks one way or another.

On the last day of 2017, I posted a meme on my Facebook wall that provoked a long and heated argument.

The meme went like this:

In 2018, we’ll stop substituting ‘settlers’ for ‘Jews’.

The year 2017 saw activist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and the US Campaign against the Occupation (now named the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights) make a shift in the tactics they used. They explicitly adopted all the goals of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.

BDS goals are:

Ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

In practical terms, and regardless of the political arrangement required to implement these goals (one state or two), complying with international law regarding BDS goals means dismantling Zionism — i.e. dismantling Israel as a Jewish state.

However, the nature of Israel as a Jewish state is still being “contested” (for lack of a better word), as if concepts such as ethnicity and religious difference are still determining factors in people’s lives today and not a matter of choices, but of essences. Standing in the way of the achievement of BDS goals, among a host of other challenges, is Jewish identity politics.

In references to Jewish identity in connection with Israel, we are pushed by anti-Zionist proponents to understand that settlements in Palestine are inhabited by settlers or, at best, Jewish settlers (colonial settlers who just happen to be Jewish in religion), but not by Jews as a people in the tribal (national) sense. The Jewish Virtual Library defines Judaism as being “simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture.”

Jewish identity politics (especially in the US) includes the secular strand that marginalizes Zionist Jewish thought as “not really Jewish” — as though Zionism is not rooted in the Jewish religious idea of exile and return — and the religious strand (the Judaic rather than Jewish strand) that outlaws the Zionist notion of “return” for not being coupled with the coming of the messiah.

However, both these strands of Jewish identity representation account for a tiny minority of Jews worldwide. Most Jews support the racist, Apartheid Jewish state and its so-called “right” to exist as such.

Millions of religious and secular Jews continue to define themselves the way Israel identifies them. And, more importantly, most states in the world also continue to identify Jews as Israel identifies them.

As Harry Clark explains in the Facebook discussion I mention above:

Zionism isn’t simply “settler colonialism” or even Jewish S-C, it is “the Jewish people”, eternally separate, distinct, unassimilable. It shares this view of “Jews” with racialist anti-semitism, which explains their partnership, down to and including Nazism. Zionism was begun, not simply to colonize Palestine, but to preserve “the Jewish people” against liberalism and assimilation. There is no such thing as a “Jewish people”; it is historical fiction, Jewish race doctrine.[See The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand]

It is only relatively recently, because of anxiety that the illegal residency of Jews in East Jerusalem and the West Bank (i.e. the march toward one democratic state) would topple the shaky foundation on which the Jewish state rests, that “settlers” in the West Bank among immigrant Jews to Israel have been singled out for criticism, albeit mild, in the mainstream media.

One interlocution in the Facebook thread goes like this:

Lisa Kosowski: … the world, and the int’l Jewish community in particular, see settlers as somehow being separate & apart from the Jewish community & therefore have an excuse to avoid responsibility. Even worse, many mainstream Jewish organizations support the settlements financially and in other ways — like by their silence to acts of terrorism perpetrated by settlers. And the Israeli gov’t protects the settlers through the use of their military which is subsidized with American tax dollars. So time to end the subterfuge: if ISIS & the like are “Islamic terrorists,” then white supremacists & abortion clinic bombers are “Christian terrorists,” and settlers, IDF soldiers & border guards who commit violence are “Jewish terrorists.”

I believe strongly that it is important to address the nature of Israel as a Jewish state without obfuscation, because the beginning of Palestinian self-determination is the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Without that end, there is not ever going to be a beginning for us.

Zionism is not run-of-the-mill settler-colonialism. Had this been the case, Palestine would by now have liberated itself, as so many colonial states already have (Interestingly, as of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories  — NSGTs) — the Palestinian territory is not on the list). It is certainly not for lack of courage, steadfastness or resolve that Palestinians continue to have a boot over their necks almost 70 years after the Nakba.

In having to battle a Jewish state, Palestinians are up against a formidable foe — not only because of the considerable achievements of Jews on the world stage in almost every field of endeavor, but also because of the persecution Jews have historically experienced and Western guilt associated with that tragic history.

Another huge obstacle for us has been Zionist propaganda which has penetrated thousands of synagogues worldwide, complicating the distinctions between Judaic and Jewish.

Zionism in Palestine has been slowly but surely turning into a religious conflict. There is no doubt that among Palestinians themselves today, the strongest force driving Palestinian self-determination is Islam. We cannot and must not pretend the religious side of the struggle for liberation is nonexistent — Jew against Muslim and vice versa; Christian against Jew and Evangelical Christian for Jew.

So, what do we do? I think the first order of business is finding clarity in what has become a morass of myths, half-truths and deflections — we must open the door for discussing and understanding the complicated issue of Jewish identity as it has emerged in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish Identity Politics and the Struggle to Liberate Palestine

Shoah’s pages