Archive | May 28th, 2018

The Nazi State Confronts Anti-Semitism. But What Is It?

The State of Israel Confronts Anti-Semitism. But What Is It?

by TUT editor

The Jewish Diaspora versus the national-policy interests of the Jewish state: a dispatch from a confounding forum on the rise and spread of an old hatred

ed note–a typically Jewish screed–verbose, windy, winding, confusing, pointless and useless, but with a few very important takeaways that all Gentiles need to consider for reasons rooted in their own survival–

Ron Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress is quoted saying thus–

‘Anti-Semitism is as old as the Torah and as modern as the internet.’

Wow, talk about a mouthful. Lauder, whether realizing it or not, answers in a mere 8 words the (seemingly eternal) question which Jews, Hebrews, She-brews, Israelites, Khazars, Zionists–whatever semantic combination of letters, vowels, consonants, syllables and sounds we want to use in describing them–have been asking now for thousands of years but which they seem unable (unwilling) to rationally study and then answer for themselves.

As Lauder accurately states, hatred of the non-Gentile (the Jew) was born simultaneously with the birth of the Torah, which is, in effect, that ‘big bang’ that created Judaism and thus Jews.

Now, this is of vital importance for several reasons, a few of which we lay out here as follows–

1. Indeed, the Torah is the bedrock of Judaic identity, despite the emotionally-based counter-assertions which certain ‘experts’ make, i.e. that the Torah–which these experts claim is a ‘holy’ book–was cast away in favor of the Talmud, which these same experts (rightly) claim is an evil book. Nothing could be further from the truth however, as anyone who studies all of this rationally will plainly see that the two works of religious literature do not run counter to each other but rather act as the right and left legs on a person who utilizes each of them alternately in propelling himself forward.


2. That it is the teachings contained within the Torah that have created the Judaic mindset and the behavior that must inevitably flow from that mindset that then results in Gentile backlash that is inaccurately referred to as ‘anti-Shemitism’.

Now, the obvious question that needs exploring is as follows–If Lauder has figured out the fact that ‘anti-Shemitism’ was born simultaneously with the birth of the Torah, why does not he–as well as all his fellow gang members–just finally come to grips with the fact that it is Judaism itself that is to blame for the fever of ‘anti-Shemitism’ that has risen up in the body politic over the millenia that has resulted in ‘Joosih suffrink’ in the form of pogroms, expulsions, and–as no one is allowed to forget for a microsecond–the ‘Hollerco$t’?

Simple–because the teachings contained within the Torah–forming the basis as it were of Judaism and of the Judaic mindset–are a drug of sorts for their adherents. Through its ‘chosen people’ paradigm, it is a form of ‘Kristol Meth’ that inflates and feeds the ego while at the same time giving license to every form of criminality known to be such by any civilized standard throughout human history. Being after all GAAAAAAWD’S chosen people who have been commanded by this god–yahweh–to steal, lie, murder, dispossess and despoil the non-Hebrew, the non-Israelite, the non-Jew, the non-Khazar–again, whatever semantic combination of letters, vowels, consonants, syllables and sounds we want to use in labeling these addicts–it is the ultimate ‘get out of jail free card’ whereby the thief, the liar, the murderer, the bandit and the exploiter is set loose again on the Gentile street to continue on with his religiously-mandated life of crime.

Put another way, ‘anti-Shemitism’ is as complicated in understanding and explaining as is ‘anti-Mosquitoism’. The mosquito is by its very nature an irritating, annoying parasite that lives off of the blood of other living organisms, contributes nothing to the cycle of life other than being food for bats, has no means of feeding or sustaining itself other than by its parasitical activities and leaves in the wake of its theft an itchy bite reminding the bloodletted of what took place against his or her own will.

And likewise with the junkies of Judaism. They are, have been, and always will be a plague upon any society in which they dwell and who–in inflicting the various bites upon the Gentile body politic, never come to rational grips with the fact that in each and every instance they have been SWATTED for their parasitic behavior that the two actions–biting and swatting–go as much hand in hand with each other as Lauder’s statement concerning ‘anti-Shemitism’ being as old as the Torah itself.

The other item worth close study in this piece is the role that the diaspora plays in sustaining the Mosquito brotherhood cult worldwide, and particularly the manner by which those living in the nest require cohesion amongst their scattered brethren around the globe in order to better facilitate the flow of Gentile resources back to ‘home, sweet home’ in the Middle East.


“Without power you are dead in the world,” said Dan Meridor, former deputy prime minister and minister of intelligence and atomic energy of the State of Israel, to a worldwide assembly at Jerusalem’s International Convention Center recently. “Nobody learned this more than the Jews.”

The history of Jewish power and powerlessness can be glimpsed above and below ground at the convention center, site of the 6th Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism. The bathrooms are in a below-grade hallway next to the kilns of the 10th Roman Legion, the waist-high remains of which were discovered during the complex’s construction in the 1950s. Standing before these last pathetic fragments of the Roman army that burned the Judean capital and cast the Jewish people into 1,950-odd years of exile, attendees could be reminded of the long history of the matter at hand, along with one possible remedy to the problem—or maybe the only remedy. One of the better articulations of what more than 2,000 people were doing in Jerusalem instead of, say, Ottawa, came from Israeli TV presenter Tamar Ish-Shalom, who hosted the opening night festivities on March 19: “The defeat of anti-Semitism is one of the top foreign-policy priorities of Israel,” she read from a teleprompter.

As the only Jewish country in the world, Israel is in the unique position, and believes it has a unique responsibility, to help cure humankind of one of its oldest and deadliest hatreds. “Anti-Semitism has played an integral role in the development of western civilization,” Charles Small, the executive director of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, accurately pointed out to me. An animating if largely unspoken premise of the Forum is that Israel must therefore fight anti-Semitism as a matter of national purpose, not just for the protection of the world’s Jews but for the benefit of all humankind.

The Forum covered three days of speeches and panels, and featured everyone from the Roman nuncio in Jerusalem to Mayim Bialik. “Hatikva” was never played, and the messaging was admirably chaotic by the standards of any state-sponsored confab—but it was still unavoidably an Israeli government event. “Israel functions in the international environment as a state actor. And that means that we’re bumping into these issues all the time,” Akiva Tur, the head of Israel’s Foreign Affairs Ministry’s Bureau for World Jewish Affairs and World Religions pointed out. “I think we understand that it’s our job to be concerned.”

Yet the existence of a Jewish state only provides the means to hold such a conference without explaining why that country would think it has an obligation to hold one. A Jewish state could take the following attitude toward anti-Semitism: It is the Diaspora’s problem, and if Jews want safety from the world’s ineradicable hatred, they should just come here, to the sole Jewish country on earth. Conversely, a Jewish state could make anti-Semitism the bottom line of its international relations, navigating each dilemma on the basis of whether a given outcome is ultimately good for far-flung Jewish communities. It could decide that assuring the safety of Israeli communities near the Gaza border, for example, was less important than the safety of Jews abroad, who might be targeted by rioters and terrorists who are purposefully bent on exacting a price for Israeli government actions against Palestinians. It could, but it won’t.

The question of Israel’s proper place in the fight against anti-Semitism might also seem pointlessly abstract in light of present dangers in the Diaspora: From the streets of Berlin to the fortress-like synagogues of France to Poland’s Holocaust law to the chanting and carnage in Charlottesville, Virginia, anti-Semitism is a live issue, more present in the psyches and experiences of more Jews in more places than it has been in decades. Israel has to do something, right?

“We are the Jewish state. We are the only Jewish state,” Ran Yaakoby, the director of the Foreign Affairs Ministry’s Department for Combating Antisemitism, told me. He suggested that Israel’s historical experience, so different from that of any other Jewish community that’s ever existed, was part of what made the fight against anti-Semitism an Israeli responsibility. “We see it as a raison d’être of the State of Israel to bring any Jew in distress to this country—this is how we came to be. And there are still Jews in distress.”

Israel has to do something, surely. But do something about what? The Forum’s panels and plenaries were an almost-encyclopedic exploration of what Jews are freaking out about nearly everywhere on the planet. Going by the three days of the Forum, the causes—many of them debatable, and some not—include Austria’s Freedom Party, Hungary’s Jobbik, France’s National Front, Donald Trump, Mahmoud Abbas, Jeremy Corbyn, the alt-right, the far left, the BDS movement, ISIS, Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, college students, various Protestant denominations, Muslim immigrants to Europe, intersectionality, Islamophobia, Louis Farrakhan, the Women’s March, Linda Sarsour, and animal rights activists who oppose kosher slaughter. More than once, I was reminded of a classic Mr. Show sketch where characters in a horror film bicker over whether it’s a curse or a monster or a ghost that’s menacing them. “Please everyone,” a fedora-clad Bob Odenkirk pleads amid screams and thunderclaps, “we must know what it is we’re supposed to be afraid of.”

An ingathering of nearly an entire Jewish world’s worth of alarm, the Forum provided a similar wealth of options, along with an equally poignant absence of answers. It managed to both encapsulate and somehow evade every current Jewish anxiety, and in the process showed how the pressures of the moment are atomizing a Jewish world that can’t agree on the contours of the very real crisis that now confronts it.


During the opening reception for the Forum, robed sheikhs from Nazareth glad-handed with representatives from Israel’s chief rabbinate. In one corner of the hall, Alkas Cakmak, whose beard was twisted into a single tuft and who revealed himself to be a proud disciple of the Turkish cult leader Adnan Oktar, boasted to me that his teacher had “over one million Muslim youth viewers,” along with “over three million book downloads. … We openly advocate that the Temple should be rebuilt on the Temple Mount … he reads the Torah on-air.” I then found myself sitting in one of the convention center’s main halls alongside a Catholic priest, who gave me an impromptu lesson in confession. One should never prod people to confess, he explained; confession must be their choice alone. “Only prod when they confess other people’s sins.” Onstage, a weird interpretive dance ensued, with four performers entangled in a single long sheet, which was either blue or white or maybe an Israeli flag depending on how the light hit it. The words “the dance of connection” appears in my notes, for reasons I cannot exactly recall.

This vision of comity was thrillingly broken as soon as the forum kicked off. Akiva Tor read a 30-second statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was originally scheduled to attend but was too sick to make it or maybe just didn’t want to be there. Instead, there was Ron Lauder, the president of the World Jewish Congress, who had warned of “the possible demise of a two-state solution” and related possible demise of Israeli democracy in a recent New York Times op-ed. Before Lauder the crowd heard from Naftali Bennett, Israel’s charismatic minister of Diaspora affairs and a global boogeyman for people who feign concern over the country’s rightward shift. “Ron, I read your column in the New York Times. Not a great piece,” Bennett began. Lauder, who spoke directly after Bennet, did not respond in kind. “Before I start, Naftali, we may disagree on many things but when it comes to Jewish life and fighting anti-Semitism and what it means to be a Jew, we are 100 percent there and the Jews of the Diaspora are with you 100 percent, thank you.” Anti-Semitism, Lauder continued, “is as old as the Torah and as modern as the internet.”

But back to Bennett’s speech, which was memorable and frighteningly substantive. In contrast to Lauder, Bennett articulated a dazzlingly simple theory of Jewish history, communicated with a directness that made his theory sound like an unquestionable law of existence. “The Jews came to fight with us, to fly our planes when we didn’t know how to, to procure equipment,” Bennet said, describing Israel’s violent and lonely early years. “Now, it’s our turn to give back.” Israel “has taken upon itself a mission to strengthen the Jews of the world.”

While Jews in Israel are powerful and secure, Bennett explained, the Jews of the Diaspora are weak. “What keeps me up at night is not the enemies on our borders,” he said. “What keeps me up at night is the future of the Jews abroad.” Even a worldwide menace like the BDS movement wasn’t dangerous because of how it might threaten Israel, Bennett explained. It had to be fought primarily for the benefit of Jews abroad. “The BDS movement to injure and harm Israel’s economic interests is losing. Israel is winning,” Bennett pointed out. But the BDS-ers are “looking for the weakest link,” i.e., Diaspora Jews on college campuses or other mono-culturally liberal settings who, out of apathy, fear, or active sympathy, are more than happy to shrug off the boycott movement’s “anti-Zionist” hectoring. The real reason you’re here, Bennett seemed to say to Diaspora Jews in the audience, is because we’ve eclipsed you, and because we are succeeding where you are beginning to fail. You have helped us, but now we are going to help you—and if we disagree on what “help” means, then the best we can offer is that we’ll listen to you. If we don’t like what you have to say, we can also sneer at you, even if you’re Ron Lauder.


The Israeli minister of Diaspora affairs and the head of the World Jewish Congress are strange mirror images of one another: They each claim to work in the general interest of all the world’s Jews, but from opposite ends of one of the defining fault lines in Jewish life.The next day, in the most dramatic moment of the Forum, you could once again see the two blocs, Israelis and Diaspora Jews, eyeing each other across an uneasy and growing chasm.

Day two featured panels about “Countering Antisemitism Through E-Learning,” and “The Persistence of Christian Theological Antisemitism.” At various sessions, I learned that there is, in fact, an entire anti-Semitism bureaucracy, a kind of miniature Jewish version of the misogyny bureaucracy celebrated during the annual Commission on the Status of Women, or the arms-control bureaucracy that lauds its own dizzying accomplishments during the twice-a-decade review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Both of those events are held at the United Nations’ New York headquarters, which is like a secular Rome, or maybe the airport outside Rome.

Jerusalem is not the United Nations. It is not a place for napping. The weight of each and every occasion is undeniable, down to the fine print.

There is apparently a working definition of anti-Semitism formulated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance that a handful of governments have officially adopted. Jew-hatred can be mapped and plotted, and the social science of anti-Semitism has yielded some intriguing insights. As Charles Small told me, a recent poll of 10,000 people from 10 European countries showed that “levels of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing are relatively low. But Israel-bashers were 13 times more likely to be anti-Semites.”

In theory, hate should be simple to recognize, and it should be easy for a religious or ethnic or racial group to figure out who its enemies are. But reality isn’t always so obliging—at least not to the Jews. According to opinion surveys using standard political science methodologies, it turns out that most people are not anti-Semitic and pay little actual attention to Jews, even in countries that we’ve become accustomed to thinking of as trouble spots. “The majority of Brits are not anti-Semitic,” Michael Whine, the head of international relations for Britain’s Community Security Trust told me, and added that studies showed only 2 to 5 percent of his countrymen held hardcore anti-Semitic views. “They don’t care very much about Jews and they don’t think very much about Jews. It’s not on their horizon.” Jewish life was thriving in the land of Corbyn and Brexit, Whine argued. “We’re a community that’s increasing in size after years of diminution. We educate 60 percent of our kids in Jewish day schools.”

Hungary is another country where things look ominous from the outside. Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s populist leader, is a right-wing demagogue of the kind that usually turns his attentions to the Jews sooner or later. In the run-up to Hungary’s election, which took place a few weeks after the Forum, Orbán had overseen the construction of 4,500 billboards across the country attacking the financier and Orbán critic George Soros, thereby turning a Jew—also an international financier—into his government’s top public enemy. Yet from the inside, things really aren’t so bad, according to András Heisler, the president of the Hungarian Jewish community. “The government is very positive to Israel,” he told me, describing Hungary, like Britain, as a “vibrant community,” which had recently gotten critical government assistance in constructing a new $12 million medical facility in Budapest. “I think that Orbán is not anti-Semitic and the Hungarian government is not anti-Semitic. This is very important. But the fact of this campaign [against Soros], this is perhaps anti-Semitic,” Heisler conceded. “We brought a letter to the prime minister and we asked to stop this campaign. But the campaign is going.”

The ambiguous state of things in Britain and Hungary, and the equally fraught question of how and whether Jews from the outside should try to help seemingly imperiled communities, points to the uncertainties of what is commonly agreed to be an upswing in anti-Semitism—in other people’s countries, at least. Yet the discourse around racism and anti-Semitism also often underrates how fluid hatred can be in practice. Hate can be defined and tracked, but before it becomes operative in the real world—before it metastasizes into a political or historical force—bigotry and conspiratorial thinking is locked within individual minds, a set of inchoate impulses and hazy mental sets waiting to be stoked into a public contagion. “Red lines are really being pushed into the middle of society,” Felix Klein, the special representative for relations with Jewish organizations for the government of Germany, where the nationalist Alternative für Deutschland went from having no seats to being the third-largest party in parliament during last year’s federal election, fretted to me. “When politicians say, ‘We should be proud of all the successes of German soldiers in World War II,’ that’s something no one would have dared to say 10 years ago.”

The second plenary session on day two, titled “Antisemitism and the Rise of Far-Right Parties in Europe: Defining the Threat and Means of Response,” focused on dangers from radical nationalists and neo-fascists. Jewish Agency chairman and refusenik icon Natan Sharansky warned of “rising parties in Europe, and in America by the way—forces that say they like Israel but have problems with Jewish communities.” In Sharansky’s view, “we must be absolutely, clearly against these forces.” Shlomo Avineri, a Hebrew University professor and former director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, characterized the dilemma facing Israel and Diaspora Jewish communities even more starkly. “Not everybody who likes Israel likes Israel because of Israel or because of Jews,” he said. “Many people support Israel because they think that we are fighting Islam.”

Ariel Muzicant, a vice president of the European Jewish Congress and a prominent figure in the Austrian Jewish community, then joined Avineri and Dan Meridor onstage. Muzicant reviewed the extensive ties between the far-right Freedom Party (FPO), which is now the third-largest in Austria’s parliament, and various Nazi-adjacent fraternal organizations. At the end of the presentation, a viewer was left with little doubt that the FPO’s leaders have alarming fascist sympathies and that their success is highly concerning. The Israeli government currently boycotts the FPO—“We’re the only country in the world that’s not talking to the Freedom Party,” Tur pointed out to me. “The only one.”

But there are voices in Israel, Muzicant explained, who believe in engaging them. “Some of the members of Israeli politics are pulling the carpet from under our feet,” he said, to a smattering of applause. “The prime minister of Israel has talked about changing the pattern of not to have contacts with these ministers from the party.”

Muzicant then delivered his real message, which was related to the horribleness of the FPO but had implications beyond one particular group of Nazi enthusiasts. “I’m asking, who are we? What is happening in Israel? Don’t we see what’s going on? These ministers need the hechsher [approval] of the Jews. And if they can’t get the hechsher of the Jews in Europe, they need the hechsher of the Jews in Israel.” He pleaded with the Israeli officials present “not to be bought by simple realpolitik.”

As Muzicant implied, the debate about the FPO was one manifestation of a broader problem. The Austrian far-rightists occupy the extreme side of a spectrum that includes Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, and, inevitably, Donald Trump. In each instance, Israel and the Jews have to contend with political forces hostile to local communities (or at least widely perceived as such) but too powerful or politically useful for a small and embattled country like Israel to ignore.

Because it’s especially hateful, the FPO is a crucial test for whether Israel stands for the Jews or only for narrow national interests, the panelists agreed. “It’s not only a matter of cynical cheshbon, calculation, whether it’s good for me or bad for me,” Meridor said of the FPO and related dilemmas. “If we don’t stand for these basic values, what are we? It’s not about European Jews. It’s about Israel. What country are we?”

Amazingly, they opened the floor for questions. An extraordinary outpouring of anxieties followed.

“Why aren’t we talking about Nazis in Ukraine?” a vehement middle-aged man bellowed in broken English—he would interrupt a number of other sessions, and his borderline derangement always had me wondering at the source and meaning of his pain.

“Why aren’t we talking about anti-Semitism in South Africa?” another questioner asked.

“What about the Muslims, who are the real drivers of anti-Semitism in Europe?” another alleged.

“How about the Arab parties in Israel, or Abu Mazen?”

“What about Donald Trump?” an audience member wondered. During our interviews, none of the Israeli government organizers of the conference would breathe a word to me about the U.S. president, although onstage Avineri acknowledged that “the Trump presidency is not an easy challenge for Jews and Israelis.”

The audience members had a point, sort of. I had a few “what about” questions of my own. Over the course of the three-day conference, I had heard almost nothing about the Gulf states’ long-standing promotion of anti-Semitism. “I hear you,” Yaakoby told me when I raised the issue of Gulf-funded anti-Semitism with him. “But now I ask to turn around and look and see who’s standing behind you. There’s a rabbi, and there’s an imam, and this is my answer.” I turned around. There was indeed an imam and a rabbi conversing nearby. “If you choose to be on the dark side, to hate, gezundheit, what can I tell you?” Yaakoby continued. “But if you choose to dialogue and to look for ways and paths, you have them here, in Jerusalem.” Evading the Islamist character of some non-insignificant part of modern-day anti-Semitism is a matter of political decorum and basic decency for a country with a large Muslim minority and key allies throughout the Islamic world. Yet just as obviously, it is a diplomatic untruth.

More irritating was the total absence of any discussion, from what I could tell, of the anti-Haredi bigotry that constitutes some of the most frequent and worrying yet completely ignored anti-Semitism in the democratic world. During a single week in April, three Jewish men were assaulted in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights, the home of the Chabad Hasidic movement; in 2017, the village of Bloomingburg in New York state paid $2.9 million in damages after it became clear that local government was conspiring to keep out a Haredi residential development. Because the Haredim are the most obviously Jewish people on earth, they are frequent victims of anti-Semitism and a warning signal about the presence of submerged bigotries. Anti-Haredi incidents expose the limits of even a very tolerant society’s philo-Semitism. And yet the specific problem received no special treatment, or even a single mention at the Forum.

Is it even possible for the Jewish world, and the Jewish state, to reach any kind of consensus on anti-Semitism? The same forces that made the Forum possible also make these questions impossible to resolve. Israeli state power can put anti-Semitism on the global agenda. But the moral and political imperatives of a state will always be different from those of Jewish communities that are often powerless, precarious, or dying.

TUT editor | 05/27/2018 at 9:34 | Categories: Uncategorized | URL:
Comment    See all comments    Like

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Nazi State Confronts Anti-Semitism. But What Is It?

Nazi Parliament Proposes Bill to Ban Photographing, Recording Soldiers


After religiously-mandated Judaic ritual human sacrifice in Gaza, Israeli Parliament Proposes Bill to Ban Photographing, Recording Soldiers

The bill, which targets Israeli anti-occupation activists, imposes prison sentences on persons charged with recording or photographing Israeli soldiers.

Amid worldwide condemnation of Israel’s use of lethal force against Palestinian protesters in Gaza, officials in Israel’s parliament have proposed a bill, which would effectively ban the collection of evidence relating to the human rights and other abuses committed by members of the army.

The move comes at the same time Israeli government officials announced thousands of new settlement units in the West Bank and mere days after the killing of more than 60 protesters on May 14, the same day the United States moved its embassy to Jerusalem. Overall Israel Defense Force (IDF) have killed at least 116 Palestinians and injured over 12,000 using live ammunition on unarmed protesters, who have participated since March 30 in the “Great March of Return” protests according to newly-released figures from health officials.

The Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, convened Thursday to discuss a bill that would prohibit taking pictures or recording Israeli soldiers on duty.

The bill proposes a five-year prison term for anyone “anyone who filmed, photographed, and/or recorded soldiers in the course of their duties, with the intention of undermining the spirit of IDF soldiers and residents of Israel,” and ten-year prison terms for anyone “intending to harm state security.”

The bill would also penalize the distribution of photo or video content on social networks or in the media, effectively hampering journalistic work and limiting the freedom of the press.

According to Robert Ilatov, a member of the Knesset and the bill’s sponsor, the legislation was proposed “in response to harassment by left-wing operatives of Israeli soldiers while dispersing violent demonstrations by Hamas on the Gaza Strip border.”

The introductory note of the bill reads: “For many years the State of Israel has witnessed a worrying phenomenon of documentation of Israeli soldiers. This is done through video, stills, and audio recordings by anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian organizations such as B’Tselem, Machsom Watch Women, Breaking the Silence.”

The bill, according to observers, would serve as a useful tool in targeting Israeli and Jewish organizations that oppose the occupation and the mistreatment of Palestinians by members of Israeli state security forces.

B’Tselem a human rights organizations that works in Israel, the West Bank and East Jerusalem to end the occupation and raise awareness within Israeli society, Machsom Watch a group of mostly elderly women who accompany Palestinians in their daily crossing of Israeli military checkpoints, and Breaking the Silence an organization of former soldiers, who work to expose the truth of military service in the occupied territory, could all be affected by the legislation.

Israeli soldiers have a long history of human rights violations and extrajudicial killings, and the bill some fear would consolidate impunity.

The bill is supported by Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who announced Thursday he would seek the approval for the construction of approximately 2,500 new illegal Jewish-only settlement units in the West Bank.

“We committed to building in Judea and Samaria (the occupied West Bank), and we are fulfilling that commitment. In the coming months, we will seek approval for thousands of additional housing units. We will promote building in all of Judea and Samaria, from the north to the south, in small communities and large ones,” Lieberman said.

Palestine recently called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to launch an investigation into what it describes as “insurmountable” evidence that Israeli has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity on Palestinian territory.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Parliament Proposes Bill to Ban Photographing, Recording Soldiers

Elections alone do not make for democracy


Seen from the West, three democratic elections have just been held in Tunisia, Lebanon and Iraq. But for the People of these nations, the votes had little to do with the democratic ideal, because the institutions that were imposed upon them by the West were designed to prevent them from having a free choice of their leaders.

JPEG - 28.5 kb

The massive abstention during the Lebanese and Iraqi general elections (50 % Lebanon), (65 % Iraq), and the Tunisian municipal elections (77 %) was interpreted by the Western powers as proof of the immaturity of these populations. No matter whether or not they have been democracies for 7 or 75 years, they are irresponsible and must therefore be placed under supervision.

Forgetting the fact that in the West also, certain national consultations have been marked by similar rates of abstention, the Western powers explain the elections in Tunisia, Lebanon and Iraq as having been troubled by the poor economic results of their governments. As if the Arabs had not understood that they were able to deliberate on projects and choose their own future, but imagined that they were obliged to approve the performances of their past governments.

Anxious to restore a mandate in the Levant, the Western powers had interpreted the liberation of Saad Hariri from his Saudi jail as the victory of Emmanuel Macron The Magnificent. They had not mentioned either the humiliation of the French President inflicted by the Saudi Crown Prince at the airport in Riyadh, nor the efficiency of the work by President Michel Aoun at the United Nations. In their eyes, the Lebanese people were incapable of taking care of themselves. They could only obtain results if they were supervised by the West.

The Western medias speak about the unbelievable Lebanese institutions by describing them as « complicated », but without explaining that the communitarian system had been specifically designed by the ex-colonial power so that nothing would ever change. France is secular at home, but absolutely not in its ex-colonies. and the re-arrangements of the electoral laws, with the introduction of the proportional vote within the communities, not only maintain the colonial web, but also render it all the more complex.

Yes, it is ridiculous to see Tunisia elect its municipal advisors for the first time, Lebanon elect, after nine years, the same hereditary deputies, and Iraq divided into 37 political parties. But it is precisely because it is ridiculous that many voters refused to play such a humiliating game.

Contrary to the Western interpretation, these rates of abstention, while they do demonstrate a rejection of democratic procedures, certainly do not signify the rejection of democracy, but its distortion.

The Tunisians, who witnessed Ennahdha and Nidaâ Tounes found an alliance after having fought one another, had every reason to anticipate that the two major parties would be able to agree to share local positions as they had done with the national posts. The Lebanese, who know that they have no other choice than a « war-lord » for their community and his vassals to defend it against other communities, also rejected this imprisonment. The Iraqis, whose elected Prime Minister had been overthrown four years ago by foreign powers, know that their vote will not be taken into account if they should move against the desiderata of the self-proclaimed « international community ».

Only the Lebanese Hezbollah, born of the Resistance to the Israëli occupation, and the Iraqi Coalition of Moqtada el-Sadr, born of the Resistance to the United States occupation, carried all their voices with their allies.

Make no mistake about it, the Western powers implicitly applaud these abstentions, because they find in them the justification of their aggressions in the « Greater Middle East » over the last 17 years. Any expression of an organised will of the People is for them a nightmare, since their sole objective is to overthrow the states and destroy the societies in order to dominate them more efficiently.

Thus, when the Syrians, then embroiled in a war, invaded the voting centres to elect their President, the Western powers were petrified. They were obliged to postpone their plan for the overthrow of the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Arabs, just like all other people, want to determine their own destiny.


Have Iran and Israël declared a new war?

Is peace around Israël possible ?

The Knesset could officially support the creation of a Kurdistan

Germany, United States and United Kingdom had the Novichok

The US Deep State and the Trump Campaign

Statement by the Foreign Ministry regarding the press conference of the Joint Investigation Team on the preliminary findings of the criminal investigation into the crash of the Malaysian Boeing in eastern Ukraine

For Italy – a new government, the same “privileged ally”

Russian Comment on the Paris meeting of the “International Partnership Against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons”

G7 Leaders’ Statement on Venezuela

Assad Regime Intentions in the Southwest De-escalation Zone





Posted in Middle East, Iraq, Lebanon, TunisiaComments Off on Elections alone do not make for democracy

The United States “Master Stroke” against Venezuela


Stella Calloni reveals SouthCom’s secret plan to overthrow the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This document, which we have already published, contradicts President Trump’s engagements to put an end to the régime changes which have characterised US imperial policy. It demonstrates that the international image of chaos in Venezuela is entirely fabricated and is an exclusive invention of Anglo-Saxon propaganda.

JPEG - 21.8 kb
Admiral Kurt Walter Tidd, Commander-in-Chief of US SouthCom

The United States and their allies are preparing in silence a brutal plan to « put an end to the dictatorship » in Venezuela. This « Master Stroke », which is already well under way, will see its first instalment become operational before the next elections, and, if they are unable to eliminate President Nicolás Maduro during the offensive, which will be accompanied by the total machinery of propaganda, the medias, and certain acts of violence « for the defence of democracy», then Plan B is ready, and will implicate several countries, in order to impose a « multilateral force » for military intervention.

Panama, Colombia, Brazil and Guyana will play a key role, with the support of Argentina and other « friends », under the control of the Pentagon. Neighbouring countries will provide bases for the combat forces, and direct support, including hospitals and stocks of supplies for the soldiers – everything is ready.

All this is set out in an 11-page document which bears the signature of Admiral Kurt Walter Tidd, the current Commander-in-Chief of US SouthCom, but has not yet been made public [1].

The document analyses the current situation and validates a war of counter-insurgency against Venezuela, supported by the paraphernalia of psychological warfare, revealing the use of persecution, harassment, belittlement, and lies used as means to get rid not only of the popular leaders, but also the People as such.

The report affirms that « the Venezuelan Chavista dictatorship staggers as a result of its frequent internal problems, there is a great shortage of foodstuffs, an exhaustion of the sources of foreign currency and a rampant corruption. The international support, won with petrodollars, becomes scarcer each time and the purchasing power of its national currency is in a constant downfall ».

They admit having created this situation out of whole cloth, with shocking impunity, and consider that it will not change. They justify their actions by claiming that the Venezuelan government will take new « populist » measures in order to stay in power.

We may be amazed at the treatment reserved for the opposition, which is manipulated, advised and paid for by the United States, because in the report we read that « Maduro’s corrupt regimen will collapse but regrettably, the divided opposing forces, legitimate defenders of democracy and the well-being of their people, do note have power enough to put an end to the Venezuelan nightmare », because of their internal quarrels, and a « corruption similar to that of their rivals; as well as the scarcity of rooting, do not grant them the opportunity to make the most of this situation and to give the necessary step to overturn the state of penury and precariousness in which the pressure group, that exercices the leftist dictatorship has submerged the country ».

They consider that we are facing « unprecedented criminal action in Latin America », although the government of Venezuela has never acted against its neighbours, but rather demonstrates intense solidarity, at both the regional and international level. The US plan claims that « democracy spreads out in America, continent in which radical populism was intended to take over ». Argentina, Ecuador and Brazil are given as examples of this. « This rebirth of democracy has the support of the most valuable determinations, and the conditions in the region run in its favour. It is the time for the Unites States to prove, with concrete actions, that they are implicated in that process, where overthrowing Venezuelan Dictatorship will surely mean a continental turning point ».

They are also pushing US President Donald Trump to act, on the grounds that « It is the first opportunity of the Trump Administration to bring forward its vision in reference to security and democracy. Showing its active commiment is crucial, not only for the administration, but also for the continent and the world. The time has come to act ».

This implies – apart from the definitive eradication of Chavism and the expulsion of his representative – working to « encourage popular dissatisfaction, by increasing scarcity and rise in price » in order to make the rejection of the current dictator irreversible.

If we should seek to understand the art of counter-insurgent perversion, it would suffice to read the part of the document which recommends « to besiege [President Maduro], ridicule him and to pose him as symbol of awkwardness and incompetence. To expose him as a puppet of Cuba ».

The document also suggests exacerbating the divisions between certain members of the group in power, by underlining the differences in the quality of life of the population compared with that of their leaders, and making sure that these differences are amplified.

The idea consists of carrying out lightning operations, in the same way that Mauricio Macri in Argentina and Michel Temer in Brazil had taken certain measures in their own countries. These two valets obey the orders of Washington, and are both corrupt, but now, by imperial grace, they are presented as « examples of transparency » – within a matter of hours, they took measures to ensure the destruction of nation states with the precision of a missile strike.

The document, signed by the head of SouthCom, demands that Maduro’s government be made unbearable, in order to force him to hesitate, negotiate or flee. This plan, which is intended to get rid of the alleged dictatorship of Venezuela in short notice, calls for an « increase the internal instability to a critical level, by intensifying the undercapitalization of the country, the leaking out of foreign currency and the deterioration of its monetary base, bringing about the application of new inflationnary measures ».

Another objective – « fully obstructing imports, and at the same time discouraging potential foreign investors in order to make more critical the situation for the population ».

We may also find in this 11-page plan « appealing to domestic alllies as well as other people inserted from abroad in the national scenario in order to generate protests, riots and insecurity, plunders, thefts, assaults and highjacking of vessels as well as other means of transportation with the intention of deserting this country in crisis through all borderlands and other possible ways, jeopardizing in such a way the National Security of neighbouring frontier nations ». It would also be useful to create « victims » and accuse the leaders for this by magnifying the dimensions of the humanitarian crisis before the eyes of the whole world – for that, it will be necessary to deal in lies, and talk of generalised corruption amongst the leaders and link the government to narco-trafficking in order to dirty its image not only on the internal level, but in the eyes of international opinion – without forgetting to « promote fatigue inside the members of the PSUV [Unified Socialist Party], inciting the annoyance and nonconformity among themselves, for them to break noisily away from the line of the Governement, for them to refuse the measures and restrictions which also affect them […] making it as weak as the opposition is. Creating frictions between the PSUV and “Somos Venezuela” ».

That’s not all. It is also necessary to structure « a plan to get the profuse desertion of the most qualified professionnals from the country, in order to “to leave it with no professionnals at all”, which will aggravate even more the internal situation and along these lines putting the blame on of Government ».

Military interference

JPEG - 13.3 kb

Just like in a suspense novel, the document calls for « using the army officers as an alternative for a definitive solution » and « continuing hardening the conditions inside the Armes Forces to carry out a coup d’état before concluding 2018, if the crisis does not make the dictatorship to collapse and the dictator does not decide to move aside ».

Considering that all of the above may not succeed, and with outright contempt for the Venezuelan opposition, the plan suggests « continuing setting fire to the common frontier with Colombia. Multiplying the traffic of fuel and other goods. The movement of paramilitaries, armed raids and drug trafficking. Provoked armed incidents with the Venezuelan frontier security forces » and besides this, to « recruit paramilitaries mainly in the campsites of refugees in Cúcuta, La Guajira and the north of Santander, areas largely populated by Colombian citizens who emigrated to Venezuela and now return, run away from the regimen to intensify the destabilizing activities in the common frontier between both countries. Making use of the empty space left by the FARC, the belligerency of the ELN and the activities in the area of the Gulf cartel ».

And here is the template for the final blow – « to prepare the involvment of allied forces in support the Venezuelan army officiers or to control the internal crisis in the event they delay too much in taking the initiative. Establishing a speedy time line that prevents the Dictator to continue winning control on the international scenario. If it is necessary, act before the elections stipulated for next April ».

In fact, these elections will be held on 20 May, and the United States and their associates refuse in advance to recognise the result. The crux of the matter is « to get the support of the cooperation of the allied authorities of friendly countries (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Panama and Guyana); to organise the provisionning, relief of troops, medical and logistic support from Panama. Making good use of the facilities of electronic surveillance and signals intelligence, the hospitals and its deployed endowments in Darien [in the Panamanian jungle], the quipped airdromes for the Colombian Plan, as well as the landing fields of the old-time military bases of Howard and Albrook [Pananma], as well as the one belonging to “Rio Hato” in addition, the Humanitarian Regional Center of the United Nations, designed for situations of catastrophes and humanitarian emergency, which has an aerial landing field and its own warehouse ».

We are faced with the setting up of an intervention which includes « the basification of combat airplanes and choppers, armored conveyances, intelligence positions and specail military and logistics units (police, and military district attorneys and prisons) ». […] It will be necessary to « develop the military operation under international flag, patronized by the Conference of American Armies, under the protection of the OAS and the supervision, in the legal and media context, of the General Secretary, Luis Almagro ». lt will also be necessary to « declare the necessity that the continental commandement be strengthened to act, using the instrument of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, in order to avoid the democratic rupture », and above all it will be necessary to « bind Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Panama to the contribution of greater number of troops, to make use of their geographic proximity and experience in operations in forest regions. Strenghtening their international condition with the presence of combat units from the United States of America and the other named countries, under the command of a Joint General Staff led by the USA ».

One is astounded by the impunity in which all this is being plotted, behind the backs of the People, in absolute illegality, revealing as it does the reasons for recent US military manoeuvres at the border between Brazil and Venezuela (Brazil, Peru, Colombia), and in the South Atlantic (United States, Chile, United Kingdom, Argentina) – in the case of Argentina, these plans have been progressing since October-November 2017 without the slightest authorisation of the National Congress.

« Use the facilities of the Panamanian territory for the rear guard and the capacities of Argentina for the securing of the ports and the maritime positions,
- Lean on Brazil and Guyana to make use of the migratory situation that we intend to encourage in the border with Guyana.
- Coordinate the support to Colombia, Brazil, Guyana, in Aruba, Curaçao, Trinidad and Tobago, and other States, in front of the flow of Venezuelan immigrants in the event of the crisis

It is also planned to favour international participation in this effort, as part of the multilateral operation with the contribution of states and non-governmental and international organisations, and furnish whatever is necessary in terms of logistics and intelligence – it will also be necessary to « anticipate, specialy, the most vulnerable points of Aruba, Puerto Carreño, Inirida, Maicao, Barranquilla and Sincelejo in Colombia, as well as Roraima, Manaos and Boavista in Brazil ». So here we have laid out before us the map of an announced war of intervention.

Strategic Information

As far as the strategic perspective is concerned, it will be necessary to « silence the symbolic presence of Chavez-representative of unit and popular support » while pursuing the harassing of the dictator « as the only responsible, in the first place, for the prevaling crisis due to his inability to find the way out that the Venezuelans are in need of » as well as his closest executives, who will be blamed for the crisis and the impossibility of recovery.

In another paragraph, the text calls for the intensification of « the denouncement toward Maduro’s regimem, […] high-lighting the incompetence of the mechanisms of integration created by the regimens of Cuba and Venezuela, specialy the ALBA [Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America] and Petrocaribe ».

As far as the medias are concerned, the plan drawn up by the United States calls for an increase in the broadcasting, inside the country, by local media and foreign media, of invented messages based on witness reports and publications from the country itself, making use of all means of dissemination, including the social networks, of messages « claming, though the mas media, the need to put an end to this situation because of its unsustainable essence ».

In one of the last paragraphs of the document, there is mention of claiming or showing the use of violent means by the dictatorship, in order to gain international support, by using « all the capacities of the psychological war of the US ARMY ».

In other words, this means setting up the same scenarios based on lies, news montages, falsified photos and videos, everything that was used during the colonial wars of the 16th century.

Another question, « The United States should entirely back up the OAS, strenghtening the image of the OAS and offer multilateral institutions of the inter-American system, as instruments for the solution to regional problems. Promoting the respect of the dispatch of the UNO military force for the imposition of peace, only Nicolas Maduro’s corrupt dictatorship is defeated ».

Posted in USA, VenezuelaComments Off on The United States “Master Stroke” against Venezuela

Popular Conference launches ’70th anniversary of the Nakba’ events in Beirut


The Popular Conference of Palestinians Abroad held a press conference on Wednesday 14 March at the headquarters of the Lebanese Press Syndicate in Beirut to launch national and popular events on the occasion of the Palestinian “70th anniversary of the Nakba.”

In his speech, Fuad Al-Harakah, representative of the president of the Lebanese Press Syndicate, said that the Lebanese people “stand by all Palestinians inside and outside of Palestine to regain their rights.” He went on, “the people who follow resistance will not give up their rights … The crime cannot be subject to any statute of limitation.”

In the Popular Conference speech, engineer Hisham Abu Mahfouz, Deputy Secretary General of the Conference, pointed out that on 15 May of each year the Palestinian people commemorate the Nakba. Today, the Conference launches a campaign to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Nakba under the title “Aidoun,” in partnership with several Palestinian institutions.

Abu Mahfouz said that “despite the Zionist and American attempts to erase the right of return the will of the people  still triumphs.” He stressed that despite the seventy years since the Nakba and all attempts to annihilate the Palestinians “send a clear message to the world assuring that there is no single Palestinian who would like to sell his land.”

Read: An urgent Palestinian rescue plan is needed

Image result for Nakba CARTOON

Abu Mahfouz also called on the world to inform decision-makers around the world that the Palestinian people are preparing to return and liberate their country. In his turn, spokesman for the Popular Conference, Ziad Al-Aloul, stated that “the seventieth anniversary of the Nakba is a campaign to unite efforts and show solidarity between the Palestinian institutions in support of Palestine, which is gaining importance in conjunction with Trump’s efforts to transfer his embassy to the city of Jerusalem.”

Al-Aloul added that “through the campaign that will be launched on 31 March, the Conference aims to activate the role of Palestinians abroad, mobilize the potential which advocates the issue and highlight the suffering of refugees in the camps.”

He pointed out that the Conference wanted to send several messages through the campaign, including those addressed to “the occupation that the battle with it is still fierce until the land is recovered, to the world that there is a population who has been ravaged for 70 years, and whose case must remain present in all its aspects, and to the Palestinian people that it is an opportunity to regain the spirit of hope and to assert adherence to full rights and return to Palestine.”

The general coordinator of the International Campaign for the Preservation of Palestinian Identity “Intima,” Yasser Kaddoura, considered that “the Intima” campaign is keen that the 70th anniversary of the Nakba will be kept alive in the memory of the world, and that 70 years of the Nakba is only a long process; the process of return, which began 70 years ago and will soon end with the return to Palestine all Palestine.”

“Seventy years after the Nakba, we must stand firm to declare our commitment to the right, to regroup and mobilize our potential so as to serve the Palestinian national project that preserves the three pillars: return, Jerusalem and refugees,” said Kadhim Ayesh, president of the Jordanian Society for the Return of Refugees.

Read: Palestinians are facing genocide; Israel deserves its international pariah status

“We, in Jordan, are united in our fight against Israel and to build our partnership with civil society to confront the deal of the century … We will have a significant role in reviving the morale among our people in Jordan,” insisted Ayesh.

The head of the Committee to Support the Steadfastness of the People in the Inside at the Popular Conference, Hilmi Al-Bilbisi, said that after seventy years of the Nakba, massacres and forced displacement could not eliminate the Palestinian identity. This is evidenced by the increase in the number of Palestinians in the occupied territory.

He pointed out that the Conference “was keen to support the steadfastness of the Palestinians in the occupied inside to confront the arrogance of the occupation which claims that Palestine is a people without land.” During the press conference, a documentary film about the campaign of the 70th anniversary of the Nakba was presented, and it was concluded by launching the slogan of the campaign on the 70th anniversary of the Nakba, which represents an important event in the history of the Palestinian people.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Popular Conference launches ’70th anniversary of the Nakba’ events in Beirut

Palestine News


Image result for Lieberman CARTOON

Nazi defense minister is escalating his incitement against Palestinian, following a police attack on a peaceful protest in the northern city of Haifa.

“Every day that Ayman Odeh and his associates are free to walk around cursing at police officers is a failure of law enforcement authorities,” the minister, Avigdor Lieberman, posted on Twitter. “The place for these terrorists is not in the Knesset, it’s in prison. It’s time they pay a price for their actions.”

Odeh is the leader of the Joint List of parties representing Palestinian citizens in ‘Israel’s’ parliament, the Knesset. Lieberman’s attack on him had been prompted by Odeh’s criticism of brutal police actions on Friday night.

Lieberman has previously called for the beheading of Palestinian citizens of ‘Israel’ who he accuses of being disloyal to the self-described Jewish state…


Image result for Nazi snipers CARTOON

“We could see very quickly that the Israelis were going to shoot a lot of people,” Tarek Loubani, a Palestinian Canadian emergency physician who treated patients in Gaza on 14 May, told The Electronic Intifada Podcast.

As Nazi forces began to shoot into the crowds, the number of Palestinians wounded in their limbs climbed. Loubani said that his paramedic team “ran out of our supply of tourniquets really early in the morning. All we had left were eight of them.”

After he retrieved more tourniquets and returned to distribute them to paramedics, he said there was a lull around him: “No burning tires, no smoke, no tear gas, nobody messing around in front of the buffer zone. Just a clearly marked medical team well away from everybody else.”

“And unfortunately that’s when I got shot.”

Nazi sniper shot him with a bullet that penetrated both legs, as he stood near Gaza’s eastern perimeter during the Great March of Return protests.

He was one of 18 paramedics who were shot and injured on that day alone, according to reports.

One of them, Mousa Jaber Abu Hassanein, was killed. Abu Hassanein and Loubani were part of the same medical team working in the field.

According to Loubani, four members of his team, including himself and Abu Hassanein, were shot that day – mostly in the lower limbs.

Loubani was wearing hospital scrubs and Abu Hassanein and the others were wearing orange vests, clearly identifying them as a medics.

They were working as part of a team stationed in an area about 25 meters from the perimeter fence, Loubani said.

“We huddled there because we knew we would otherwise get in the crossfire” of the Israeli snipers, he added.

But he was shot. Loubani said that it was “very hard to believe that the sniper didn’t know who he was targeting.”…

Image result for Nazi court CARTOON

Nazi Supreme Court rejected on Friday a petition from six human rights groups to declare unlawful the Nazi military’s regulations that allow soldiers to open fire at unarmed civilians.

The petition was filed by six human rights organizations amid weeks of civilian protests along the Gaza border that were violently suppressed by Nazi forces, resulting in the death of at least 112 Palestinians, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza.
On May 14, at least 60 protesters were killed, making it the single deadliest day in the besieged Gaza Strip since the Nazi Holocaust in 2014.

According to the Associated Press (AP), the court ruled unanimously in favor of the Nazi military, which reportedly argued that the protests were taking place in the context of a ongoing armed conflict with the Palestinian political group Hamas, and that “weapons-use regulations are subject to the rules of armed conflict.”

“Such rules provide greater leeway for the use of lethal force than those governing law enforcement practices,” AP said.
NGO Yesh Din, one of the groups that signed the petition, condemned the court’s decision on twitter, saying “the judges missed an opportunity to prevent the continuation of the killing and injuries.”

Meanwhile, right-wing Nazi Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman applauded the court’s decision and criticized the rights groups for challenging the military.

Image result for Nazi lobby CARTOON

Burying the truth is accorded a high priority when states commit atrocities.

On 30 January 1972, the British Army shot dead 13 unarmed demonstrators during a civil rights march in Derry. Edward Heath, then prime minister, was determined that the ensuing inquiry into Bloody Sunday – as the massacre became known – would be a whitewash.

“It had to be remembered that in Northern Ireland, we were fighting not only a military war but a propaganda war,” Heath told a judge tasked with “investigating” what happened.

It was a bloody Monday in Gaza last week. Dozens of unarmed demonstrators were shot dead. And – like the British authorities more than 40 years ago – Nazi supporters launched the latest salvo in their propaganda war.

Europe Zio-Nazi Public Affairs – a Brussels-based lobby group – alleged that Hamas had manipulated the media coverage of the killings. Journalists had been lured into “the sinister world of Hamas,” the group suggested.

The “sinister world” was, according to Europe Zio-Nazi Public Affairs’ latest newsletter, one “where 62 innocents turn out to be overwhelmingly terrorists” and where photographs and videos are “doctored.”

The first segments of such videos – depicting an injured youth being carried on a stretcher – get sent to major broadcasters, the group claimed. Yet the full video, it added, shows “the teenager apparently having made a miraculous recovery and high-fiving his friends for the deception, all caught on camera.”

I contacted Europe Zio-Nazi Public Affairs asking for an example of the photographs or videos to which it referred. It sent me two links, both videos.

One appeared to show a young man being carried on a stretcher through a fog of tear gas before standing up again. The video was uploaded to YouTube on 5 May – nine days before last week’s massacre…

The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza issued an updated count of Palestinian casualties since the “Great March of Return” began on March 30th in the besieged Gaza Strip.
The spokesperson of the ministry in Gaza, Ashraf al-Qidra, announced late Sunday that Nazi forces have killed 112 Palestinians and injured 13,190 more since the weeks-long massive unarmed demonstrations began.

Thirteen of the killed were children, under the age of 18, while 2,096 of the injuries are children and 1,029 are women.
Of the total injuries, 7,618 are related to live ammunition or rubber bullets, 5,572 are of tear-gas suffocation; 332 of the injuries are critical, 3,422 are moderate and 9,436 are light.

Thirty-two amputations were carried out; one of them in the upper extremities, 27 in the lower extremities and four in the hands.
The ministry said that one paramedic of the Palestinian Civil Defense was killed, and 223 medics were injured with live ammunition and tear-gas suffocation, while 37 ambulances were partly damaged.

Meanwhile, the Forum of Palestinian Journalists in the Gaza Strip said that two journalists, Yasser Murtaja and Ahmad Abu Hussein, were killed during the protests.

The forum added that 175 journalists were injured since the beginning of the return marches





Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Palestine News

Who is the vassal: the US or the Nazi regime?


Who is the vassal: the US or Israel?

Tramp and Netanyahu close-up

By Uri Avnery

“If you want to understand the policy of a nation, look at the map!” This is what Napoleon is supposed to have said.

It is good advice.

If you are living in Israel, these days, you get the impression that the huge State of Israel is dictating to its American vassal what to do about Iran.

President Donald Trump listens and complies. Bibi the Great [Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu] tells him to tear up the Iranian deal for no obvious reason, and he obeys. He has no choice, poor man.

But then you look at the map, and to your great surprise you discover that the USA is a huge country, while Israel is a mere speck, so small that its name has to be written outside its borders, in the sea.

So what is wrong? Geography, of course, is not the only factor. Israel has some millions of faithful adherents, who are American citizens and have a lot of money. But still.

Trump’s Obama complex

Can it be that we got the picture wrong? That Trump is not the vassal of Netanyahu, that it’s the other way round? That Trump dictates, and Bibi, for all his bluster, just obeys?

It would not be the first time. In ancient times, the leaders of the Jewish commonwealth in Palestine tried very hard to please the imperator in Rome. Nero, for example, the man who enjoyed setting fire to his own city, and to the world, while playing the flute, or whatever.

Donald Trump is the present-day Nero, the imperator of the New Rome.

Trump’s main object in life is to get out of the Iran deal, “the worst deal ever”. Why? I have listened intently and have discerned no other reason than that the deal was forged by his hated predecessor, Barack Obama.

What other reason was there for annulling the deal? I have heard none. The deal stopped Iran from proceeding with the building of a nuclear weapon. All experts, without exception (even in Israel), confirm that Iran has scrupulously adhered to its commitment.

Indeed, the entire world outside the US (and Israel, of course) has now decided to go on with the deal. Germany, France and Britain, three not quite insignificant powers, believe that the deal has to be maintained. So do Russia and China, no tiny countries, either.

Except Israel. Ah, Israel.

Most people in Israel now believe that Binyamin Netanyahu, Bibi the Great, is really leading Trump on a leash. Bibi has such a magical hold over Trump, that the American president has to follow Israel’s lead.

Iran obsession

Bibi is obsessed with Iran. He wakes up in the morning with Iran and goes to sleep with Iran.

Nobody seems to ask: Why, for God’s sake?

Going back to Napoleon’s map: there seems to be no clash of interests between the countries of Iran and Israel. No common border. No territories of one that the other desires. Also, no natural resources of one that the other would like to get its hands on.

Proof: not so long ago, well within my lifetime, Iran was Israel’s closest ally (except our American vassal, of course). Iran was governed by the Shah, with his beautiful uniform and his beautiful wife (please indulge me for once, dear feminists).

Israel and Iran went to steal chickens together, as we say. The Iranians helped us to infiltrate agents into the Kurdish region of Iraq, in order to make trouble for the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. Later, we supported Iran in its war against Iraq, started by the same Hussein.

In one of the greatest scandals of its time, the so-called Iran-Contra affair, Israel transferred American arms to Iran. (Iran paid for them, and the Americans used the money to illegally finance the “Contra’” war against the leftist government in Nicaragua. My friend Amiram Nir, a journalist-turned-government security advisor, personally delivered the arms to Tehran. (His US counterpart, Oliver North, has just been appointed to head the powerful National Rifle Association.)

Enough amusing anecdotes. There is no basic antagonism, dictated by geography, between our two nations. So what is it?

Well, there is ideology. The present rulers of Iran are extreme Shia Islamists. They want to become the overlords of the Arab Muslim world. The Arabs hate Israel, mainly because of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. So, the Iranians pretend to be the great enemy of the “Little Satan” (their rather insulting appellation of Israel, to distinguish it from the Great Satan, the USA).

Frankly, I think that the rulers of Iran don’t give a damn about Israel, except as a useful instrument. The hatred of Israel is a weapon in the battle with the Sunni Arab world, led by the hyper-active Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman.

(The conflict between Sunni and Shia goes back almost to the times of the Prophet Muhammad, more than 15 centuries ago.)

So, why is Bibi obsessed with Iran, to such an extent that he commands his American vassal to drive towards World War III?

Cynical distraction

Depends how cynical you are.

If you are very cynical, you might well say that both Trump and Bibi are up to their respective necks in criminal investigations. With a bit of luck, both might end up in prison.

What better way to divert the attention of their subjects than a little war? It is a precept that has been tried out since the beginning of the world, and it almost never fails. Who will worry about trifles like Trump’s porno stars or Bibi’s gifts from (American) billionaires, when the lives of our boys are at stake?

The US is still far from war with Iran but we are not. Perhaps we are already in it, without believing it.

These days – or should I say, these nights – our brave boys fly over Syria and bomb Iranian army installations there. Until this minute, the Iranians have not reacted, except for a feeble attempt that was quickly answered by a massive Israeli air strike.

Why are Iranians there in the first place? It is a part of their objective to create an Iranian sphere of influence extending from Iran proper to the Mediterranean Sea. In Iraq, which has a large Shia population, they are already dominant. With the help of Russia, they are now almost dominant in Syria. In Lebanon their close allies, the Shia Hizbollah movement, controls a large part of the country and has just won the elections.

The US does not like this at all. True, Trump has decided to withdraw from the Middle East (costs too much money), but he does not want the void to be filled by Vladimir Putin. Not at all. So he sends his boys back, and tells Israel to make the life of the Iranians in Syria hell.

It is playing with fire (for us). Until now, the Iranians have limited their reaction to our nightly bombing of their forces to the utterance of dire threats and the ineffectual response this week. But for how much longer?

Iran is a wise country. Whatever the bluster of the present regime, it does exercise a lot of restraint. It remembers that quite recently (just about 2,500 years ago) it was a world power. It can wait. It does not satisfy Trump’s expectations. After all, how long does the USA exist?

So we bomb. So they react with threats. So Trump is happy.

Indifferent public

And the Israeli public?

One may wonder: is there such a thing?

Some local commentators are already asking: have Israeli citizens turned into mere subjects?

Israel is obviously on the path to war. The nightly bombing of Iranian forces is an insult to their national pride. In our region, national pride plays a large role. Our army has told the population in the north of the country to open the air-raid shelters and prepare them for use. Large anti-aircraft forces have been moved to the Syrian frontier.

And the Israelis? They shrug their shoulders. They know that Bibi is a showman of genius. Just now he has held the country and the world in thrall with a superb TV demonstration, in which he revealed a wealth of information about Iran’s nuclear activities. The brave boys and girls of the Mossad stole this trove in Teheran and brought it to Israel, risking their lives.

Wonderful. Except that it turned out that this trove consists of obsolete documents from before the deal, which show what everybody already knew: that Iran wanted to emulate Israel and produce its own nuclear bomb. It was to prevent this that the nuclear deal was initiated in the first place.

But what showmanship! What a stage set! What wonderful (American) English! What perfect coordination with Trump’s decision to scuttle the deal! Can it be that the entire show was ordered by Trump?

Some Israeli commentators pointed all this out. But there is no real opposition to Bibi in the Knesset, the popular press or on TV.

The vast majority of the people in Israel – and everywhere else – stand at attention when the word “security” is mentioned. OK, Bibi may be a tiny bit corrupt, he may have taken some bribes here and there, but he is our commander-in-chief! He is sending our boys into battle! So hail to the chief!

Hail Bibi!

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Who is the vassal: the US or the Nazi regime?

The Trail of Tears ‘Video’





On this day in 1830, Congress passed “The Indian Removal Act” which permitted the forceful and sometimes violent removal of Native Americans from their homes, towns, villages and farms in the Southeastern United States.

A few years later, thousands of Cherokee landowners and landowners of other nations were removed from their homes and farms by the State of Georgia, held in prison camps and then sent on an 800 mile forced march to Oklahoma which left at least 2,000 dead.

The land was theirs.

A fraudulent treaty had been foisted on them “agreeing” to a one-sided deal in which they “traded” their prime agricultural land – which they were farming expertly – for a reservation in Oklahoma.

The Cherokee people appealed to the Supreme Court which struck down the bogus treaty as fraudulent.

Andrew Jackson’s response: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

15,000 militia descended on the region removing native people from their homes at gunpoint and under threat of violence.

Speculators pounced on the stolen land and turned it into an empire of slavery-fueled plantations.

Andrew Jackson’s doing. The President Donald Trump says he most admires. (Jackson’s portrait hangs in Trump’s office.)

Posted in USAComments Off on The Trail of Tears ‘Video’

Provocation and imperial ultimatum or Kim-Trump Summit?


Yet again, Julio Yao, the international analyst from Panama addresses the events surrounding the announced summit between the President of North Korea, Kim Jong-un and the US President Donald Trump, a meeting that now appears to be in danger owing to unacceptable declarations issued by John Bolton, the National Security Advisor to President Trump.

JPEG - 20.5 kb
John Bolton, the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, Donald Trump

Some days ago, we reported that the summit between the President of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, Kim Jong-un, and the President of the Korean Republic, Moon Jae-in was a monumental historical success for the Korean Peninsular. Denuclearization, disarmament, peace agreement, reunification were some of the key issues on the table [1].

The Kim-Moon Summit of 27 April was supposed to continue on 15 May but President Kim cancelled it, protesting that the United States and South Korea had got together to carry out military manoeuvres and given the slap in his face by impertinent and provocative declarations made by John Bolton, Donald Trump’s national security adviser. The latter’s position is that North Korea’s denuclearization should follow the scheme applied in Libya in 2011.

As we all know, Libya was stripped of her nuclear weapons… and ended up being invaded and destroyed by the United States and NATO. Furthermore, the Libyan Leader, Myanmar Gaddafi, was atrociously assassinated. For North Korea, which had agreed to a military alliance with Libya, it became impossible to intervene. This is why this tragedy is right at the fore of Kim Yong-un’s mind. Another matter that feeds his unease is the unusual although not unexpected withdrawal of the United States from the so-called 5 + 1 Agreement (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program.

The response of President Kim to Bolton’s declarations was unexpected: the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea will not denuclearize unilaterally without concessions from the other side. This is primarily because North Korea is the one that has taken many steps and has displayed a number of good will gestures, including the release of three US citizens, whilst Washington has not given the slightest concrete expression of good will towards Pyongyang.

It appears that Bolton reduces the Kim-Trump Summit to North Korea capitulating before the United States and nothing more. It appears that for him, Pyongyang has lost a war. It does not enter Bolton’s mind that this Summit is a civilized form of exploring possibilities for agreement between the parties.

Bolton’s arrogant and ill-informed attitude demonstrates the dangerous phase that the United States is crossing of wanting to subdue by force anything that does cooperate with the Empire.

Donald Trump has declared that, if North Korea does not de-nuke in the manner prescribed by Bolton; if Kim does not accept his virtual ultimatum, then the United States “will exercise the maximum pressure to force it to negotiate”. “We will have to see if the summit will still take place.” declared the US President.

Thus it appears as if President Trump were oblivious to the fact that no power, no state, can lay down an ultimatum or force another state to negotiate, except in the case of a state that has been conquered or has been previously destroyed in a war.

The Vice Minister of Foreign Relations of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, Kim Kye-gwan, cleared up any misunderstanding:

“If the United States corners us and asks us to unilaterally withdraw from our nuclear program, we will stop having an interest in the conversations and we will be forced to reconsider if we accept the forthcoming US-North Korean summit.”

This statement cannot be interpreted as a threat to walk away from the announced Kim-Trump Summit of 12 June in Singapore but simply as a warning.

The President of Korea, Moon Jae-in, was a champion of human rights and continued threading into his policy, the peaceful reunification of Korea, promoted by former presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. President Moon, also President Roh’s former Presidential Advisor on foreign policy, will have to agree on his own summit with Trump to decide what will happen to the 28 500 US soldiers that today are stationed in the south of the Korean Peninsula.

This objective had to be a pre-requisite at least checked with the US occupant by President Moon before his meeting on 27 April with President Kim. This is because, without this condition, any rapprochement between the two Korean parties that does not obtain the consent of the US may be impossible.

Bolton’s imperialist position, which sets the contours to the Secretary of State’s (Mike Pompeo) policy, constitutes an unequivocal rejection of diplomacy and international law and leads to the mightiest laying down the law [2].

Bolton’s response to the possible denuclearization of Korea reveals the United States’ end-game: the unconditional surrender of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea and not a conciliation of interests supporting peace and security between nations.

Conciliation would open the path for the peace reunification of Korea. This in turn would reduce military costs for both South Korea and North Korea, not to mention military costs for the United States; contribute to eliminating the military bases in Guam, Okinawa and Diego García, around China, and would strengthen international cooperation. Therefore, despite Bolton’s position, it remains for President Moon Jae-in alone to look squarely at President Trump and to ask him, asserting the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea, for Washington withdraws its forces from the south of the peninsula.

If Moon does not do so, the arrogant rhetoric, the threats and the insults will continue. However, now one will not be able to point the finger at the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, rather the United States and John Bolton “de patear la mesa”!

Posted in USA, North KoreaComments Off on Provocation and imperial ultimatum or Kim-Trump Summit?

KIM CAVES – North Korea begs Trump to save Singapore summit


Less than 24 hours after the US president canceled the June 12th meeting, Pyongyang says it will meet Trump ‘anytime, any way’

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump, to the dismay of many, published a letter announcing he was calling off a much heralded tête-à-tête with North Korea’s reclusive leader Kim Jong-un, aimed at ending the North’s nuclear program.

It followed weeks of aggressive statements by both sides, which appeared to have been set off by US National Security Advisor John Bolton suggesting in an interview that the “Libya model” (disarmament followed by regime change) should be applied to North Korea.

It wasn’t long after Trump’s pulling the plug on the Singapore summit that critics began raining condemnation on the former real estate mogul’s lack of tact and ignorance of the ways of diplomacy.

But as it turned out, it also wasn’t long before Trump’s tactic had Kim Jong-un throwing in the towel, with Pyongyang releasing this reply on Friday:

We had hoped a ‘Trump-style solution’ would be a wise way to relieve worries from both sides, meet our demands and realistically resolve problems,” North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan said in a Korean language statement carried by state media, without elaborating.

We had set in high regards President Trump’s efforts, unprecedented by any other president, to create a historic North Korea-U.S. summit,” he said.

We tell the United States once more that we are open to resolving problems at any time in any way,” he said.

Only two days earlier, North Korea’s foreign ministry had slammed the United States, calling Vice President Mike Pence “a political dummy” and “impudent.”

The turn around in Pyongyang’s tone in such a short time, is simply nothing short of astounding.

It comes as vindication that Trump’s business-like wheeling and dealing approach to international relations appears to have some merit.

As Trump has often said, “you have to be prepared to walk away from the table.” In this case it seems to have paid off for the 45th president.

He welcomed the North Korean statement on Twitter:

Donald J. Trump


Very good news to receive the warm and productive statement from North Korea. We will soon see where it will lead, hopefully to long and enduring prosperity and peace. Only time (and talent) will tell!

Meanwhile, the president told the press that the US was once again in talks with North Korea, and the June 12th summit may be back on:

“We’re going to see what happens. We’re talking to them now, it was a very nice statement they put out, we’ll see what happens,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “It could even be the 12th, we’re talking to them now, they very much want to do it, we want to do it, we’re going to see what happens.”

In hindsight, the North Korean move to salvage the talks is not surprising. North Korea and Kim personally always had much more to gain – and lose – than Trump or the United States from direct talks.

Kim Jong-un is largely responsible for initiating the current détente himself when he accepted a South Korean invitation to participate in the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics.

It is also possible, and perhaps likely, that Kim Jong-un always intended to leverage his nuclear and ballistic arsenal – once achieving the ability to strike the US – to obtain concessions, economic assistance, and a permanent peace treaty.

A treaty would mean durable security for himself and his government, while foreign investment represents the key to the country’s long-term stability and development. Both are potentially more valuable to Kim than maintaining a nuclear arsenal.

The world will be watching in eager anticipation as the dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang unfolds. But it does appear at this point that a Nobel Prize for Trump (and Kim) may not be totally out of the cards just yet

Posted in USA, North KoreaComments Off on KIM CAVES – North Korea begs Trump to save Singapore summit

Shoah’s pages