Archive | May 17th, 2019

The Gwadar Terrorist Attack Exposed the International Media’s Double Standards


Most of the international media is referring to Saturday’s attack on the Pearl Continental hotel in Gwadar as being committed by either “gunmen” or “militants” instead of the actual terrorists that the perpetrators are after the BBC reported that they chose their target in order to kill Chinese and other foreign investors, therefore exposing a common double standard whereby “politically convenient” terrorist attacks are simply reframed as “shootings” or “militancy” while “politically inconvenient” acts of resistance are smeared as “terrorism”.

Several terrorists tried storming into the Pearl Continental hotel in CPEC’s terminal port of Gwadar Saturday afternoon, but a large-scale tragedy was thankfully averted after the security services managed to evacuate most of the guests. The BBC reported that the “Balochistan Liberation Army” (BLA) claimed responsibility for the attack and quoted the terrorist organization as “saying it had targeted Chinese and other foreign investors”. This incident is a blatant act of terrorism just like the much more devastating ones that were carried out against several hotels and churches in Sri Lanka last month, but the international media is resorting to its tried-and-tested double standards after most of them described the perpetrators as “gunmen” or “militants” instead of the actual terrorists that they are.

This is because the terrorist attacks are “politically convenient” for the US and India, with these two allies collectively commanding impressive influence across the world’s media space, because it targeted Chinese civilians and infrastructure as part of the ongoing Hybrid War on CPEC. The evident purpose was to deter further investments and visits by foreign businessmen to this strategically significant port in the global pivot state of Pakistan, as well as to trigger an overreaction by the security services against local Baloch which could then be basis upon upon which a Xinjiang-like fake news campaign alleging “concentration camps” and “cultural cleansing” can be carried out prior to the possible imposition of sanctions for “humanitarian reasons”. Of course, this would also be executed in parallel with the Hybrid War on Hybrid War in Pakistan pretending that the country has no terrorist threats whatsoever and that all forms of opposition to the state — including taking up arms and targeting civilians — are “legitimate”, especially if they’re being led by minority Pashtuns or Baloch.

On the opposite side of the coin, “politically inconvenient” acts of resistance such as what the Kashmiris and Palestinians are doing against their Indian and “Israeli” occupiers (who not coincidentally have recently become military-strategic partners and are both allied with the US) are smeared as “terrorism” even if they only target soldiers and paramilitary units. Another double standard is that international media is usually pleading for the world’s leading economies to invest in underdeveloped “Global South” regions, yet these same information outlets are now lending “legitimacy” to the BLA’s terrorist crusade against China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) investments in Pakistani Balochistan because it serves the US’ grand strategic purposes. Having said that, even the most casual information consumer must sense that they’re being manipulated after the world condemned last month’s terrorist attacks on Sri Lankan hotels but is now silent about the latest one Pakistan’s PC Gwadar.

Posted in USA, VenezuelaComments Off on The Gwadar Terrorist Attack Exposed the International Media’s Double Standards

The U.S. Is Not a Christian Nation



Despite the prominence of right-wing Christian Nationalist political dogma in statehouses and the White House, the United States is not, in fact, a theocracy, argues civil rights and constitutional attorney and Andrew Seidel. Watch the video.

Posted in USAComments Off on The U.S. Is Not a Christian Nation

Why Do the Ukrainians Allow Their Country to Be Completely Run by Jews?

It’s said that people get the Government they deserve. This could be true of Ukrainians, who have elected one corrupt incompetent gang of rogues after another into the highest offices of the land. Or as a local sitcom asked ‘why are all the honest people fools and all the clever ones crooks?’, going on to ponder ‘what kind of people are we that we keep voting mother-fucking liars knowing full well that they’re all crooks?. Well they might ask because by any reasonable standard Ukraine is now a failed state. I’ve been there several times and you just see and sense it. Poor, everything badly organised, listless and apathetic people, all-pervasive corruption.

It’s the only country of the former Soviet Communist block that has actually regressed economically since the USSR’s collapse in 1991. Yet at that time it seemed poised to be a success story. In fact its people saw themselves as analogous to the Catalans, believing they were contributing more to the centralised USSR Government than they were getting back and independence would mean improved living standards. After all they had some of the world’s the richest soil (black gold), iron, coal, its own motor, truck and aircraft manufacturing industries. So what went wrong?

Ukrainian President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky

“Ukraine, which parted from Russia in 1991, has never achieved a true independent state. Just like in Russia, or even 80 years earlier in the Weimar Republic, a tribe of vultures descended upon the body of the nation.” The Russian playbook again. Backed by ‘international financiers’ Jewish oligarchs seized ownership of the state’s richest assets. And they did so at a tiny fraction of their real value. The oligarchs then played a largely predatory role, dismantling much of the production for scrap metal, and shipping their profits offshore as opposed to re-investing.

And of course they own the media as well. Professor Vasyl Yaremenko, director of the Institute of Culturological and Ethnopolitical research at Kiev State University, released an article in 2003 entitled Jews In Ukraine Today: Reality Without Myths which stated “Ukrainians need to know that the mass media is completely in the hands of Jews, and everything that we watch or read is the product of Jewish ideology…”. Their control has become even stronger since then. And of course Ukraine’s gold, like that of every country ‘liberated’ by the West, has duly disappeared.

So how have the 99.3% of Ukrainians who are not Jews responded to this? Well by voting Jews into power time and again. Sometimes you’d wonder where they get them all. Professor Yaremenko points out that of the 400+ members of the Ukrainian Parliament, 136 (possibly 158) are Jews. In the few short years since ‘independence’ there have been Ministers, Prime Ministers and even a President from this minuscule minority. And now they’re set to elect another one as their latest President.

Why in God’s name would Ukrainians do this? It’s not as if their relationship with Jews has been untroubled. Quite the contrary. Less than a century ago up to six million (!!) of them were driven to starvation by the campaign of (((Lazar Kaganovich))) to destroy the kulaks. Ukrainians know this. They also know that the largely Jewish Soviet secret police murdered unimaginable numbers of  their intellectuals, clergymen, academics and successful businessmen. Kill The Best Of The Gentiles ?

So could it be that today’s Ukrainians, deprived of the genetic endowment of the intellectual elites exterminated in the thirties, have become dysgenically mutilated unthinking serfs, hewers of wood and drawers of water, easily manipulated by their (((overlords)))?  After all, ‘why are all the honest people fools and all the clever ones crooks?’ in that country?

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Why Do the Ukrainians Allow Their Country to Be Completely Run by Jews?

Trump Is Being Set Up for War With Iran

Trump destroyed his chance at being a successful president by the stupid appointments he has made.  At the moment he is being set up by his national security advisor John Bolton and Israel for a war with Iran.

Using the same format of lies that was used against Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Venezuela, Bolton has accused Iran of “troubling and escalatory indications” of a forthcoming Iranian attack on American forces in the Middle East.  To help protect against the attack, Bolton has ordered Patriot missile batteries, an aircraft carrier strike group, and a bomber strike force to the region.

Even the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, pointed out that Bolton failed to identify the “troubling and escalatory” Iranian actions. No one else has seen any sign of them.

The reason for the Patriot missiles is not to deter Iran from an attack, but to prevent successful Iranian response to an attack on Iran.

This is the likely situation:  The deal between the Washington Ziocons and Netanyahu is that either Israel will attack an American ship or whatever is selected, and it will be blamed on Iran, thus forcing Trump to “defend America” and retaliate, or Israel using American disguise will attack Iran, thus provoking a response from Iran.

Iran is already on hair trigger from having been provoked excessively by Washington withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear agreement, reimposing sanctions, and making endless false accusations against Iran, as Washington has done against Russia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Yemen.  It wouldn’t take much more to set off Iranian emotions.

Trump is clearly set-up.  If Bolton and Netanyahu want the US at war with Iran, it is their call.

And they do want the US at war with Iran.  Iran and Syria back Hezbollah, and Hezbollah prevents Israel’s annexation of southern Lebanon, which Israel has twice tried only to have its army, which is not good for anything except killing unarmed women and children in Gaza, quickly defeated by Hezbollah.  Thus, eliminating support for Hezbollah is a high priority for Israel and its neoconservative allies in Washington.

The neoconservatives have an additionall reason for delivering chaos to Iran.  If Bolton can produce a situation in Iran like the one the US created in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, American-supplied jihadists can be infiltrated into Muslin provinces in the Russian Federation as punishment for Russia’s independent stance in world affairs.

The stakes for Russia are higher in Iran than in Syria.  Russia can stand aside only at huge cost to itself.

China also has an interest.  Until the Russian energy pipeline to China is completed, China needs Iranian oil.  Disruption of Iran by chaos is a way of throttling China by reducing China’s energy supply.

The war that Bolton and Netanyahu are preparing to spring on Trump is likely to be much larger than they think.



Posted in USA, IranComments Off on Trump Is Being Set Up for War With Iran

Will Americans Die for John Bolton? ‘Video’


Image result for John Bolton CARTOON

National Security Adviser John Bolton appears to be scheming — and outright lying — to convince Donald Trump to go to war with Iran. Will trumped-up allegations lead the nation into another deadly war on false pretenses? Watch the video.

Posted in USAComments Off on Will Americans Die for John Bolton? ‘Video’

Pompeo Runs Around Eurasia Like Wet Hen in Effort to Keep US Relevant

Even veiled by thick layers of diplomatic fog, the overlapping meetings in Sochi between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov still offer tantalizing geopolitical nuggets.

Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov did his best to smooth the utterly intractable, admitting there was “no breakthrough yet” during the talks but at least the US “demonstrated a constructive approach.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomes US State Secretary Mike Pompeo, left, during their meeting, in Sochi, Russia. Photo: AFP / Sergey Guneev / Sputnik

Putin told Pompeo that after his 90-minute phone call with Trump, initiated by the White House, and described by Ushakov as “very good,” the Russian president “got the impression that the [US] president was inclined to re-establish Russian-American relations and contacts to resolve together the issues that are of mutual interest to us.”

That would imply a Russiagate closure. Putin told Pompeo, in no uncertain terms, that Moscow never interfered in the US elections, and that the Mueller report proved that there was no connection between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

This adds to the fact Russiagate has been consistently debunked by the best independent American investigators such as the VIPS group.

‘Interesting’ talk on Iran

Let’s briefly review what became public of the discussions on multiple (hot and cold) conflict fronts – Venezuela, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran.

Venezuela – Ushakov reiterated the Kremlin’s position: “Any steps that may provoke a civil war in the country are inadmissible.” The future of President Maduro was apparently not part of the discussion.

That brings to mind the recent Arctic Council summit. Both Lavrov and Pompeo were there. Here’s a significant exchange:

Lavrov: I believe you don’t represent the South American region, do you?

Pompeo: We represent the entire hemisphere.

Lavrov: Oh, the hemisphere. Then what’s the US doing in the Eastern Hemisphere, in Ukraine, for instance?

There was no response from Pompeo.

North Korea – Even acknowledging that the Trump administration is “generally ready to continue working [with Pyongyang] despite the stalemate at the last meeting, Ushakov again reiterated the Kremlin’s position: Pyongyang will not give in to “any type of pressure,” and North Korea wants “a respectful approach” and international security guarantees.

Afghanistan – Ushakov noted Moscow is very much aware that the Taliban are getting stronger. So the only way out is to find a “balance of power.” There was a crucial trilateral in Moscow on April 25 featuring Russia, China and the US, where they all called on the Taliban to start talking with Kabul as soon as possible.

Iran – Ushakov said the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, was “briefly discussed.” He would only say the discussion was “interesting.”

Talk about a larger than life euphemism. Moscow is extremely uneasy over the possibility of a destabilization of Iran that allows a free transit of jihadis from the Caspian to the Caucasus.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. Diplomatic sources – from Russia and Iran – confirm, off the record, there have been secret talks among the three pillars of Eurasian integration – Russia, China and Iran – about Chinese and Russian guarantees in the event the Trump administration’s drive to strangle Tehran to death takes an ominous turn.

This is being discussed at the highest levels in Moscow and Beijing. The bottom line: Russia-China won’t allow Iran to be destroyed.

But it’s quite understandable that Ushakov wouldn’t let that information slip through a mere press briefing.

Wang Yi and other deals

On multiple fronts, what was not disclosed by Ushakov is way more fascinating than what’s now on the record. There’s absolutely no way Russian hypersonic weapons were not also discussed, as well as China’s intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching any US military base encircling or containing China.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, third right, meets Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, center left, in Sochi on 14 May 2019. Photo: AFP / Russian Foreign Ministry Press Service / Anadolu

The real deal was, in fact, not Putin-Pompeo or Pompeo-Lavrov in Sochi. It was actually Lavrov-Wang Yi (the Chinese Foreign Minister), the day before in Moscow.

A US investment banker doing business in Russia told me: “Note how Pompeo ran like mad to Sochi. We are frightened and overstretched.”

Diplomats later remarked: “Pompeo looked solemn afterwards. Lavrov sounded very diplomatic and calm.” It’s no secret in Moscow’s top diplomatic circles that the Chinese Politburo overruled President Xi Jinping’s effort to find an accommodation to Trump’s tariff offensive. The tension was visible in Pompeo’s demeanor.

In terms of substance, it’s remarkable how Lavrov and Wang Yi talked about, literally, everything: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, the Caspian, the Caucasus, New Silk Roads (BRI), Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), missiles, nuclear proliferation.

Or as Lavrov diplomatically put it: “In general, Russia-China cooperation is one of the key factors in maintaining the international security and stability, establishing a multipolar world order. . . . Our states cooperate closely in various multilateral organizations, including the UN, G20, SCO, BRICS and RIC [Russia, India, China trilateral forum], we are working on aligning the integration potential of the EAEU and the Belt and Road Initiative, with potentially establishing [a] larger Eurasian partnership.”

The strategic partnership is in sync on Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan – they want a solution brokered by the SCO. And on North Korea, the message could not have been more forceful.

After talking to Wang Yi, Lavrov stressed that contacts between Washington and North Korea “proceeded in conformity with the road map that we had drafted together with China, from confidence restoration measures to further direct contacts.”

This is a frank admission that Pyongyang gets top advice from the Russia-China strategic partnership. And there’s more: “We hope that at a certain point a comprehensive agreement will be achieved on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and on the creation of a system of peace and security in general in Northeast Asia, including concrete firm guarantees of North Korea’s security.”

Translation: Russia and China won’t back down on guaranteeing North Korea’s security. Lavrov said: “Such guarantees will be not easy to provide, but this is an absolutely mandatory part of a future agreement. Russia and China are prepared to work on such guarantees.”

Reset, maybe?

The indomitable Maria Zakharova, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman, may have summed it all up. A US-Russia reset may even, eventually, happen. Certainly, it won’t be of the Hillary Clinton kind, especially when current CIA director Gina Haspel is shifting most of the agency’s resources towards Iran and Russia.

Top Russian military analyst Andrei Martyanov was way more scathing. Russia won’t break with China, because the US “doesn’t have any more a geopolitical currency to ‘buy’ Russia – she is out of [the] price range for the US.”

That left Ushakov with his brave face, confirming there may be a Trump-Putin meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka next month.

“We can organize a meeting ‘on the go’ with President Trump. Alternatively, we can sit down for a more comprehensive discussion.”

Under the current geopolitical incandescence, that’s the best rational minds can hope for.

Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on Pompeo Runs Around Eurasia Like Wet Hen in Effort to Keep US Relevant

Skeptical U.S. Allies Resist Trump’s New Claims of Threats From Iran

Tensions between the United States and Iran have sharply increased. John Bolton, the national security adviser, has long pushed for regime change in Iran. One of his chosen replacements is the dissident group Mujahedeen Khalq, known as M.E.K.CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration draws up war plans against Iran over what it says are threats to American troops and interests, a senior British military official told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday that he saw no increased risk from Iran or allied militias in Iraq or Syria.

A few hours later, the United States Central Command issued an unusual rebuke: The remarks from the British official — Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, who is also the deputy commander of the American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State — run “counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region.”

[To follow new military deployments to the Middle East, sign up for the weekly At War newsletter.]

The rare public dispute highlights a central problem for the Trump administration as it seeks to rally allies and global opinion against Iran. On Wednesday, the State Department ordered partial evacuations of the American embassy and a consulate in Iraq, despite skepticism from Iraqi officials over American intelligence showing a heightened risk.

Over the last year, Washington has said Iran is threatening United States interests in the Middle East, encouraging aggression by Shiite militias in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, shipping missiles to Houthi rebels in Yemen and allowing its naval forces to behave belligerently in the Persian Gulf.

All are concerns that have been leveled against Iranian forces for years.

“We are aware of their presence clearly and we monitor them along with a whole range of others because of the environment we are in,” General Ghika said.

But he said, “No, there has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or Syria.”

On Tuesday, Spanish defense officials withdrew a Spanish frigate that was part of an American-led carrier strike group heading to the Persian Gulf, to avoid entanglement in any upcoming conflict with Iran.

Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington — where John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, has prodded President Trump into backing Iran into a corner.

One American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential internal planning, said the new intelligence of an increased Iranian threat was “small stuff” and did not merit the military planning being driven by Mr. Bolton. The official also said the ultimate goal of the yearlong economic sanctions campaign by the Trump administration was to draw Iran into an armed conflict with the United States.

Since May 2018, the Trump administration has withdrawn from the major powers agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program, reimposed punishing sanctions on Tehran, demanded that allies choose between Iranian oil and doing business in the American market, and declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization.

The anti-Iran push has proved difficult even among the allies, which remember a similar campaign against Iraq that was led in part by Mr. Bolton and was fueled by false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s efforts this week to recruit European countries to back the administration’s steely posture on Iran are being received coolly.

Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign affairs chief, called for “maximum restraint” after meeting on Monday in Brussels with Mr. Pompeo, a proponent of the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran.

Iraqi officials said they were skeptical of the American intelligence that Mr. Pompeo presented last week on a surprise trip to Baghdad. Mr. Pompeo said the threat was to American “facilities” and military personnel in Iraq.

In September, Trump administration officials blamed Shiite militiaswith ties to Iran for firing a few rockets into the area near the United States Embassy in Baghdad and the American Consulate in Basra. There were no injuries, but Mr. Pompeo ordered the Basra Consulate closed.

Privately, several European officials described Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo as pushing an unsuspecting Mr. Trump through a series of steps that could put the United States on a course to war before the president realizes it.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on Skeptical U.S. Allies Resist Trump’s New Claims of Threats From Iran



By: John Phoenix

The United States has increased its forces in the Middle East, including aircraft carriers, B52 bombers and Patriot missiles, in response to intelligence information.

Saudi Arabia and Gulf states have agreed to deploy US forces to deter Iran

US President Donald Trump and Saudi Zio-Wahhabi Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud attend the Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia May 21, 2017.. (photo credit: REUTERS/JONATHAN ERNST)

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi regime and other Zionist puppet Gulf regime have agreed to a US request for a renewed deployment of US forces to deter Iran,

According to the report, the deployment of the forces comes as part of the cooperation agreement between Washington and the Arab Zio-Wahhabi regimes in the Gulf, and will take place both at sea and on land. Saudi Zio-Wahhabi source told the London-based newspaper that “the agreement was aimed at deterring Iran from a military escalation, including attacking American targets… and not with the aim of entering into a war with it.” 

Iran videotaped US aircraft carrier on its way to the Gulf, saying that although the Pentagon claims that it can attack thousands of targets, in a real situation it will not be the case – claiming The Iranians have been trained in this kind of fighting and use thousands of speedboats called Panthel, capable of launching a large number of mortars towards targets, and serve as a firewall for radar and warships.

Khamenei:  U.S. Sanctions Aimed At Turning Iranians Against The Government

U.S. Sanctions Five Iranians Accused Of Backing Yemen’s Houthis.

Senior Iranian MP Says Now Isn’t A Good Time For Talks With The U.S.

Iran Minister Says The EU Must Offset U.S. Pullout From Nuclear Deal.

The leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, met with leaders of Shi’ite militias in Baghdad and ordered them to “prepare for war by proxy,” the Guardian reported Thursday evening. Two intelligence sources told the newspaper that Soleimani had summoned the Iranian-backed militias about three weeks ago in light of the tension in the region. The move aroused concern in the US that there was a threat to American targets in the Middle East.

The United States has increased its forces in the Middle East, including aircraft carriers, B52 bombers and Patriot missiles, in response to intelligence information that the Iranian regime ordered its proxies to attack American forces in the region.


Democrats are finally getting wise to Republicans’ antisemitism smears


The leadership’s firm response to attacks on Rashida Tlaib stand in contrast to their equivocation over Ilhan Omar. Democrats must fight back against divide and conquer tactics.

Rashida Tlaib’s empathetic statements about the Holocaust and the Nakba were misrepresented by Republicans in a ‘desperate’ attempt to smear her, Nancy Pelosi said.
 Rashida Tlaib’s empathetic statements about the Holocaust and the Nakba were misrepresented by Republicans in a ‘desperate’ attempt to smear her, Nancy Pelosi said. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA

At first, it looked to be more of the same: another week, another rash of false accusations of antisemitism launched by Republicans against one of the two new Muslim-American congresswomen. This time it was Rashida Tlaib who found herself under attack for comments she made on a Yahoo News podcast. \

Tlaib had tried to speak about the interwoven tragedies of the Jewish and Palestinian people, of the Holocaust, and the Nakba (in Arabic, the catastrophe). Though perhaps in a manner less than ideal, Tlaib was attempting to broach a difficult subject—how the creation of a national home for Jews in the wake of the Holocaust also led to the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.


Predictably, Republicans pounced. Led by Liz Cheney and Lee Zeldin, a bevy of right-wing figures took Tlaib’s words out of context, twisting and manipulating them to portray them as antisemitic, contorting what was meant as a clear statement of empathy – a recognition of the shared experience of suffering – into something malicious.

But then something surprising happened. Instead of joining the Republicans in attacking their junior colleague, as they had in the case of Ilhan Omar in March, leading Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer rallied behind Tlaib. “Republicans’ desperate attempts to smear @RepRashida & misrepresent her comments are outrageous,” Pelosi tweeted. “President @realDonaldTrump & House GOP should apologize to Rep. Tlaib & the American people for their gross misrepresentations.” “If you read Representative Tlaib’s comments, it is clear that President Trump and Congressional Republicans are taking them out of context,” Hoyer told The Hill. “They must stop, and they owe her an apology.”

Such defenses of Tlaib constitute a marked change in tone from just two months ago, when Omar’s comments about the pro-Israel lobby led to an intra-Democratic party squabble over a congressional resolution to condemn antisemitism. (After protests from within the party over the singling out of Omar, the resolution was broadened to a general condemnation of bigotry.) The Democratic party leadership, it seems, is just now beginning to learn that the Republicans intend to use baseless accusations of antisemitism as cudgel against outspoken left-wing Democrats, especially those who criticize Israel, and that this is part of the Republicans’ cynical attempt to peel Jews away from the Democratic party, a plan whose absurdity is perhaps best captured by the blinkered, Trump-endorsed “Jexodus” initiative.

Of course, seasoned establishment politicians such as Pelosi and Hoyer rarely make such dramatic pivots purely out of the goodness of their own hearts. They also appear to be feeling the pressure from the Democratic party’s activist base, which for the most part has vigorously defended Omar and Tlaib from both Republicans and centrist Democrats’ attacks.

Hoyer himself is facing a 2020 primary challenger from the left: McKayla Wilkes, a 28-year-old mother of two and supporter of Medicare for All, who criticized Hoyer for failing to condemn Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians during the latest round of violence in Gaza. Even if Wilkes does not defeat Hoyer, her campaign has already made an impact. If there was any doubt, competition works.

But while statements like Pelosi and Hoyer’s are a good start, they are far from enough. The Democratic leadership must more assertively call attention to how the Republicans’ use of false accusations of antisemitism is meant to distract from the growing racist and antisemitic white nationalist tendencies within the Republican party.

Representatives Omar and Schakowsky set a powerful example of how to do this in a recent op-ed that charged President Trump with normalizing and emboldening white nationalism – through his rhetoric as well as his administration’s decision to shut down federal programs designed to combat right-wing extremism. More forcefully challenging the right’s weaponization of false antisemitism accusations will enable Democrats and their supporters to more effectively identify and combat real antisemitism whenever it rears its ugly head.

And not only that. For years, fear of accusations of antisemitism – and the backlash those accusations could spark – has prevented the Democrats from standing up to successive far-right Netanyahu governments in Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States. (Though, of course, that is not the only reason; leading Democrats such as Pelosi and Hoyer never miss an Aipac conference, and they have been rewarded handsomely for their loyalty.) But this has put the Democratic leadership increasingly at odds with its base, most of whom are repulsed by the strong ties between Trump, Netanyahu, and other far-right leaders around the world, including those prone to antisemitic comments and gestures, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro.

Moreover, most Democratic voters, and including the majority of Jewish Democrats, want to see their party more aggressively push for a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even, or perhaps especially, if that means strongly criticizing Benjamin Netanyahu and his government. A recent poll released by JStreet, a liberal pro-Israel lobby, found that 69% of Democratic voters are less likely to support a candidate who says “the United States should continue financial and military aid to Israel without any restrictions, regardless of whether Israel expands settlements or annexes Palestinian territory.” Such a position, in practice an endorsement of making US aid to Israel conditional, is far to the left of what party leaders have long taken to be consensus.

Against an emboldened alliance of racist white nationalists and far-right, pro-Israel forces, the Democratic party leadership must change tact. Challenging the white nationalism on the rise within the Republican party, rejecting false accusations of antisemitism against left-wing politicians, and pressuring an Israeli government poised to annex the occupied West Bank are all integral parts of an agenda that can respond to the new political terrain.

To be sure, doing all of this at the same time will not be easy, and it will require Democratic leaders to demonstrate bravery and steadfastness that, for the most part, they have hitherto failed to show. But there is no other option. And if the Democratic party leaders fail to rise to the occasion, angry and energized primary voters will replace them with politicians who will.

The right is undergoing a process of extremization at breakneck speed—and not only around issues of race and foreign policy, but also gender equality, women’s rights, environmental justice, and more. The right’s strategy is one of divide and conquer—to sow tension and mistrust between various parts of the left-liberal coalition, between Jews and Muslims, working-class whites and African Americans.

The Republicans’ consistent use of outrageous, false accusations of antisemitism, especially against prominent women of color like representatives Omar and Tlaib, is a central part of that strategy. Fighting back against this as hard as possible this is not only what Democrats must do if they want to defeat Trump, the Republicans, and the surging white nationalist movement; it is the right thing to do, too.

Posted in USAComments Off on Democrats are finally getting wise to Republicans’ antisemitism smears



Over the past few months, several Black progressive leaders have been attacked for supporting Palestinian human rights; most notably, Angela Y. Davis, Marc Lamont Hill and the Hon. Ilhan Omar. In each case, the charge of anti-Semitism was leveled to silence criticism of the Israeli government, to regulate behavior and to try and mute independent Black political voices that are connected to communities across the country and abroad.

We categorically reject the erroneous assumption that all criticism of the Israeli government is anti-Semitic. This strategy, that has included things like firings and public character assassinations of leaders, is intended to undermine, censor and silence Black leadership, while ignoring our movement’s history of internationalism, particularly our consistent condemnation of all forms of anti-Semitism. We see this to be a strategy of the political right wing to misrepresent the very real history of anti-Jewish violence and oppression, then use this misrepresentation as a tool to promote a right wing nationalist agenda–at home and abroad. Our opponents are employing these tactics to divide our movements because when we’re aligned, we move our communities and the nation closer to achieving the more just and humane world we all deserve.

Despite any and all efforts to silence us, we will continue to stand with Davis, Hill, Omar and others around the world, whom as a matter of conscience and courage, are speaking out against the Israeli government’s discriminatory and violent treatment of the Palestinian people.

The recent attacks on prominent activists  are both racist and strategically disingenuous.They  remind us of the McCarthyism of  the 1950s. This was a time of blacklisting, loyalty oaths, and political persecution. In the 1960s and 70s, groups like the Black Panther Party, which endured extreme surveillance and political assaults because of its opposition to the Vietnam war, and SNCC for its vocal opposition to both the Vietnam war and apartheid in South Africa, suffered harassment and violent repression. This long-standing aversion to Black leaders expressing views on foreign policy persists today because of anti-Black racism and a fear of solidarity across movements in this country and abroad.  When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. publicly condemned the war in Vietnam, naming militarism and capitalism as central evils behind it, he was told he should only speak on so-called ‘Negro issues,’ and that belief is at the foundation of the attacks our leaders are facing today.

We also recognize that Black leaders are often uniquely persecuted for the reprehensible beliefs and statements held by those who we are not in political relationship with. We condemn those beliefs and know that these divisive attacks often serve the same emboldened right-wing that seeks to silence dissent on Palestinian human rights.

We are committed to fighting for the liberation of all Black people, but we know that our liberation is tied up in the liberation of all oppressed people here and around the world.

Our movements are rooted in the tradition of radical love and resistance that calls us to acknowledge, value and fight for the humanity, safety and dignity of all people.  Angela Davis, Ilhan Omar, Marc Lamont Hill, Michelle Alexander and so many others stand in that tradition, and we stand with them. We’re calling people of conscious to stand with us and to stand behind the leaders enduring these attacks.


Shoah’s pages