Archive | November 3rd, 2020

OCHA:: Protection of Civilians Report (Oct. 20 – Nov. 2, 2020)

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

Highlights from the Reporting Period

  • On 25 October, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy died during an Israeli search-and-arrest operation in Turmus’ayya village (Ramallah). According to the Israeli authorities, the boy fell and hit his head on the ground while being chased by soldiers, along with other Palestinian stone-throwers. Palestinian eyewitnesses indicated that he was severely beaten by Israeli forces and, according to the director of the hospital where he was admitted, his body showed signs of violence.
  • On 31 October, a Palestinian man was killed and six others were injured during a family dispute that triggered widespread clashes with Palestinian forces in the Balata refugee camp (Nablus). The death resulted from the detonation of an explosive device the man killed was carrying. The clashes led to the closure of schools and shops in the camp through the end of the reporting period.
  • The olive harvest season, which started on 7 October, continued to be disrupted by people known or believed to be Israeli settlers. In nine incidents (compared with 19 in the previous reporting period), Palestinians were injured, trees were damaged and produce was stolen. Five of the incidents took place in the Nablus governorate, near Burin village, where two olive pickers were stoned and injured; olive produce and agricultural tools were stolen in Burin, Deir al Hatab, and Jalud; and a tractor used for the harvest was vandalised in Qaryut. About 130 olive trees were vandalized near Turmus’ayya (Ramallah) and produce from about 200 others was stolen in Kufur Qaddoum (Qalqilia).
  • In numerous cases, the access of farmers to their olive groves in the closed area behind the Barrier was impeded. Israeli forces delayed the opening of certain agricultural gates, and in some cases prevented farmers from crossing with vehicles, leading some to refrain from accessing their groves, many of which are located away from the gate.
  • Two additional settler-related incidents resulted in injury or damage, both in the Nablus governorate. A Palestinian man was injured when hit by a stone in clashes that erupted between Palestinians of ‘Asira al Qibliya and Israeli settlers who had entered their village; Israeli forces intervened by firing tear gas canisters at Palestinians. In the Palestinian village of As-Sawiya, assailants believed to be settlers cut electricity poles and water pipelines.
  • Twenty-five Palestinians and one Israeli soldier were injured in multiple clashes across the West Bank. Eighteen of the injuries were sustained in the weekly protests against access restrictions and settlement activities in Kufur Qaddoum (Qalqilia), and four others in a protest against settler attempts to establish an outpost near Beit Dajan (Nablus). A boy was injured during clashes in Hebron city, and another Palestinian was physically assaulted while trying to enter Israel through a breach in the Barrier in the Tulkarem governorate. In Al-‘Isawiya (East Jerusalem), a Palestinian was physically assaulted and injured during a search-and-arrest operation. While no live ammunition injuries were recorded, four Palestinians were shot by rubber bullets and two were physically assaulted, while the remaining were treated for tear gas inhalation. An Israeli soldier was injured with a stone in clashes at the entrance of Al ‘Arroub refugee camp (Hebron).
  • On 30 October, Israeli soldiers opened fire at a Palestinian vehicle travelling near Qabatiya village (Jenin), resulting in the injury of three children (aged 13, 15, and 16) by shrapnel. The circumstances of the incident remain unclear.
  • Israeli forces carried out 161 search-and-arrest operations and arrested 126 Palestinians across the West Bank. A total of 37 operations were recorded in East Jerusalem, followed by Hebron (23) and Tulkarem (21).
  • On 20 and 22 October, a Palestinian armed group in Gaza allegedly fired three rockets at southern Israel and subsequently Israeli forces targeted military sites and open areas in Gaza. The rockets either fell in open areas or were intercepted. On at least 19 occasions, Israeli forces opened fire near Israel’s perimeter fence with Gaza, and off its coast, apparently to enforce access restrictions. None of these attacks resulted in injuries.
  • A total of 41 structures were demolished or seized due to lack of Israeli-issued building permits, displacing 19 people and otherwise affecting over 1,200. All the displacements and 37 of the structures targeted were in 15 communities in Area C, while the other four structures demolished were in East Jerusalem. On 28 October, the Israeli authorities cut a donor-funded pipe supplying water to 14 herding communities in the Masafer Yatta area of Hebron, home to about 1,400 people, including over 600 children; among other consequences, this is expected to undermine hygiene practices and people’s ability to cope with the ongoing pandemic. Three structures were demolished in two of the 18 Bedouin communities in the Jerusalem governorate located within or nearby the E1 area, where settlement expansion is planned.
  • One home was demolished and a room in another home was sealed on punitive grounds, displacing 18 people, including 11 children. The demolished house, in Rujeib (Area B of Nablus), was home to a Palestinian accused of stabbing to death an Israeli civilian last August. The sealing was carried out in Ya’bad (Area A of Jenin), at the home of a Palestinian charged for the killing of an Israeli soldier during a search-and-arrest operation last May.
  • One Israeli was injured and 11 Israeli-plated vehicles travelling inside the West Bank were damaged, when assailants (alleged to be Palestinians) threw stones at them, according to Israeli sources.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on OCHA:: Protection of Civilians Report (Oct. 20 – Nov. 2, 2020)

Maher Al-Akhras Suspends Hunger Strike

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

The Palestinian detainee, Maher Al-Akhras, has suspended his 103 day long hunger-strike, Friday, after coming to an agreement with the Nazi occupation state, the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society (PPS) reported.

The PPS added that the final commitment by the authorities to release the captive Maher Al-Akhras on November 26, 2020, and a firm commitment not to renew his administrative detention, as he will spend the remaining period until his release receiving hospital treatment.

Al-Akhras, 49, began his hunger strike on July 27, 2020, immediately after Nazi forces detained him without charges.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/ppsmo/

Video from the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society

‎نادي الأسير الفلسطيني‎Today at 03:10وفقاً لعائلتها: الاحتلال ينقل الأسيرة بشرى الطويل إلى سجن “هشارون”، … See more606013 comments2 sharesShareEnglish (UK) · Polski · Español · Português (Brasil) · Français (France)Privacy · Terms · Advertising · AdChoices · Cookies · MoreFacebook © 2020 

نادي الأسير الفلسطيني

6 November at 07:40 · 

بعد 103 أيام من الإضراب عن الطعام
#نادي_الأسير: إرادة الأسير ماهر الأخرس تنتصر على السّجان
رام الله – نادي الأسير: أعلن الأسير ماهر الأخرس تعليق إضرابه عن الطعام الذي استمر لـ(103) أيام، بعد اتفاق يقضي بإطلاق سراحه في تاريخ السادس والعشرين من تشرين الثاني /نوفمبر 2020، على أن يكون هذا الأمر هو الأمر الأخير، وسيقضي المدة المتبقية حتى الإفراج بتلقي العلاج في المستشفى.
وقال نادي الأسير في بيان صدر عنه، أنه بعد 103 أيام من الإضراب البطولي عن الطعام الذي خاضه الأسير المناضل ماهر الأخرس، والذي أعاد قضية الحركة الأسيرة والاعتقالات الإدارية إلى الواجهة، حيث رافق هذا الإضراب حراك شعبي جماهيري في كافة أماكن تواجد شعبنا الفلسطيني، وعلى ضوء التدهور الخطير، والحرج الذي شهدته حالة الأسير الأخرس الصحية، وبعد أن أوصدت الأبواب أمام ما يسمى الجهاز القضائي الإسرائيلي، ليمارس دوره بإنهاء هذا الاعتقال الإداري الظالم، انتصرت إرادة السجين على ظلم السجّان.
وعلى ضوء توجه أبناء شعبنا والحركة الأسيرة وقيادات شعبنا وبجهود من السلطة الوطنية الفلسطينية والإخوة في لجنة المتابعة العليا للجماهير العربية في الداخل وأعضاء الكنيست من القائمة المشتركة، أمام الجهات الإسرائيلية صاحبة الاختصاص، يقضي بالإلتزام القطعي من قبل السلطات الإسرائيلية بإطلاق سراح الأسير ماهر الأخرس يوم 26/11/2020، والإلتزام المؤكد بعدم تجديد اعتقاله الإداري، حيث سيقضي المدة المتبقية حتى الإفراج بتلقي العلاج في المستشفى.
وعلى ضوء ذلك، فقد قرر الأسير ماهر الأخرس إنهاء إضرابه عن الطعام ابتداءً من اليوم الجمعة الموافق 6/11/2020، وبذلك يكون الأسير ماهر الأخرس قد حقق انتصاراً كبيراً على السّجان والاحتلال، ويأتي انتصاره مكملاً لإنتصارات سابقة حققها مناضلون آخرون في مواجهة سياسة الاعتقال الاداري التعسفيّة.
هذا ووجه الأسير ماهر الأخرس تحية خاصة إلى إخوانه في الحركة الأسيرة الذين وقفوا إلى جانبه ودعموا إضرابه كما ويتوجه بالشكر الجزيل الى أبناء شعبنا الفلسطيني في كل أماكن تواجده الذين ساندوه ودعموه في إضرابه عن الطعام، والحراكات الشعبية العربية واليهودية، والقوى المناصرة للحرية في كل أنحاء العالم، وبالأخص للمحامية أحلام حدّاد التي رافقت القضية قضائياً.
يُشار إلى أن الأسير الأخرس (49 عاماً)، من بلدة سيلة الظهر في جنين، شرع بإضرابه منذ تاريخ اعتقاله في السابع والعشرين من تموز 2020، رفضاً لاعتقاله، وجرى تحويله لاحقاً إلى الاعتقال الإداري لمدة أربعة شهور، وخلال هذه المدة رفضت محاكم الاحتلال الإفراج عنه رغم ما وصل إليه من وضع صحي حرج، وكذلك رغم كل الدعوات التي وجهتها مؤسسات دولية وحقوقية طالبت بالإفراج الفوري عنه ووقف سياسة الاعتقال الإداري.

Post from the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Maher Al-Akhras Suspends Hunger Strike

Nazi soldiers Injure Many Palestinians Near Nablus

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Nazi soldiers attacked, Saturday, a nonviolent procession against the illegal colonialist activities, in Beit Dajan village, east of the northern West Bank city of Nablus.

Media sources said a large military force, accompanied by a bulldozer, invaded the village, and attacked the protesters, just as they started marching towards Palestinian lands Nazi intends to illegal annex.

The Nazi soldiers fired gas bombs and concussion grenades at the protesters, causing many to suffer the effects of teargas inhalation.

The Nazi soldiers also assaulted one Palestinian, identified as Khairi Hannoun, causing cuts and bruises.

In addition, the soldiers closed the nearby Beit Forik military roadblock, and prevented the Palestinians from reaching the town.

In related news, the illegal Nazi colonists installed barns and tens on the Palestinian lands, in the eastern area of Beit Dajan, in addition to bulldozing lands and preparing new roads near the al-Hamra outpost, which was built on private Palestinian lands near the village.

The residents fear that the colonists are preparing for a new outpost, which would also lead to further theft of their lands.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi soldiers Injure Many Palestinians Near Nablus

‘Israeli’ draft refuser, Hallel Rabin, jailed in Israel’s Military Prison No. 6

IFAMERICANSKNEW.ORG 

Israeli draft refuser, Hallel Rabin, jailed in Israel’s Military Prison No. 6

Israeli conscientious objector Hallel Rabin. (Courtesy of Mesarvot)

Israeli conscientious objector, Hallel Rabin, is serving a prison term for refusing to serve in the IDF based on her reasons of conscience and pacifism.

By Stephen D. Shenfield

Hallel Rabin, 19, comes from Harduf in the Lower Galilee – an innovative vegetarian community inspired by Rudolf Steiner’s anthroposophy. About a quarter of the 600 inhabitants are people with special needs who live in the kibbutz’ four rehabilitative homes.

Since October 21, Hallel has been serving a 25-day sentence in Israel’s Military Prison No. 6 for refusing conscription into the IDF. This is her third spell of incarceration. The official committee that considered her application for conscientious objector status voted 3—2 to reject the application because her motives amount to political opposition rather than absolute pacifism.

“I was raised,” says Hallel, “on the values of freedom, compassion, and love. Fighting to keep another nation enslaved contradicts these values. For too long, the good people of Israel have agreed to participate in the occupation’s atrocities. While I know my refusal is small and personal, I wish to be the change I want to see in the world and to show that another way is possible. Little people make big changes. It is time to shout: There is no such thing as good repression, no such thing as justifiable racism, and no more room for the Israeli occupation.”

Mesarvot (a group that helps draft refusers) and Yesh Gvul (There is a Limit) held a protest vigil supporting Hallel Rabin on Saturday, October 31 – on the hillside facing Prison No. 6, from where demonstrators are visible and audible to prisoners and guards.

Sources:

https://tv.social.org.il/en/hallel-rabin-i-refusehttps://www.refuser.org/refuser-updates/hallel-jailedhttps://www.harduf.org.il/objDoc.asp?PID=89510&OID=470234&DivID=1inhttps://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-hallel-rabin-prisoner-1.9247520https://www.972mag.com/israeli-conscientious-objector-hallel-rabin/


Stephen D. Shenfield is an independent researcher and translator living in the US.


RELATED READING:

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on ‘Israeli’ draft refuser, Hallel Rabin, jailed in Israel’s Military Prison No. 6

New pro-‘Israel’ policies being established before possible Trump defeat

ALISON WEIR 

New pro-Israel policies being established before possible Trump defeat

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Trump son-in-law and Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin flank President Donald Trump as he announces that they brokered a UAE agreement to ‘normalize’ relations with Israel and abandon an international effort to support Palestinian rights. (Jewish Chronicle/JNS)

A flurry of actions have been undertaken recently to help Israel, to assist Donald Trump’s electoral prospects… and, if Trump is defeated, to procure the policies before a possibly less hardcore pro-Israel candidate takes office…

By Alison Weir

As polls continue to show Biden leading over Trump, Israel partisans have been undertaking a slew of actions that benefit Israel. The recent flurry of activity likely has two motivations:

(1) To help Trump get elected by increasing his support among pro-Israel donors and voters.

(2) To procure pro-Israel objectives while it’s still possible, in case Trump is defeated by a candidate who some Israel partisans worry may be less influenced by the pro-Israel right, whose actions have sometimes displeased hardcore Israel advocates, and whose party members increasingly support Palestinian rights.

While both Trump and Biden have long pandered to Israel partisans and are largely beholden to pro-Israel campaign donors, Trump donors like Sheldon Adelson are often more extreme in their demands.

As a result, the Trump administration has taken actions eschewed by previous administrations from both parties, including moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights as supposedly legitimate, cutting off aid to Palestinians, and shutting down the Palestinian office in Washington.

Although it is true that previous administrations have also undertaken numerous pro-Israel actions, the Trump administration has consistently gone further and been more influenced by the extremist portion of the Israel lobby.

One example is that while previous US teams put in charge of trying to broker Israel-Palestine peace largely consisted of Israel partisans who acted as “Israel’s lawyer,” they were in favor of a “two state solution” and largely felt that the expansion of settlements was bad for Israel.

The current “peace team,” on the other hand, has consisted of right wing Israel partisans with ties to the Israeli settlement movement who believe Israel should annex all Palestinian land. 

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reports that the team “has made Israel’s interests paramount in its strategies.” Its members are “cut from the same religious and ideological cloth.” They are committed to “greater Israel,” the belief that the West Bank and Gaza are allegedly Jewish land, which precludes a ‘two-state solution.’

JTA states that peace team members  Jared Kushner, Jonathan Greenblatt, David Friedman, and Avraham “Avi” Berkowitz “were all raised in Orthodox Jewish homes, are all from the New York area, and all have deep pre-government ties to Israel and its religious institutions.”

There is no doubt that Biden is also in thrall to the Israel lobby and to neocon hawks (the latter are now endorsing him just as they did Hillary). However, Biden’s absolute fealty to Israel is less certain than Trump’s, and the progressives in his party could circumscribe Biden’s actions, so it appears that the administration’s Israelists are grabbing what they can now so that no matter what happens in the upcoming election, Israel has benefited.

RECENT PRO-ISRAEL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, a longtime Israel supporter, watches as a Bahraini official signs an agreement with an Israeli delegation led by Israeli National Security Advisor Meir Ben Shabbat in Bahrain, October 18, 2020. (Reuters)

Pushing Arab countries to “normalize” relations with Israel

In recent months the Trump administration has successfully induced several Arab countries to abandon the decades-long boycott of Israel that had been put in place after Israel invaded and began occupying the West Bank and Gaza.

For many years only Egypt and Jordan (in exchange for massive US aid money) had agreed to diplomatic relations with Israel. Other Arab countries had said they would establish ties with Israel only after Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Overcoming this opposition has long been a major goal for Israel and its partisans, and now it has begun to happen, thanks to Trump officials.

The Times of Israel reports: “The recent normalization pacts with Israel have undermined the traditional Arab consensus that there can be no normalization with Israel before the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.”

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman told an Israeli newspaper that the plan has been to put “all our efforts in the near future in diplomatic efforts” to “make Israel safe, secure and prosperous” by encouraging more countries to normalize ties with Israel.

Formerly Trump’s bankruptcy lawyer, Friedman is known as a pro-Israel extremist. The Center for Constitutional Rights reports: “Friedman funnels millions of tax-deductible U.S. dollars to facilitate Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise, supports Israeli annexation of the West Bank, denies the existence of Palestinian rights to Jerusalem, and zealously attacks anyone who takes issue with his far-right agenda. More than 600 U.S.-based rabbis and cantors have signed a letter opposing Friedman’s appointment.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman promoted the Arab normalization deals. (Reuters)

At first some Arab leaders resisted the pressure to sign public accords with Israel before any of their’ objectives on behalf of justice for Palestinians had been attained. As Al Jazeera reported:

Bahrain’s king has told visiting US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the Gulf state is committed to the creation of a Palestinian state, according to state media, in an implicit rejection of Washington’s push for Arab countries to swiftly normalise ties with Israel.

Before Bahrain, Pompeo was in Sudan where Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok said on Tuesday his transitional government has “no mandate” to take the step of establishing relations with Israel.

And on Wednesday, Bahrain echoed the sentiments of its ally and regional heavyweight Saudi Arabia that accord with Israel would not materialise without the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

According to the official Bahrain News Agency, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa told Pompeo his country remains committed to the Arab Peace Initiative – which calls for Israel’s complete withdrawal from the Palestinian territories occupied after 1967, in exchange for peace and the full normalisation of relations.

“The king stressed the importance of intensifying efforts to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict according to the two-state solution … to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital,” the agency reported.

Eventually, however, some Arab leaders caved in to US pressure and inducements and signed normalization agreements. The UAE led the way in August.

* United Arab Emirates (UAE).  August 13,2020.  There seems to have been a strong inducement to procure the agreement; behind the scenes, the UAE was told it would be permitted to buy American F-35s and other military weaponry.

As an official at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (an AIPAC cutoutsaid, the deal was “a win for the Emirates, which will undoubtedly be eligible for military sales” that it would not normally be able to obtain.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was jubilant about the US brokered agreement: “Everyone can see the fruits of this peace accord. The UAE committed to bringing massive investments to Israel, hundreds of millions of shekels. It’s already happening and it will happen even more.”

* Bahrain: September 2020. Efforts to achieve this agreement had been openly underway since at least 2019, when several American Jewish Committee delegations visited the country, giving Bahrain the “Architect of Peace” award for reportedly being “opening and welcoming” towards the Israel lobby group.

A delegation of the pro-Israel lobby group American Jewish Committee poses with Bahrain’s interior minister, Rashid bin Abdulla Al Khalifa, in Bahrain December 11, 2019. (Electronic Intifada)

Trump son-in-law and Senior White House adviser Jared Kushner hailed the agreement as “the culmination of four years of great work” by the Trump administration.

Avi Berkowitz, U.S. Special Representative for International Negotiations, said at the signing: “We’re in negotiations with many other countries. I unfortunately can’t specify yet which countries.”

Avi Berkowitz speaks with Israel’s I24 TV news during signing of Bahrain-Israel accord. (i24 News)

Berkowitz reportedly attained his position because of his long friendship and idealogical kinship with Jared Kushner. Berkowitz studied at a fundamentalist religious school in Israel for two years. He is said to have been “an integral member of this team since the beginning. He’s been to all of the trips overseas and in all the meetings, in a high-level capacity developing the administration’s plan.”

Al Jazeera reports that for years Palestinians saw the US as Israel’s lawyer or partner. “Now they see it as Israel’s agent.”

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin accompanied Iraeli National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat on an El-Al flight to Bahrain, October 18, 2020. Mnuchin is a longtime Israel advocate. (Arab News)

Sudan  October 23, 2020 – A Sudanese official revealed that “normalizing relations with Israel was one of the conditions set by the U.S. government to remove Sudan from its list of countries that sponsor terrorism.”

AP reports: “Getting off the list is a key incentive for the Sudanese government to establish official ties with Israel. It would open the door for Sudan to get international loans and aid needed to revive its battered economy and rescue the country’s transition to democracy.”

A senior Sudanese official, the New York Times reports, said that the government “had bowed to months of American pressure over Israel, despite fears of a domestic backlash, in return for Sudan’s removal from an American list of state sponsors of terrorism.”

The U.S. had designated Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993 for its support of anti-Israel resistance groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

According to AP: “While Sudan does not have the influence or wealth of the Gulf Arab countries, a deal with the African country would be deeply significant for Israel.”

“Netanyahu has made it a priority to forge ties with formerly hostile countries in Africa and the Arab world in the absence of any progress with the Palestinians during his more than decade in office,” AP states. “Netanyahu believes that outside pressure could force the Palestinians into abandoning their traditional demands for a state in all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem — lands Israel captured in 1967.”

The move may also have helped Trump shore up support from some evangelical Christian and Jewish voters, as Trump suggested that Biden would never have accomplished it.

CHANGING US LAWS FOR ISRAEL

US Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sign agreements to lift restrictions on US investment in science projects in Israeli settlements in a special ceremony held at Ariel University on October 28, 2020. The settlements are illegal under international law. (Times of Israel)

* Amended a series of scientific cooperation agreements to include Israeli institutions in the West Bank, which Israeli media see as “as precursor to future West Bank annexation.”

Netanyahu hailed  the agreements as “an important victory.”

According to AP, the move “further blurs the status of settlements widely considered illegal under international law. Until now, three U.S.-Israeli science cooperation agreements excluded projects in areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war — including the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.”

The agreement was signed by David Friedman and Netanyahu in a ceremony at Ariel University, located within an Israeli settlement in the heart of the West Bank.

Friedman told the Times of Israel that he had initiated the removal of the “offending clause” (preventing funding projects in illegal settlements) from the agreement a year ago and that it involved “a complicated interagency process.”

The projects have reportedly provided more than $1.4 billion to over 7,300 projects in Israel.

* Gave U.S. passport holders who were born in Jerusalem the option of having Israel listed as the country, reversing decades of U.S. policy.

Mike Pompeo speaks during a joint press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu after a meeting in Jerusalem, August 24, 2020. (Ha’aretz)

Politico reports: “American passports have not used the phrase ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ because the exact status of the city has long been disputed as part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Prior to Trump, U.S. policy had been that the city’s borders and status are issues subject to negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Thus, U.S. passports have simply stated their bearers were born in ‘Jerusalem’.”

The Times of Israel points out that the move “comes amid a flurry of gestures and diplomatic activity seemingly aimed at shoring up pro-Israel Jewish and Evangelical Republican voters, with days to go before the November 3 presidential election.”

BIDEN DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES

Joe Biden has been close to Israel since at least 1973 and has called himself a “Zionist,” but he differs with the Trump insiders on some aspects of the issue.  JTA synopsizes his views:

Biden has said that he hopes to maintain a robust relationship with Israel as president, although he differs sharply from President Donald Trump in some areas: Biden would return to the Iran nuclear deal, albeit under what he says would be stricter terms limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities. He would uphold the two-state solution and would reject the portions of Trump’s peace proposal that would allow Israel to annex West Bank territory, although he would not condition aid to Israel over compliance with U.S. policy.

One facet of Trump’s Middle East policy Biden has welcomed is the recent proliferation of normalization agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan.

ISRAEL PARTISANS IN CONGRESS HAVE ALSO BEEN BUSY

Jewish Insider reports: “Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Brian Mast (R-FL) are expected to introduce bipartisan legislation this week that would seek to provide Israel with the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal, with the ability to strike at Iran’s well-protected nuclear facilities, a source familiar with the legislation told Jewish Insider.”

The bill doesn’t appear to be on the Congressional website yet, but Gottheimer states that they introduced it on October 12. The text is here.

A previous JI article reported: “As co-chair of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, Gottheimer invests his time in Washington on bipartisan efforts, including preserving support for Israel in Congress on both sides of the aisle.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J) at a press conference on December 4, 2019. Gottheimer told the Jewish Standard that he’s “always influenced by Jewish values.” (Jewish Insider)
Cosponsor of the legislation Brian Mast volunteered with Israel’s IDF in 2015. Mast’s Congressional actions have been 100 percent pro-Israel. (Algemeiner)

The bill is the latest in over 90 items introduced in the current Congress to benefit Israel. Much of the legislation funnels additional money to Israel above the more than $3.8 billion it already receives annually. See details here (including scoreboards of Congress members’ actions on Israel-Palestine).


Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew, president of the Council for the National Interest, and author of Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel.

Our operations are funded solely by generous individuals like you. Your contribution will help us continue shining a light on the Israel/Palestine situation and the U.S. connection. DONATE


RELATED:

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on New pro-‘Israel’ policies being established before possible Trump defeat

Charlie Hebdo Rides Again

ISRAEL SHAMIR 

The French President stepped on a rake for the second time, and was duly slapped in the face by its long handle. French products went off the shelf in the Arab and Turkish shops; heads chopped off in the midst of pandemics; a lot of animosity, anger, smacking of a civil war. Vous l’avez voulu, you asked for it, Emmanuel Macron! We saw it in 2015, why did you push “Replay”? Anyone can step on a rake once, but to repeat this mistake? It is not a sign of a smart guy, unless this response is exactly what he wanted.

Macron is surely a smart guy. He had a few good practical reasons to provoke French Muslims. Not an ideological man, he wanted to steal the right-wing electorate of Mme Le Pen. They are known for hating foreigners, first of all the large Muslim population of the republic. The Muslims do not fit the self-image of a Frenchman, the slim man in beret and mackintosh with a baguette under his arm. It was not hard to make this Muslim population angry, and then to manifest Macron’s iron fist in dealing with them, and voila! the nationalist voters are in the pocket of the French president.

The replay was jumpstarted by Charlie Hebdo. This small satirical magazine of little artistic value usually publishes bad taste cartoons of public loo wall quality. It wouldn’t survive but for grants and government subsidies. It is so minor that it would not be noticed either but for the mainstream media that bring its message to the last immigrant banlieue. Now they have republished some nasty cartoons aimed at the Prophet Muhammad. The immigrants and their children didn’t enjoy this premeditated insult to their faith. Think about having a good laugh over the Holocaust in the presence of a Jewish person and you’ll understand. Even peaceful and calm people dislike being offended. However, the publication was of little importance, as opposed to Macron’s public and well-covered support for it. He positively celebrated this publication and added a few well-chosen and offensive phrases against Islam. This was the ringer.

Tartuffe would be proud of Macron who declared that Charlie Hebdo is the true carrier of the French Republican spirit and its love for unbridled freedom of speech. It would be bad enough if true, but it is not. France, and the entire world, is now in the middle of a huge offensive against free speech. Facebook banishes accounts and removes posts, Google shadow bans sites, the venerable Unz.com has been both banned on Facebook and shadow-banned on Google. President Trump has his tweets removed or appended with a health warning on Twitter. The proposed new hate law of Scotland would make it a crime to express opinions likely to cause discomfort even within the four walls of your own home. For a long time it has been a crime to say “hateful things” in the public space, and in the UK there are a hundred thousand “hate crimes” a year committed, according to the thought police.

France is leading the assault against free speech. French Writer Hervé Ryssen Jailed for Criticizing Jews;French Court Sentenced Alain Soral to Pay Jewish Organization $158,500 for Re-Releasing 128-Year-Old Book – say the recent headlines. The new French law bans “hate speech” on social media. The law obliges platforms and search engines to remove offensive content – including religious bigotry – within 24 hours or risk a fine of up to €1.25m. This law, and other hate laws are applied in defence of Jews, but strangely do not defend Muslim or Christian sensibilities.

The chief editor of Charlie Hebdois aware of this discriminatory order and approves of it. A Spiked journalist reports on meeting him: “Biard[the editor] is not in favour of unregulated speech. He supports French laws that outlaw Holocaust denial, and is sympathetic towards laws on hate speech. He approves of prosecution of French comedian Dieudonné, who has been arrested numerous times for saying the Shoah wasn’t important.” You may not speak against Jews, but attacking the faith of poor Muslim immigrants is perfectly all right, for they are people of no importance, and they should learn who is their boss and what is the true faith of their new homeland (a hint: it is not Christianity). If they make trouble it is even better for they can be hit hard.

Theoretically, it is illegal in France to insult Muslim (or Christian) beliefs. The European Court of Human Rights had ruled so explicitly in a judgment in the case of Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria: “The respect for the religious feelings of believers guaranteed by Article 9 can legitimately be considered violated by provocative images of objects of religious veneration, such images can be considered a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which should also be a feature of a democratic society.”

In the case of Wingrove v. the United Kingdom:

“… Respect for the religious feelings of believers can become the basis for the state’s legal restriction of the publication of provocative images of objects of religious veneration.”

In the case of Pussy Riot v. Russia:“Given that the applicants’ presentation took place in a cathedral, which is a place of religious worship, the Court considers that (the State’s) interference can be regarded as having the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of third parties.”

Such activities should be illegal, but apparently are not. This unfairness is a source of aggravation: Muslims were laughed out of court when they complained against particularly vile Charlie’s cartoons, but Jews almost always win when they go to court against their denigrators. (Full disclosure: I was also sued by LICRA, the French Jewish body, while my French publisher was financially devastated by their Lawfare).

Thus, France (like the rest of the West) has very little freedom of expression left, and Macron’s claim that Charlie cartoons should be celebrated as a sign of Liberté sounds particularly hypocritical and false, like George Bush’s They hate us for our Freedom. As if that weren’t enough, then came the push to make every Muslim in France aware of this Macron-approved Charlie nastiness. In schools, a lesson was dedicated to educating children in the crude pornography of the cartoons. It was claimed (and I have no way of verifying) that the murdered French teacher had shown cartoons mocking the Prophet for five years every year since 2015, as he did this year after Macron’s speech. He allegedly added another pornographic cartoon and suggested Muslims might leave the classroom if they did not want to be offended. I can imagine the cry (selection! deportation!) if a teacher had suggested that Jewish pupils should leave the room. The upset Muslim parents went to the police and complained. The teacher lodged a counter-complaint alleging defamation. It is difficult to judge now whether the slain teacher was acting as he was obliged to by the authorities, or whether he was especially zealous in delivering the smut.

An 18-year-old youngster of Chechen origin (he had lived in France since he was six) killed him and allegedly decapitated him, and right away the killer was shot dead by police. This created a wave of panic in France, with Macron and Le Pen competing with calls to punish the Muslims. Some Muslim extremists allegedly attacked worshippers in a Nice church and killed three or four of them. This was decried as a false flag action, aimed at terrorising people into accepting the new lockdown, by a prominent radical French site that called for the “refusal of re-containment (or new lockdown) as the only real act of resistance in these troubled times”.

It could be a false flag, for no Muslim group accepted responsibility, and besides, the French secret service has a tradition of killing the perpetrators they sent to do the deed, and the killing of the young Chechen fits their playbook. The next terrorist act, the shooting of a Greek Orthodox priest in Lyon, was also ascribed to bloodthirsty Muslims, until it was discovered that the criminal was a fellow Orthodox ex-monk with some personal grudge against the priest; then the Lyon attack was dropped into the memory hole.

Macron still closed all the churches in France; apparently the government wanted to create the background for a religious war of Christians vs Muslims. Even murkier is the reason why the Chechen rebels/terrorists have been brought to France, as well as Syrian, Libyan and Afghan refugees/terrorists who participated in the bloody civil wars in their lands. They were certainly dangerous.

We know that British intelligence used Libyan refugees with a dubious background to keep meddling in Libyan affairs, and two terrorists, Salman and Hashem Abedi, fled Libya with British government assistance onboard the UK Royal Navy vessel, HMS Enterprise, only to kill and injure many Brits in 2017 in Manchester. We know that the Russians have asked to extradite suspected Chechen terrorists from England and France, but were refused.

It is not likely that these hardened terrorists have been brought to Western Europe in hope of turning them into exemplary citizens, or for humanitarian reasons. It is more probable that they were brought in exactly for the purpose of creating a terrorist underground network, to frighten citizens into obedience. Just like coronavirus, but in another way. Some people are getting killed, but the purpose is achieved: new anti-terrorist acts are enacted and acted upon; more surveillance is introduced. The governments and their security services want to keep us scared, and terrorism is a reliable means for that. It is all part of the war the elites carry out against the nations and against too-unreliable democracy.

Elites are unhappy with us, the people, says Frank Furedi: “Contempt for the people who fail to vote in accordance with their betters’ wishes is one of the main drivers of elite hostility towards democracy today.” They hope “coronavirus will kill populism”, read: democracy, he adds.

You can trust politically incorrect Russians to say it straight. The Russian top banker Herman Gref in his candid speech at SPIEF 2012 said what his Western partners think but never would utter:

“I want to tell you that you are actually saying terrible things. You are proposing to transfer power into the hands of the people. But if people would know all, it will be extremely difficult to manipulate them. People don’t want to be manipulated when they have knowledge. That’s why Kabbalah was a secret teaching for three thousand years. Any mass control implies a manipulation element. How to live, how to manage such a society, where everyone has equal access to information, everyone has the opportunity to receive directly information unless it had been processed through government analysts? How to live in such a society? Your reasoning makes me scary.”

Herman Gref had been injected with a truth serum, people said after hearing his candid talk. (Here in Russian). Perhaps.

Perhaps the very idea of mass immigration from the war-stricken regions was connected with the elites’ desire to start a low-intensity civil war in their own country while undoing social cohesion achieved by centuries of living together.

Now we shall proceed to a deeper reason why Macron decided to splash some oil onto the ever-glimmering bonfire of strife.

A fluent ideologue of French far-right nationalism is Eric Zemmour, an Algerian Jew. Here is a short article in English giving some background to the man. The Irish Times mistakenly calls him “the son of Jewish “Pied-Noirs”, who emigrated from Algeria when it gained independence from France”. This isn’t so: Pied-Noirs were French colonists in Algeria, while Zemmour is a native Algerian Jew. Instead of being an assimilated Jew as he claims, he is rather a dissimulating Jew: despite being an advocate for Catholic France, he goes to a synagogue, avoids pork and keeps kosher (Jewish dietary laws) at home, but not outside. He says he was a leftist until he discovered Muslims and started his own warfare against them.

He is, and has been, allowed to say such things on French mainstream TV channels for which anybody else would be arrested and imprisoned. He calls for putting an end to immigration (which is reasonable) but he does not stop at this, but speaks of mass deportations, and actually calls for a civil war against French Muslim citizens, while presenting himself as a defender of Catholic France.

His official opponent, the ideologue of liberal France, is Bernard Henri Levi, BHL, another North African Jew, who was instrumental in creating civil wars in Syria and Libya while encouraging Islamist fanatics in these lands to overturn the secular socialist regimes. He is a supporter of immigration, and he lives part of the year in Marrakech, Morocco.

These two Jews are leading France to religious strife, acting on both sides of the divide. Doesn’t it remind us of a Rothschild and a Trotsky, a ruthless banker and a fiery revolutionary, who incited class conflicts from both sides of the social divide, as G.K. Chesterton saw it?

This is the view of a Moroccan-French author, Youssef Hindi, a friend and a co-worker with Alain Soral. He has asserted that Jews have systematically infiltrated Muslim and Christian elites in order to stimulate destructive wars between Muslims and Christians, for the benefit of Jews alone, who will thus be able to settle in the Holy Land, drive out the original inhabitants, and establish a world empire of nations obedient to Jerusalem, which is the ultimate content of Jewish Messianism. Hindi’s West and Islam has the caption “Messianic sources and the genesis of Zionism from medieval Europe to the Clash of Civilizations”.

According to Hindi, Zionism didn’t begin with Theodore Herzl but has deep roots in the Kabbalistic eschatology of the Middle Ages, conveyed and nourished by successive generations of sages, mystics and miracle workers.

Such a sage was Don Isaac Abravanel (born 1437), a subject of the book by Benzion Netanyahu, father of the Israeli Prime Minister and a cult figure for father and son alike. He launched the era of Jewish messianism, says a Haaretz writer. His idea, absorbed and accepted by Benjamin Netanyahu, was the calling for an apocalyptic catastrophe, a “war of the monsters” between Gog and Armilus – symbolising Ishmaelites (Muslims) and Christendom (as Abravanel described, for example, in his work “MayaneiYeshua”). This war will be concluded with a weakening of both sides and the Rise of Jews to world domination, symbolically called ‘The Feast of the Leviathan.’

Karl Schmitt, the great philosopher of his time, said in 1942, that Jews enjoy the colossal global struggle between the monsters, Leviathan (Britain and the US) and Behemoth (Germany): “They gleefully rub their hands waiting for the mutual attrition that would enable the Jews’ domination of the world, or ‘The Feast of the Leviathan.” Will the war between Islam and Christendom now brewing in France allow for the next Feast of the Leviathan?

Perhaps. Avner Ben-Zaken, an Israeli thinker, wrote in his excellent treatment of the subject (here in English) that Benjamin Netanyahu, himself a great adept of Catastrophic Messianism and a believer in the war of Edom and Ishmael as the key to salvation of Jews, visited France in the aftermath of the first Charlie episode and encouraged the French Jewish leadership to act by calling them a “new collective Isaac Abravanel”. Two years later, the French Jewish leadership appointed Emanuel Macron the President of the Republic, says a French Jewish writer blogging under the name Tsarfat (the Hebrew name for France).

In a long and detailed piece Tsarfat tells of a few prominent Jews (Alain Minc, Serge Weinberg, Jacques Attali, and Bernard Mourad) vouching for Macron with David de Rothschild. In 2011, Macron became a junior partner at Rothschild, earning a substantial salary. He was worth every penny – he tricked Le Monde, he cheated President Hollande, he cheated the French state, he did whatever Rothschild demanded and in return, he has got the presidency of the Republic. He was the new king appointed by the new Abravanel. Now he has to deliver the war between Christendom and Islam, for the supreme glory of Israel.

Eric Zemmour, the fiery far-right spokesman, a commenter with its own prime-time slot on a major TV channel, is the ideal man to lead the psychotic (thanks to Corona panic) France (and Europe) into a religious war between Christendom and Islam. In the war, both major opponents will be broken and weakened, while Israel with its Judaism-for-Goyim, the Holocaust creed will have the upper hand.

Eric Montana, a French Christian journalist wrote: “Zemmour is a double agent in the service of the Clash of Civilizations and of the Zionist movement which feeds a climate of permanent tension in France. Zemmour works to provoke division and pour fuel on the fire, by outrageously criminalizing some of our compatriots of Muslim faith, and thus endangering civil peace in our country. Zemmour is a public danger who despite his numerous convictions for inciting racial and religious hatred, remains scandalously present in the media, undoubtedly enjoying protection invisible to the naked eye … but yet very real.”

At least we can say that the opponents of Muslims aren’t Christians. For the Charlie Hebdo magazine is explicitly anti-Christian as well as anti-Muslim. One finds there some most obnoxious cartoons offending the Virgin and Christ, as well as the pope and the Church. (They never offended Jews, somehow).

A Christian government would act like the Russians did. A few years ago, Pussy Riotprofaned the St Saviour of Moscow in the way that Femen had profaned some great European cathedrals, from Notre Dame de Paris to Strasbourg. The Russian government did not wait for vigilante justice to be meted upon the viragos, but had gave them up to two years of prison. At the same time, the Russian criminal law has been changed to include ‘sacrilege’ among ordinary crimes, by general consent. Since then, such crimes do not occur.

In Charlie’s France, the Femen despoiling the churches were never punished; but a churchwarden who tried to prevent that was heavily fined. France has a long anti-Christian tradition, usually described as “laic” (secular), and its grand anti-Church coalition of Atheists, Huguenots and Jews coalesced in the days of the Dreyfus Affair. It also has a strong Catholic church, but not one calling for a war with Muslims.

The true Christian view of the developments was expressed by Archbishop Theodosius Atallah Hanna of Sebaste in Palestine (he baptised me in 2002). He condemned the targeting of Muslims in France and around the world through degrading paintings and cartoons. “Hate speech aims at serving the policy of divide and conquer. Christians and Muslims must cement a culture of brotherhood and togetherness and we must work together, more than ever before to defeat all the plans and conspiracies that aim at dividing us and at creating discord in our ranks”, said the Palestinian bishop.

P.S. Much attention is given to the exotic way of killing by the alleged terrorists. Actually, beheading is as French as onion soup. Guillotine was the preferred national method of execution (like electric chair in the US). The French beheaded their king and queen. During the Battle for Algeria, French paras famously played football with chopped rebel heads. Napoleon had brought beheading to the Middle East, not vice versa. During his campaign in Egypt, general Bonaparte having learned of an uprising in a village had ordered his adjutant Croisier to go there, surround the entire tribe, kill all men without exception, and bring women and children to Cairo. His orders were promptly carried out. Many children and women who were driven on foot died on the way, and, a few hours later, donkeys laden with sacks appeared on the main square of Cairo. The sacks were opened and the heads of the executed men of the guilty tribe rolled across the square, wrote the historian. Should we say chicken came home to roost?

Posted in FranceComments Off on Charlie Hebdo Rides Again

‘Israel’ Wins U.S. ElectionCongress and White House work together to reward the Jewish state

PHILIP GIRALDI 

The U.S. election will end today, more or less, and we Americans will suffer another four years of putting up with serial nonsense out of a White House and Congress that could care less about us no matter who is elected. Whether the party where everything changes or the party where everything remains the same wins the inevitable result will be further aggrandizement of authoritarian power combined with increased distancing of government from the people who are ruled.

Amidst all the gloom, however, there is one great success story. That is the tale of how Israel and its friends in politics and financial circles have been able to screw every possible advantage out of both major parties simultaneously and apparently effortlessly. Israel might be the true undisputed winner in the 2020 election even though it was not on the ballot and was hardly mentioned at all during the campaign.

Jewish billionaires with close ties to Israel have been courted by the two major parties, both to come up with contributions and to urge their friends in the oligarch club and media to also respond favorably. The Democrats’ largest single donor is entertainment mogul Haim Saban while the Republicans rely on casino multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson. It is estimated that 60% of the political contributions for the Democrats comes from Jewish sources and Saban is the single largest contributor. He is also an Israeli holding dual citizenship. Adelson, who may also hold dual citizenship and is married to an Israeli, is the major supporter of the Republicans, having coughed up more than $100 million in recent elections.

Both Saban and Adelson have not been shy about supporting Israel as their first priority. Saban is on record as supporting Joe Biden “because of his track record on supporting Israel and its alliance with the United States.” Adelson, who was drafted into the U.S. Army in the 1950s, has said that he would much rather have served in the Israel Defense Force. Saban and Adelson are joined in their love fest with Israel by a number of Israel-firsters in Congress and the Administration, all eager to shower unlimited political support, money and weapons on the Jewish state.

In the latest manifestation of noblesse oblige, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper stopped off in Israel last week to present his counterparts with a significant bit of assistance, all funded by the American taxpayer, of course. According to sources in Washington and Jerusalem, the U.S. “will grant Israel direct access to highly classified satellites such as the missile detection birds known as SBIRS and ensure Israel gets critical defense platforms in a very short time by using production slots planned for the U.S armed forces.” Israel will also be given “deeper access to the core avionic systems” of the new F-35 fighter that it has been obtaining from Washington.

The claimed rationale for the upgrade is the Congressionally mandated requirement for the U.S. to maintain Israel’s “qualitative military edge” in light of the impending sale of the F-35 to Arab states that have recently established diplomatic relations with Israel. At the time, Israeli sources were suggesting that the Jewish state might need $8 billion in new military hardware upgrades to maintain its advantage over its neighbors. It is presumed that the American taxpayer will foot the bill, even though there is a serious financial crisis going on in the U.S.

The satellite detection system operates from aerial platforms that are deployed on helicopters. The astute reader will notice that no U.S. security interest is involved in the latest giveaway to Israel. On the contrary, Israel will be receiving material from “production slots planned for the U.S. armed forces,” reducing America’s own ability to detect incoming missiles. And there will also be considerable damage to American defense interests in that Israel will inevitably steal the advanced F-35 technology that they will be given access to, re-engineer it for their own defense industries and sell it to clients in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. They have done so before, selling U.S. developed missile technology to China.

Congress is also doing its bit. A bill, the so-called “U.S.-Israel Common Defense Authorization Act,” is making its way through the House of Representatives and will authorize the provision of U.S. manufactured bunker buster bombs to Israel. As the bombs would only be useful in Israel’s neighborhood to bomb hardened sites in Iran, the message being sent is obvious. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator weighs 30,000 pounds and is capable of destroying targets located deep underground. Oddly, Israel doesn’t have a plane capable of carrying that weight so the presumption is that the White House will also have to provide the bomber. The bill is co-sponsored by two leading Israel firsters in Congress Democrat Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Republican Brian Mast of Florida.

Israel is also seeking an upgrade of some of its other fighter aircraft. It reportedly has approached the Pentagon seeking to buy the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft that was originally developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). Its stealth capability, top speed, maneuverability combined with advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon systems, makes it the best air superiority fighter in the world.

Unfortunately for Israel, the F-22 is not currently available and is only operated by the USAF. Current U.S. federal law prohibits the export of the plane to anyone to protect its top secret advanced stealth technology as well as a number of advances in weaponry and situational awareness. But if deference to Israel’s wishes is anything to go by, one might safely bet that the Jewish state will have received approval to acquire the plane by inauguration day in January. And it is a safe bet that Israeli defense contractors will have reverse engineered the stealth and other features soon thereafter.

The U.S. government has been pandering to Israel in other ways, to include labeling, and sanctioning, prominent human rights groups that have criticized the Jewish state as anti-Semitic. It has also strengthened existing sanctions against Iranian financial institutions , reportedly in an attempt to make it more difficult for a President Biden to reinstate the suspended Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that sought to monitor the Iranian nuclear program. The sanctions come on top of other moves to destroy the Iranian economy, to include “…that the U.S., along with Israel, has in recent months carried out sabotage attacks inside Iran, destroying power plants, aluminum and chemical factories, a medical clinic and 7 ships at the port of Bushehr…”

Other recent developments favoring Israel include Congress’s legislating Israeli government veto authority over U.S. sales of weapons to any other Middle Eastern nation. The bill is called “Guaranteeing Israel’s QME [Qualitative Military Edge] Act of 2020” (H.R. 8494). There has also been the expansion by Executive Order of U.S. funded illegal West Bank Jewish settlements’ science development projects that will eventually compete with American companies.

In truth, the United States has become Israel’s bitch and there is hardly a politician or journalist who has the courage to say so. Congress and the media have been so corrupted by money emanating from the Israeli lobby that they cannot do enough to satisfy America’s rulers in Jerusalem. And for those who do not succumb to the money there is always intimidation, career-ending weaponized accusations of holocaust-denial and anti-Semitism. It is all designed to produce one result: whoever wins in American elections doesn’t matter as long as Israel gets what it wants. And it almost always gets what it wants.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on ‘Israel’ Wins U.S. ElectionCongress and White House work together to reward the Jewish state

Does the Presidential Election Matter?It’s Not Who Wins—It’s the Chaos, Stupid

KEVIN BARRETT

Will the 2020 elections change history? If they do, it won’t be because one or the other candidate won, but because they accelerated the polarization that brought down the American empire.

Political partisans, including most of the mainstream media (MSM) are screaming from the rooftops that the fate of the known universe depends on the outcome of Trump v. Biden. The dominant anti-Trump MSM faction casts Trump as a new Hitler who has exterminated more than 200,000 Americans in a coronavirus holocaust. (Why not say six million and imprison anyone who disagrees?)

Critics say Trump is a malignant narcissist and egomaniac—which is true. They call him a mental midget, or as several of his senior military advisors have said, a “moron,” which is also true. They say Trump has wrecked the system of so-called alliances with occupied vassal states on which the US empire depends. That, unfortunately, is not entirely true, but give Trump another term and he might get there.

If Donald Trump did actually finish off the Anglo-Zionist Empire, the good news is that he would go down in history as a hero of world-historical stature. The bad news, for Trump’s ego anyway, is that he would be credited with destroying the evil empire through sheer incompetence. If such happens, insha’Allah, perhaps he will be immortalized by statues of him stumbling on a stairway, whiffing at a golf ball, or ingesting vast quantities of junk food and diet coke while staring hypnotized at a big screen tuned to Fox News. Future archeologists will decipher the lapidary legend: “My name is Donald J. Trump, king of kings; look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!” Such would be a fitting epitaph for our age, and for the obese imperial colossus that sat bestride it.

The liberal MSM pundits who envision Trump destroying the USA and its Empire imagine that a Biden presidency would, by contrast, save America, and perhaps the world. Biden, they say, would patch up US “alliances” and resurrect the moribund institutions by which the US has dominated the planet since World War II. According to the never-Trumpers, Biden will slay the coronavirus, stop Global Warming, rehabilitate America’s reputation and soft power, put Russia and China in their places, save Israel from its own hubris, and refrain from tweeting utterly insane things every 20 or 30 seconds.

Pro-Trump pundits offer a mirror-image vision of “why the world will end if our candidate loses.” They imagine that if Biden wins, George Soros and his legion of Antifa terrorists will take over America, burning and looting whatever is left in the stores after the next COVID lockdown. Law-abiding citizens’ guns will be confiscated. America’s borders will be flooded by (nonwhite) immigrants, crime will rage out of control, police will call in sick, the internet will be purged of conservative voices, and brain-dead Biden will quickly be replaced by a vicious prosecutor named Commissar Kamala who will become America’s first ethnically-ambiguous female dictator.

In contrast to the cartoonish visions of political partisans, history suggests that it matters less and less who gets elected president. Each succeeding election becomes the new “least consequential election in US history,” and the 2020 election appears to be no exception. Candidates are selected by an oligarchy of politically-active billionaires who set strict limits on policy agendas. No president ever has the political capital to pursue more than one or two major policy proposals, which generally get watered down anyway even if eventually approved.

No US president has imagined that he is really president since JFK was executed for that crime in 1963. And since the Trilateral Commission chose an obscure Georgia governor named Jimmy Carter to launch the neoliberal revolution in 1976—and then replaced him with the more radical Ronald Reagan in 1980—the oligarchs haven’t even bothered to go through the motions of pretending America is a democracy. The 2003 introduction of black box voting machines, better termed vote-fabricating machines, formalized the permanent state of emergency inaugurated by the 9/11/2001 National Security Special Event Day.

Donald Trump campaigned on a long list of extravagant promises: End all foreign wars and reveal “who really did 9/11,” bring the troops home, pull out of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), ban all Muslims from entering the US, wall off the entire southern border at Mexico’s expense, end NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP and all trade treaties, bring manufacturing back to America, end NATO and all alliances (unless the vassals vastly increase their tribute payments, which they won’t), rebuild America’s infrastructure, demand and get vastly better trade terms from China, resurrect 1950s-style family values, and restore Americans’ pride in their history. These are, in essence, the specifics behind Trump’s promise to “make America great again.”

So how much of that agenda did Trump accomplish? Only the tiny fraction supported by oligarchs. A cabal of Zionist-extremist plutocrats wanted to pull out of the JCPOA and exert “maximum pressure” on Iran, so Trump was allowed, or directed, to pursue that insane and inhuman initiative. Other than that, Trump fulfilled none of his promises, because the oligarchs wouldn’t let him. Instead, following oligarchs’ orders, Trump lavished money on tax cuts for billionaires and record increases in the military budget. Aside from Iran policy, a Hillary Clinton presidency wouldn’t have been all that different; Clinton might have thrown slightly less money at the billionaires and the military-industrial complex, but not enough less for ordinary people to notice.

Trump is hardly unusual; recent presidents have increasingly accomplished less and less of whatever their ostensible policy agenda was supposed to be. Obama was elected to close Guantanamo, end torture, end the 9/11 wars, prosecute the war criminals, restore the Constitution and the rule of law both domestically and internationally, reduce economic inequality and racial disparities, and stop wasting money on foreign wars in favor of domestic spending while increasing average Americans’ standard of living. Needless to say he did not accomplish any of those things, as predicted by my 2008 book Questioning the War on Terror.

Previous presidents were almost equally ineffectual. George W. Bush (2000-2008) was elected on promises to end America’s role as world policeman—and, incidentally, stop kidnapping pro-Palestinian Muslims on fake terror charges. (The Muslim vote put Bush in office.) Instead, Bush was himself kidnapped on 9/11/2001 when his orders to fly from Florida to Washington, DC were disobeyed, and he was coerced into spending the rest of his presidency reading from the neocon-Zionist 9/11 coup perpetrators’ script.

Bill Clinton (1992-2000) like Trump and Obama came into office pushing significant policy initiatives: He charged his wife Hillary with shepherding a single-payer national health care plan through Congress, and he intended to force Israel to completely withdraw from 1967-occuppied territories in return for peace. But the insurance lobby demolished the former plan, while the Zionist lobby and its agent Monica Lewinsky devoured the latter. So all Clinton really accomplished was neoliberalizing the globe under billionaire orders (and learning who really runs the world).

So whether Trump wins a second term or Biden replaces him, the US empire will mostly likely continue to decline in more or less the same fashion. Hostility, sanctions, and the possibility of war will dominate relations with Russia and China. Biden might return to the JCPOA, easing overt tensions with Iran, but the covert Zionist-directed war on the Islamic Republic will continue no matter who is in office. Meanwhile ordinary Americans will continue to be plundered by the oligarchs, the military-industrial complex and its Zionist friends, and other powerful special interests. A private bankers’ cabal will keep creating the entire currency supply out of nothing by lending it into existence at compound interest. Debt will keep increasing and the petrodollar will keep slipping toward the precipice. Infrastructure will continue to crumble. There will be no national public health care because the oligarchs and insurance companies won’t allow it. Manners and morals will continue to decline. Oligarch-directed hoaxes and lies, along with bread and circuses, will distract the public. In short, nothing will really change.

This year more than ever, American voters have been whipped into a frenzy of sound of fury signifying nothing. When the hoodwinked sheeple yank the levers of their rigged voting machines, like suckers yanking levers of Sheldon Adelson’s rigged slot machines in Las Vegas, they may think they are participating in the making of history—when all they are really doing is demonstrating their own ignorance and gullibility.

The Real Issue: Polarization-Induced Civil Strife

But by working themselves up into a political lather, and yanking those voting machine levers so hard, the voters might actually be helping make history—but not in the way they intended. They may be setting themselves and their country up for a failure of epic proportions. (Whether that failure would be the deliberate result of a plan by the globalist elite to divide-and-conquer America in service to The Great Reset is beyond the scope of this article.)

The United States of America has experienced countless episodes of mass domestic violence, but only two all-out civil wars (in the 1770s and 1860s).[1] Today, many observers expect a post-election flare up of unrest that could conceivably erupt into another civil war—or even multiple civil wars.

The levels of polarization and fanaticism seen today have not been witnessed since 1860, when an unusually galvanizing election set the stage for what has been variously termed the American Civil War, the War Between the States, or (among Confederate sympathizers) the War of Northern Aggression. The parallels between the 1860 and 2020 elections are suggestive. In both cases, party realignment had destabilized the political system. In 1860, the Republican and Constitution Parties were new, while the dominant Democratic Party had split into two factions over the issue of slavery in the Western territories. Likewise, in 2020, voters will choose from political parties that have shifted positions: Trump’s newly populist Republican Party has attracted much of what used to be the Democrats’ working class base, while the Democrats have shamelessly embraced their new identity as the party of the “moderate” billionaire oligarchs[2]—exactly what the Republican Party used to be!

Like the 1860 election, the 2020 election will poll a starkly divided nation worked up into a frenzy over race-related issues, facing a stark choice about the future direction of the nation. In 1860, the key issue was whether new states in the Western territories should allow slavery. If slavery was banned in all new states, as Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln urged, the southern slave states would become an increasingly disempowered and untenable minority faction in the Union, eventually facing economic ruin as the tariff-loving industrial North grabbed an ever-greater share of the South’s wealth. When Lincoln won, southern leaders foresaw looming disaster, and felt compelled to secede from the Union in hopes of saving their economy and preserving their sovereignty.

In 2020, populist conservatives likewise feel existentially threatened—and might want to fight and/or secede if they lose. Just as the looming demolition of the slave system foretold an apocalyptic end to the antebellum South, today onrushing demographic change threatens white majority America. Alongside that demographic change, which promises to reduce whites to minority status by 2044, the destruction of working class jobs through global outsourcing and automation threatens to impoverish much of what was once the (mostly white) American middle class. Meanwhile religious and family values are eroding, in part due to an all-out ideological assault by a media and academy dominated by secular-progressive, disproportionately Jewish elites. Those increasingly radical elites embrace all varieties of victimization-based identity politics—starting with a pro-Zionist Jewish identity politics aimed at maintaining Jewish privilege—while casting whites as monolithic villains whose efforts to defend their own interests are relentlessly demonized.

Today white identity advocates like Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor, and their fellow travelers in the pro-Trump camp, feel about the same way southerners did in 1860: If the election swings the wrong way, they will witness the annihilation of their country and way of life. Better to go down fighting, many say, than accept such an inglorious fate. Like the secessionists of 1860, today’s rebels may react to a Biden win by picking up their guns in support of Trump’s efforts to contest the results. Out of the resulting chaos might emerge a series of armed confrontations between various rural (pro-Trump) and urban (pro-Biden) areas, as well as a larger clash between red states and blue states that could conceivably escalate into a Civil War Redux. How the US military (split between pro- and anti-Trump factions) and local and state police (mostly pro-Trump) would react remains to be seen.

But Trump supporters are not the only ones who might react violently to an election loss. If Trump wins, or claims victory, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa protests from last summer will likely flare up into a series of regional brushfires, if not a nationwide inferno. The dominant liberal faction of the mainstream media (MSM) will echo Biden’s June 11 statement that the military should “escort Trump from the White House with dispatch.” Militias and Trump sympathizers in the military might mount an armed resistance against Trump’s forceful ejection from the White House. The violence could easily spiral out of control.

Skeptics may say: Sure, there is plenty of chatter about post-election violence. But is there any actual evidence supporting the notion that this election is different from any other, and that people are more likely to violently contest the outcome? The answer is: Yes there is. A series of polls by YouGov shows that the number of Americans who believe violence is justified for their political party to achieve its goals has risen dramatically in just three years. In 2017, eight percent of Americans supported political violence on behalf of their party. In 2018 it was 12%, in 2019 over 15%, and by June 2020 it had doubled to 30%! The latest poll, taken in September 2020, found that 33% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans support partisan political violence.

Another factor driving potential post-election chaos is pent-up frustration over the COVID-19 lockdowns and the economic and social damage they have inflicted. Democrats have blamed Trump for all the COVID damage, with some success. Many Republicans, however, believe COVID was deliberately unleashed, and/or exaggerated, in order to overthrow Trump. (It is true that without COVID, Trump probably would have ridden the strong economy to an easy re-election; and it is also true that COVID is probably a deliberately-released biological weapon, though Trump was almost certainly not the main target.)

As Americans have had their lives upended and degraded by the pandemic and lockdowns, they have been divided into two camps, each scapegoating the other for the terrible situation. History has shown how such mass scapegoating can devolve into mass bloodshed.[3] The underlying factors driving America’s current trajectory toward civil war—including demographic change, the decline of religion, the rise of identity politics and the culture of narcissism, and economic inequality and the impoverishment of the working and middle classes—are growing stronger every year. Polarization around the grotesquely divisive figure of Donald Trump may serve as the catalyst that sets off a chain reaction of violence.

As conservative pastor Chuck Baldwin writes, “Trump’s vulgarities, blasphemies, duplicities, thefts, immoralities, racism, narcissism, covetousness, self-deification, misogyny, unconstitutional conduct and mass murders disqualify him from being elected dog catcher, much less President of the United States.” But Trump’s Republican supporters, like Democrats who supported serial rapist Bill Clinton and his rape-enabling wife Hillary, or war criminal Obama, or corrupt apparatchik and likely sex criminal Biden, follow President Roosevelt’s reasoning about the vicious dictator Somoza: “He may be a son of a b*tch, but he’s our son of a b*tch.”

An election driven by such unprecedented levels of mutual hatred, with both sides increasingly ready to pull triggers rather than voting machine levers, could turn out to be a national booby-trap. Whether it goes off in ten days, ten weeks, or ten years—or miraculously fails to go off at all—will (unlike the minor issue of who wins) determine the course of history.

An earlier version of this article was first published in Crescent International

Notes

[1] The American Revolution was in fact a civil war between colonists in British North America, and involved massive bloodletting between revolutionary and anti-revolutionary factions.

[2] The “moderate” Democrat oligarchs are funding “radical” causes like BLM and Antifa as a divide-and-conquer strategy against the working and middle classes. They are fomenting strife around identity politics, especially race, in order to lure leftists away from Bernie Sanders style proposals to redistribute wealth. Antifa and BLM extremism also serve to discredit “leftism” (and by extension Bernie Sanders’ agenda) in the eyes of the majority of working- and middle-class Americans.

[3] On the many holocausts and genocides of recent history, see Gideon Polya’s US-Imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide. For a deeper analysis of how an innate human tendency toward scapegoating and human sacrifice are the source of such atrocities, see René Girard.

Posted in USAComments Off on Does the Presidential Election Matter?It’s Not Who Wins—It’s the Chaos, Stupid

Glenn Greenwald Escapes His $100 Million Webzin3

RON UNZ

Glenn Greenwald in 2014. Credit: Davis dos Dantos/Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 3.0

Several years ago during the height of the Edward Snowden/NSA spying scandal, Glenn Greenwald was sometimes described as the world’s most famous journalist. I think that characterization was probably correct, at least if we exclude Julian Assange from consideration.

The American government has emphatically denied that Assange was ever a journalist, now working to prosecute him for espionage and sentence him to life in a maximum security prison. Meanwhile, it did grudgingly concede that protective status to Greenwald. So the fates of the two most famous figures who revealed American crimes to the world sharply diverged, and the year after Assange was forced to desperately seek asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and begin his long period of miserable confinement to a single room, Greenwald made worldwide headlines as founding editor of a lavishly-funded new journalistic enterprise that captured the imagination of the world.

That venture was First Look Media, established by Tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar, who pledged $250 million in financial support. Its first and only visible project has been The Intercept, an outlet intended to provide a home for fearless investigative journalism, free from the pressures and dishonest compromises so often found in traditional media outlets. Greenwald’s two fellow founding editors were Laura Poitras, an award-winning documentarian who had collaborated on the Snowden project, and Jeremy Scahill, whose best-selling books had lacerated the American crimes committed during our disastrous Iraq War, focusing especially upon the huge growth of international mercenary outfits, now euphemistically styled as “military contractors.”

Numerous other veteran journalists also soon eagerly came on board at a time when so many of American’s traditional media outlets were losing their advertising revenue to the Internet, resulting in crippling waves of layoffs and cut-backs. Backed by such enormous and apparently disinterested financial support, The Intercept seemed poised for an extremely bright future.

Unfortunately, the reality has been quite different. Creating a successful media outlet is a far more difficult and complex undertaking than merely hiring experienced journalists and providing them with heavy funding. Late last week Greenwald announced his resignation from The Intercept, explaining that the top editorial staff had repeatedly blocked him from publishing his lengthy article analyzing the huge corruption-scandal now swirling around Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Greenwald was thus forced to abandon the high-profile publication that he himself had co-founded in order to regain his journalistic freedom, and that irony was hardly lost upon many other independent Internet voices, including his former colleague Matt TaibbiYves Smith of the Naked Capitalism blog, and the Moon of Alabamablogger.

Greenwald himself explained the situation in his scathing letter of resignation.According to him, in recent years The Intercept had increasingly abandoned its original stated mission and instead become more and more indistinguishable from all the other left-leaning publications on the Internet, adopting a fiercely partisan party-line and demonstrating Procrustean tendencies to shape its journalistic output in support of its ideological goals and favored candidates. The large crew of New York editors eventually brought on board tended to measure their success by the accolades they attracted from mainstream outlets while they lived in fear of Twitter denunciations. As a result, they soon came to closely resemble the establishmentarian media that their publication had originally been created to challenge. They and most of their mainstream media peers regarded the defeat of Donald Trump as an overriding goal and therefore seem to have somehow persuaded themselves that any temporary sacrifice of honest journalistic standards was a price well worth paying.

Julian Assange may soon be spending the rest of his life in a small prison cell, and compared to that outcome Greenwald’s humiliating treatment is a mere bagatelle, but both figures fell from ideological grace for similar reasons. As an anti-secrecy campaigner, Assange had become the toast of our liberal elite by exposing the crimes of the Bush era American military, but when he evenhandedly released DNC emails deeply embarrassing to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, he was reviled as a traitor and a Russian stooge. Although Greenwald remains left-liberal in his personal views, his staunch refusal to avert his eyes from the flagrant political and media corruption on his side of the aisle has provoked deep resentments among his one-time ideological admirers.

Many details of Greenwald’s resignation can be found in the following articles, and he also explained the circumstances in an interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight:

Although I’d mostly lost track of both Greenwald and The Intercept over the last few years, the story of his sudden resignation didn’t particularly surprise me.

Donald Trump had always struck me as an ignorant buffoon and most of his proposed policies were ridiculous, but I felt that his establishmentarian political critics had almost been driven insane by their loathing for him. Since I regarded both Trump and Biden as such exceptionally awful candidates, I’d paid relatively little attention to the many months of heated presidential campaigning. However, the recent charges of massive financial corruption against the Biden family seemed pretty credible to me, and the unified media efforts to drag the Democratic ticket across the finish line by hiding the scandal from the American voters was utterly outrageous.

The New York Post is America’s oldest newspaper and after it broke the Biden corruption story a couple of weeks ago, both Facebook and Twitter took the unprecedented step of banning all links to the published account of that potentially massive political scandal. Compared to such absurd censorship, the unwillingness of The Intercept‘s Trump-hating editors to publish Greenwald’s article was shameful but hardly surprising. However once I looked into the background, other surprises did appear.

Every now and then I had read a story mentioning The Intercept in my morning newspapers, but few of the details stuck in my mind, so I browsed around a little, and found a Columbia Journalism Review article from last year describing some of the difficulties at that publication. Apparently, Omidyar had been fulfilling his financial commitments, donating nearly $90 million to First Look Media between 2013 and 2017, and apparently almost all of that massive funding had gone to The Intercept, whose staff compensation alone reached $9.3 million by 2017. The CJRarticle noted that the salaries paid “dwarf those at other center-left, nonprofit outlets.” My casual browsing didn’t uncover any detailed financial information for the last three years, but the webzine must surely have absorbed well over $100 million by now, perhaps even closer to $150 million.

With such enormous financial inputs, I wondered why I had heard so little about the publication in recent years, just an occasional story here and there in my newspapers, so I decided to take a look. Their website seemed no different in design or content than that found on dozens of other left-liberal webzines. Almost none of the writers were familiar to me while the topics they presented were all too familiar. So it wasn’t clear to me why anyone would read their publication.

I soon discovered that most of the world apparently had the same reaction. I had naturally assumed that such a lavishly-funded publication captained by highly-paid all-stars and having a large writing staff would possess a readership vastly larger than that of our own website, with traffic perhaps twenty or thirty times greater. Instead, I found to my utter astonishment that their Alexa Traffic Rank of 11,542 was less than 50% larger than that of our own small opinion webzine. Indeed, if not for our having been banned by Facebook and Google earlier this year, we might have even caught up with them by now. And according to SimilarWeb, although their website does get almost three times as many monthly visits as ours, the total time spent on our website is actually slightly higher, with most of their visitors quickly departing. This brought to mind the old story about the dog-food that dogs just won’t eat.

Although a few natural Internet monopolies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon seem impervious to easy challenge, the web has become a great leveler for opinion journalism, with the interest and quality of content material far outweighing many millions of dollars in bloated expenditures. The dilemma encountered by the decision-makers at The Intercept is that if you mostly publish articles that are exactly the same as found everywhere else on the Internet, you provide people few reasons to favor your website over so many others.

Moreover, it’s quite possible that very heavy staff funding can itself become counter-productive. For example, an outraged Max Blumenthal revealed in a Tweet that The Intercept‘s top editor Betsy Reed is paid well over $400,000 per year, an extremely sizable sum in the world of non-profit journalism:


Max Blumenthal@MaxBlumenthalThe Intercept’s Betsy Reed, who earns $427,419 a year & produces zero journalism of her own, mocks independent journalists who rely on Substack & Patreon to get by. Not everyone has a reclusive billionaire to pay them huge sums to edit stuff no one reads. https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/…9:30 PM · Oct 30, 20202.8K842 people are Tweeting about this

Image

Any self-respecting individual drawing such a salary must justify her existence and earn her keep. While it would have been the easiest thing in the world to quickly approve at Greenwald’s important article and then publish it on the website, any unpaid intern could have done as much, while someone whose annual salary is approaching the half-million dollar range must necessarily devote time and thought to all the deeper political implications, conferring at length with her staff and other top advisors before rendering her Solomonic judgment. Hence Greenwald’s angry departure.

Indeed, some of these existing problems seem to have appeared at the very beginning of the project, as recounted by Ken Silverstein, a left-liberal journalist with a long career at prestigious publications. As an early hire who soon resigned. he explained his reasons in a stinging 2015 Politico Magazine article entitled “Where Journalism Goes to Die,” describing the mixture of extreme editorial bureaucracy and severe ideological-correctness that led him to depart in disgust after just one year.

The contrast with our own webzine could not be greater. Although my title is Editor-in-Chief, I have neither salary nor staff, and since I’m so heavily preoccupied with my own reading and research, I doubt I spend more than a couple of hours a day on the publication, instead relying upon the highly-automated software I built to do almost all the work.

Since I have made it very clear that I do not personally stand behind the articles I publish, I allow my writers to write whatever they want, even if much of their output might seem like nonsense to me. By providing such a large array of often-conflicting alternative perspectives, we therefore fulfill our alternative-media mission statement. And as far as I know, there are few if any other websites that regularly publish such a wide and varied array of highly-controversial material, thereby drawing readership roughly comparable to that produced by Omidyar’s $100 million-plus expenditure.

With comments on our website being very lightly moderated, we usually accrue a million additional words each week, thereby providing a public forum for regular discussion of all sorts of controversial topics banned almost everywhere else. Much of this material may be ignorant or insane, but those willing to mine the low-grade ore will discover a considerable sprinkling of gems. This process is facilitated by the commenting-software I have designed, which I think is far superior in many respects to what I have seen elsewhere.

The combination of Greenwald’s necessary departure from his own publication and the near-total censorship of the New York Post articles on the Biden corruption scandal may together mark a watershed in mainstream American journalism, as suggested by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges and Matt Taibbi in a half-hour discussion on RT America:

But although these mainstream journalists seemed shocked that the entire media would now censor and ignore important stories merely because they were unpalatable, I had discovered much the same thing ten or fifteen years ago, which eventually led me to establish this webzine. A couple of months ago I noted a particularly egregious example:

As the winner of the Pulitzer Prize and two George Polk awards, the late Sydney Schanberg was widely regarded as one of the greatest American war correspondents of the twentieth century. His exploits during our ill-fated Indo-Chinese War had become the basis of the Oscar-winning film The Killing Fields, which probably established him as the most famous journalist in America after Woodward and Bernstein of Watergate fame, and he had also served as a top editor at The New York Times. A decade ago, he published his greatest expose, providing a mountain of evidence that America had deliberately left behind hundreds of POWs in Vietnam and he fingered then-presidential candidate John McCain as the central figure in the later official cover-up of that monstrous betrayal. The Arizona senator had traded on his national reputation as our best-known former POW to bury the story of those abandoned prisoners, permitting America’s political establishment to escape serious embarrassment. As a result, Sen. McCain earned the lush rewards of our generous ruling elites, much like his own father Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., who had led the cover-up of the deliberate 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, which killed or wounded over 200 American servicemen.

As publisher of The American Conservative, I ran Schanberg’s remarkable piece as a cover story, and across several websites over the years it has surely been read many hundreds of thousands of times, including a huge spike around the time of McCain’s death. I therefore find it rather difficult to believe that the many journalists investigating McCain’s background might have remained unaware of this material. Yet no hints of these facts were provided in any of the articles appearing in any remotely prominent media outlets as can be seen by searching for web pages containing “McCain and Schanberg” dated around the time of the Senator’s passing.

Schanberg’s journalistic stature had hardly been forgotten by his former colleagues. Upon his death a couple of years ago, the Times ran a very long and glowing obituary, and a few months later I attended the memorial tribute to his life and career held at the New York Times headquarters building, which included more than two hundred prominent journalists mostly from his own generation, including those of the highest rank. Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. gave a speech describing how as a young man he had always so greatly admired Schanberg and had been mortified by the unfortunate circumstances of his departure from the family’s newspaper. Former Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld recounted the many years he had worked closely with the man he had long considered his closest friend and colleague, someone whom he almost seemed to regard as his older brother. But during the two hours of praise and remembrance scarcely a single word was uttered in public about the gigantic story that had occupied the last two decades of Schanberg’s celebrated career.

Posted in USA, MediaComments Off on Glenn Greenwald Escapes His $100 Million Webzin3

Nazi army Demolishes A Palestinian Home In Jerusalem

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Nazi soldiers demolished, Tuesday, a Palestinian home in Beit Hanina town, north of occupied East Jerusalem, allegedly for being built without a permit.

Media sources said the soldiers, and personnel of the City Council of occupied Jerusalem, invaded the area and surrounded a home, owned by members of Idrees family.

They added that the soldiers demolished the 85 square/meter home which the family started construction near 45 days ago.

Ten days ago, the family received a halt-construction order, and started preparing legal appeals, yet the soldiers demolished it without prior notice.

In related news, the soldiers demolished, Monday, an under-construction Palestinian home in Masafer Yatta village, south of Hebron, in the southern part of the occupied West Bank.


Nazi Soldiers Demolish Structures, Bulldoze Lands, In Jerusalem

Nazi soldiers demolished, on Tuesday morning, Palestinian structures in Beit Hanina town, north of Jerusalem, and bulldozed lands in Jabal al-Mokabber, south of the city.

Eyewitnesses said several army vehicles, including bulldozers, invaded the al-Ashqariyya neighborhood in Beit Hanina, before bulldozing and uprooting Palestinian lands.

The Nazi soldiers also demolished a shed, in addition to a bran, in Jabal al-Mokabber.

The army claimed the structures were installed without a permit from the City Council, in occupied Jerusalem.

It is worth mentioning that the soldiers also invaded the al-Jeeb town, northwest of Jerusalem, and searched many cars, in addition to stopping many residents and cars near Beit Iksa town, and interrogated the Palestinians while inspecting their ID cards.

In addition, the soldiers demolished a Palestinian home in Beit Hanina town, north of Jerusalem, allegedly for being built without a permit.

In related news, the soldiers demolished, Monday, an under-construction Palestinian home in Masafer Yatta village, south of Hebron, in the southern part of the occupied West Bank.

Nazi Colonists Cut Trees, Install Barn, Near Nablus

Several fanatic illegal Nazi colonists invaded, Tuesday, Palestinian orchards in Jaloud town, and uprooted dozens of olive trees, in addition to uprooting trees and installing a barn on lands near Einabus town.

Ghassan Daghlas, a Palestinian Authority official who monitors the Nazi illegal colonialist activities in northern West Bank said the colonists came from Kida outpost, which was built on stolen lands owned by Jaloud residents.

Daghlas added that the assailants cut and uprooted dozens of olive trees, around 60 years old, in Basin 18, in the southern area of the town.

He also said that the Nazi colonists cut more than 25 trees and installed a barn, on land owned by Nasreddin Allan, in the as-Soma’a area in Einabus.

On Tuesday morning, Nazi soldiers demolished Palestinian structures in Beit Hanina town, north of Jerusalem, and bulldozed lands in Jabal al-Mokabber, south of the city.

In addition, the Nazi soldiers demolished a Palestinian home in Beit Hanina town, north of Jerusalem, allegedly for being built without a permit.

In related news, the soldiers demolished, Monday, an under-construction Palestinian home in Masafer Yatta village, south of Hebron, in the southern part of the occupied West Bank.

Nazi soldiers Abduct Twelve Palestinians In West Bank

Nazi soldiers abducted, on Monday at night and Tuesday at dawn, at least twelve Palestinians from several parts of the occupied West Bank, the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society (PPS) has reported.

The PPS office in Jenin, in northern West Bank, said the soldier invaded Jaba’ town, searched homes and abducted two siblings, identified as Sari and Obeida Fashafsha.

It added that the soldiers caused excessive property damage to the invaded homes, and interrogated many Palestinians while inspecting their ID cards.

The Nazi soldiers also abducted a former political prisoner, identified as Ali Abu Bakr, from Qaffin town, after stopping him at a military roadblock near Ya’bad town, south of Jenin.

In Tulkarem, also in northern West Bank, the soldiers abducted Mohammad Ahmad Shabrawi, 26, from his home in Khallet Assaf area near Nur Shams refugee camp.

In addition, the soldiers invaded Beit Ummar town, north of the southern West Bank city of Hebron, searched homes, and abducted Qussai Ahmad Abu Hashem, 19, in addition to Majed Abdul-Aziz al-Hindi.

The Nazi soldiers also stormed and ransacked many homes in Hebron city, in addition to the towns of Beit Ola and Doura.

In Ramallah, in central West Bank, the Nazi soldiers abducted Nidal Khaled Barghouthi and Mo’men Kifah Barghouthi, from their homes in Kobar town, northwest of the city.

On Monday at night, the soldiers stopped four young men in a car while trying to cross Atara military roadblock, north of Ramallah, and repeatedly assaulted them, before abducting them. Their names remained unknown at the time of this report.

On Tuesday morning, armored Nazi military vehicles, including bulldozers, invaded and uprooted Palestinian agricultural lands, east of the al-Boreij refugee camp, in central Gaza.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi army Demolishes A Palestinian Home In Jerusalem


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk