IslamicBoard
Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!
View Full Version : The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond
سيف الله
05-03-2018, 09:59 PM
Salaam
Understand what the globalists have in store for the Middle East
The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond
Surely, what’s happening now in Iraq and Syria must serve as a final wakeup call that we have been led into a horrific situation in the Middle East by a powerful Lobby driven by the interests of one tribe and one tribe alone.
Back in 1982, Oded Yinon an Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published a document titled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.’This Israeli commentator suggested that for Israel to maintain its regional superiority, it must fragment its surrounding Arab states into smaller units. The document, later labelled as ‘Yinon Plan’, implied that Arabs and Muslims killing each other in endless sectarian wars was, in effect, Israel’s insurance policy.
Of course, regardless of the Yinon Plan’s prophesies, one might still argue that this has nothing to do with Jewish lobbying, politics or institutions but is just one more Israeli strategic proposal except that it is impossible to ignore that the Neocon school of thought that pushed the English-speaking Empire into Iraq was largely a Jewish Diaspora, Zionist clan. It’s also no secret that the 2nd Gulf War was fought to serve Israeli interests - breaking into sectarian units what then seemed to be the last pocket of Arab resistance to Israel.
Similarly, it is well established that when Tony Blair decided to launch that criminal war, Lord Levy was the chief fundraiser for his Government while, in the British media, Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen were busy beating the drums for war. And again, it was the exact same Jewish Lobby that was pushing for intervention in Syria, calling for the USA and NATO to fight alongside those same Jihadi forces that today threaten the last decade’s American ‘achievements’ in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Yinon’s disciples are more common than you might expect. In France, it was the infamous Jewish ‘philosopher’ Bernard Henri Levy who boasted on TV that ‘as a Jew’ campaigning for NATO intervention, he liberated Libya.
As we can see, a dedicated number of Jewish Zionist activists, commentators and intellectuals have worked relentlessly in many countries pushing for exactly the same cause – the breaking up of Arab and Muslim states into smaller, sectarian units.
But is it just the Zionists who are engaging in such tactics? Not at all.
In fact, the Jewish so-called Left serves the exact same cause, but instead of fragmenting Arabs and Muslims into Shia, Sunnis, Alawites and Kurds they strive to break them into sexually oriented identity groups (Lesbian, Queer, Gays, Heterosexual etc’)
Recently I learned from Sarah Schulman, a NY Jewish Lesbian activist that in her search for funding for a young ‘Palestinian Queer’ USA tour, she was advised to approach George Soros’ Open Society institute. The following account may leave you flabbergasted, as it did me:
“A former ACT UP staffer who worked for the Open Society Institute, George Soros’ foundation, suggested that I file an application there for funding for the tour. When I did so it turned out that the person on the other end had known me from when we both attended Hunter [College] High School in New York in the 1970s. He forwarded the application to the Institutes’s office in Amman, Jordan, and I had an amazing one-hour conversation with Hanan Rabani, its director of the Women’s and Gender program for the Middle East region. Hanan told me that this tour would give great visibility to autonomous queer organizations in the region. That it would inspire queer Arabs—especially in Egypt and Iran…for that reason, she said, funding for the tour should come from the Amman office” (Sarah Schulman -Israel/Palestine and the Queer International p. 108).
The message is clear, The Open Society Institutes (OSI) wires Soros’s money to Jordan, Palestine and then back to the USA in order to “inspire queer Arabs in Egypt and Iran (sic).”
What we see here is clear evidence of a blatant intervention by George Soros and his institute in an attempt to break Arabs and Muslims and shape their culture. So, while the right-wing Jewish Lobby pushes the Arabs into ethnic sectarian wars, their tribal counterparts within George Soros’s OSI institute, do exactly the same - attempt to break the Arab and Muslims by means of marginal and identity politics.
It is no secret that, as far as recent developments in Iraq are concerned, America, Britain and the West are totally unprepared. So surely, the time is long overdue when we must identify the forces and ideologies within Western society that are pushing us into more and more global conflicts. And all we can hope for is that America, Britain and France may think twice before they spends trillions of their tax payers’ money in following the Yinon Plan to fight ruinous, foreign wars imposed upon them by The Lobby.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-...nd-beyond.html
ReplyUnderstand what the globalists have in store for the Middle East
The Jewish Plan For The Middle East and Beyond
Surely, what’s happening now in Iraq and Syria must serve as a final wakeup call that we have been led into a horrific situation in the Middle East by a powerful Lobby driven by the interests of one tribe and one tribe alone.
Back in 1982, Oded Yinon an Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published a document titled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.’This Israeli commentator suggested that for Israel to maintain its regional superiority, it must fragment its surrounding Arab states into smaller units. The document, later labelled as ‘Yinon Plan’, implied that Arabs and Muslims killing each other in endless sectarian wars was, in effect, Israel’s insurance policy.
Of course, regardless of the Yinon Plan’s prophesies, one might still argue that this has nothing to do with Jewish lobbying, politics or institutions but is just one more Israeli strategic proposal except that it is impossible to ignore that the Neocon school of thought that pushed the English-speaking Empire into Iraq was largely a Jewish Diaspora, Zionist clan. It’s also no secret that the 2nd Gulf War was fought to serve Israeli interests - breaking into sectarian units what then seemed to be the last pocket of Arab resistance to Israel.
Similarly, it is well established that when Tony Blair decided to launch that criminal war, Lord Levy was the chief fundraiser for his Government while, in the British media, Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen were busy beating the drums for war. And again, it was the exact same Jewish Lobby that was pushing for intervention in Syria, calling for the USA and NATO to fight alongside those same Jihadi forces that today threaten the last decade’s American ‘achievements’ in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Yinon’s disciples are more common than you might expect. In France, it was the infamous Jewish ‘philosopher’ Bernard Henri Levy who boasted on TV that ‘as a Jew’ campaigning for NATO intervention, he liberated Libya.
As we can see, a dedicated number of Jewish Zionist activists, commentators and intellectuals have worked relentlessly in many countries pushing for exactly the same cause – the breaking up of Arab and Muslim states into smaller, sectarian units.
But is it just the Zionists who are engaging in such tactics? Not at all.
In fact, the Jewish so-called Left serves the exact same cause, but instead of fragmenting Arabs and Muslims into Shia, Sunnis, Alawites and Kurds they strive to break them into sexually oriented identity groups (Lesbian, Queer, Gays, Heterosexual etc’)
Recently I learned from Sarah Schulman, a NY Jewish Lesbian activist that in her search for funding for a young ‘Palestinian Queer’ USA tour, she was advised to approach George Soros’ Open Society institute. The following account may leave you flabbergasted, as it did me:
“A former ACT UP staffer who worked for the Open Society Institute, George Soros’ foundation, suggested that I file an application there for funding for the tour. When I did so it turned out that the person on the other end had known me from when we both attended Hunter [College] High School in New York in the 1970s. He forwarded the application to the Institutes’s office in Amman, Jordan, and I had an amazing one-hour conversation with Hanan Rabani, its director of the Women’s and Gender program for the Middle East region. Hanan told me that this tour would give great visibility to autonomous queer organizations in the region. That it would inspire queer Arabs—especially in Egypt and Iran…for that reason, she said, funding for the tour should come from the Amman office” (Sarah Schulman -Israel/Palestine and the Queer International p. 108).
The message is clear, The Open Society Institutes (OSI) wires Soros’s money to Jordan, Palestine and then back to the USA in order to “inspire queer Arabs in Egypt and Iran (sic).”
What we see here is clear evidence of a blatant intervention by George Soros and his institute in an attempt to break Arabs and Muslims and shape their culture. So, while the right-wing Jewish Lobby pushes the Arabs into ethnic sectarian wars, their tribal counterparts within George Soros’s OSI institute, do exactly the same - attempt to break the Arab and Muslims by means of marginal and identity politics.
It is no secret that, as far as recent developments in Iraq are concerned, America, Britain and the West are totally unprepared. So surely, the time is long overdue when we must identify the forces and ideologies within Western society that are pushing us into more and more global conflicts. And all we can hope for is that America, Britain and France may think twice before they spends trillions of their tax payers’ money in following the Yinon Plan to fight ruinous, foreign wars imposed upon them by The Lobby.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-...nd-beyond.html
Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
anatolian
05-05-2018, 10:55 PM
It is even larger than that. Includes south eastern Turkey. The Israeli flag refers to the promised land as the top blue line means Euphrates and the bottom blue line Nile. From Euphrates to Nile. Allah gave them this land once upon a time but took it later from them.
ReplyWelcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
سيف الله
05-06-2018, 12:13 AM
Salaam
Maybe that's their long term goal, but I think in the medium term they would rather economically control these countries, opportunistically taking land here and there as chaos engulf the middle east.
And they have had reverses, like in the Sinai and they were forced out of Lebanon.
They wont stop trying though :hmm:
ReplyMaybe that's their long term goal, but I think in the medium term they would rather economically control these countries, opportunistically taking land here and there as chaos engulf the middle east.
And they have had reverses, like in the Sinai and they were forced out of Lebanon.
They wont stop trying though :hmm:
سيف الله
05-09-2018, 10:01 PM
Salaam
Another update.
Blurb
Today marks the 70th anniversary of the state of Israel. No nation has posed as much danger to the survival of the United States as Israel. I love history. Lessons learned by past generations can help us to navigate through today's tangled maze - if we are willing to pay attention to history's lessons. History repeats itself, so we benefit from studying previous events to avoid making the same mistakes again.
ReplyAnother update.
Blurb
Today marks the 70th anniversary of the state of Israel. No nation has posed as much danger to the survival of the United States as Israel. I love history. Lessons learned by past generations can help us to navigate through today's tangled maze - if we are willing to pay attention to history's lessons. History repeats itself, so we benefit from studying previous events to avoid making the same mistakes again.
سيف الله
05-10-2018, 11:15 PM
Salaam
Another update, more comment and analysis. Controversial but worth considering.
The Israeli plan “A” (failed)
Initially, the plan was to overthrow all the secular (Baathist) regimes in power and replace them by religious nutcases. That would not only weaken the countries infected by that spiritual rot, it would set them backwards for many decades, some of them would break up into smaller entities, Arabs and Muslims would kill each other in large numbers while the Israelis would proudly claim that they are a “western country” and the “only democracy in the Middle-East”. Even better, when the Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc types commit atrocities on an industrial scale (and always on camera, professionally filmed, by the way), the slow-motion genocide of Palestinians would really be completely forgotten. If anything, Israel would declare itself threatened by “Islamic extremism” and, well, extend a couple of “security zones” beyond its borders (legal or otherwise), and do regular bombing runs “because Arabs only understand force” (which would get the Israelis a standing ovation from the “Christian” Zionist rednecks in the US who love the killing of any Aye-rabs and other “sand ------s”). At the end of all this, the Zionist wet dream: unleashing the Daesh forces against Hezbollah (which they fear and hate since the humiliating defeat the IDF suffered in 2006).
Now I will readily agree that this is a stupid plan. But contrary to the propaganda-induced myth, the Israelis are really not very bright. Pushy, arrogant, nasty, driven – yes. But smart? Not really. How could they not realize that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in Iran becoming the main player in Iraq? This is a testimony of how the Israelis always go for “quick-fix” short-term “solutions”, probably blinded by their arrogance and sense of racial superiority. Or how about their invasion of Lebanon in 2006? What in the world did they think they would achieve there? And now these folks are taking on not Hezbollah, but Iran. Hassan Nasrallah is absolutely correct, that is a truly stupid decision. But, of course, the Israelis now have a “plan B”:
The Israeli plan “B”
Step one, use your propaganda machine and infiltrated agents to re-start the myth about an Iranian military nuclear program. And never mind that the so-called “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” was agreed upon by all five of the UNSC Permanent Members, and Germany (P5+1) and even the European Union! And never mind that this plan places restrictions on Iran which no other country has ever had to ever face, especially considering that since 1970 Iran has been a member in good standing with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Israel, of course, is not. But the Zionists and their Neocon groupies are, of course, quite exceptional people, so they are constrained by neither facts nor logic. If Trump says that the JCPOA is a terrible deal, then this is so. Hey, we are living in the “post-Skripal” and “post-Douma” era – if some Anglo (or Jewish) leaders say “highly likely” then it behooves everybody to show instant “solidarity” lest they are accused of “anti-Semitism” or “fringe conspiracy theories” (you know the drill). So step one is the re-ignition ex nihilo of the Iranian military nuclear program canard.
Step two is to declare that Israel is “existentially threatened” and therefore has the right to “defend itself”. But there is a problem here: the IDF simply does not have the military means to defeat the Iranians. They can strike them, hit a couple of targets, yes, but then when the Iranians (and Hezbollah) unleash a rain of missiles on Israel (and probably the KSA) the Israelis will not have the means to respond. They know that, but they also know that the Iranian counter-attack will give them the perfect pretext to scream “oy vey!! oy, gevalt!!” and let the dumb Americans fight the Iranians.
You might object that the US does not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel. You are wrong. It does, it is called AIPAC. Besides, last year the US established a permanent US military base in Israel, making it a “tripwire”: just claim that “the Ayatollahs” tried to attack the US base with “chemical weapons” and, bingo, you now have a pretext to use all your military forces in retaliation, including, by the way, your tactical nuclear forces to “disarm” the “genocidal Iranians who want to wipe Israel off the map” or some variation of this nonsense.
You might wonder what the point of all that would be if Iran does, as I say, not have any military nuclear program?
My answer would be simple: do you really think the Syrians have been using chemical weapons?!
Of course not!
All this nonsense about Saddam’s WMD, the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian chemical weapons or, for that matter, Gaddafi’s “Viagra armed raping soldiers”, and before that the “Racak massacre” in Kosovo or the various “Markale market” atrocities in Sarajevo for that matter: these were just pretexts for aggression, nothing more.
In Iran’s case, what the Israelis fear is not that they will be “wiped off the map” (that is a mistranslation of words originally spoken by Ayatollah Khomenei) by Iranian nukes; what really freaks them out is to have a large, successful Muslim regional power like Iran openly daring to denounce Israel as an illegitimate, racist state. The Iranians are also openly denouncing the US imperialism and they are even denouncing the Wahabi dictatorship of the House of Saud. That is Iran’s real “sin”: to dare defy openly the AngloZionist Empire and be so successful at it!
So what the Israelis really want to do is:
To reach this objective, there is no need to invade Iran: a sustained cruise missile and bombing campaign will do the job (again, like in Serbia). Finally, we just have to assume that the Zionists are evil, arrogant and crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on some Iranian facilities (which they will, of course, designate as “secret military nuclear research” installations).
The Israelis hope that by making the US hit Iran really hard, they will weaken the country enough to also weaken Hezbollah and the other allies of Iran in the region sufficiently and break the so-called “Shia crescent”.
In their own way, the Israelis are not wrong when they say that Iran is an existential threat to Israel. They are just lying about the nature of this threat and why it is dangerous for them.
Consider this:
IF the Islamic Republic is allowed to develop and prosper and IF the Islamic Republic refuses to be terrified by the IDF’s undisputed ability to massacre civilians and destroy public infrastructure, then the Islamic Republic will become an attractive alternative to the kind of repugnant Islam embodied by the House of Saud which, in turn, is the prime sponsor of all the collaborator regimes in the Middle-East from the Hariri types in Lebanon to the Palestinian Authority itself. The Israelis like their Arabs fat and corrupt to the bone, not principled and courageous. That is why Iran must, absolutely must, be hit: because Iran by its very existence threatens the linchpin upon which the survival of the Zionist entity depends: the total corruption of the Arab and Muslim leaders worldwide.
Risks with Israel’s plan “B”
Think of 2006. The Israelis had total air supremacy over Lebanon – the skies were simply uncontested. The Israelis also controlled the seas (at least until Hezbollah almost sank their Sa’ar 5-class corvette). The Israelis pounded Lebanon with everything they had, from bombs to artillery strikes, to missiles. They also engaged their very best forces, including their putatively ‘”invincible” “Golani Brigade”. And that for 33 days. And they achieved exactly *nothing*. They could not even control the town of Bint Jbeil right across the Israeli border. And now comes the best part: Hezbollah kept its most capable forces north of the Litany river so the small Hezbollah force (no more than 1000 man) was composed of local militias supported by a much smaller number of professional cadre. That a 30:1 advantage in manpower for the Israelis. But the “invincible Tsahal” got it’s collective butt kicked like few have ever been kicked in history. This is why, in the Arab world, this war is since known as the “Divine Victory”.
As for Hezbollah, it continued to rain down rockets on Israel and destroy indestructible Merkava tanks right up to the last day.
There are various reports discussing the reasons for the abject failure of the IDF (see here or here), but the simple reality is this: to win a war you need capable boots on the ground, especially against an adversary who has learned how to operate without air-cover or superior firepower. Should Israel manipulate the US into attacking Iran, the exact same thing will happen: CENTCOM will establish air superiority and have an overwhelming firepower advantage over the Iranians, but other than destroying a lot of infrastructure and murdering scores of civilians, this will achieve absolutely nothing. Furthermore, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is no Milosevic, he will not simply surrender in the hope that Uncle Sam will allow him to stay in power. The Iranians will fight, and fight, and continue to fight for weeks, and months and then possibly years. And, unlike the “Axis of Kindness” forces, the Iranians do have credible and capable “boots on the ground”, and not only in Iran, but also in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have the missiles to reach a very large number of US military facilities across the region. And they can also not only shut down the Strait of Hormuz (which the USN would eventually be able to re-open, but only at a cost of a huge military operation on the Iranian coast), they can also strike at Saudi Arabia proper and, of course, at Israel. In fact, the Iranians have both the manpower and know-how to declare “open season” on any and all US forces in the Middle-East, and there are plenty of them, mostly very poorly defended (that imperial sense of impunity “they would not dare”).
The Iran-Iraq war lasted for eight years (1980-1988). It cost the Iranians hundreds of thousands of lives (if not more). The Iraqis had the full support of the US, the Soviet Union, France and pretty much everybody else. As for the Iranian military, it had just suffered from a traumatic revolution. The official history (meaning Wikipedia) calls the outcome a “stalemate”. Considering the odds and the circumstances, I call it a magnificent Iranian victory and a total defeat for those who wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic (something which decades of harsh sanctions also failed to achieve, by the way).
Is there any reason at all to believe that this time around, when Iran has had almost 40 years to prepare for a full-scale AngloZionist attack the Iranians will fight less fiercely or less competently? We could also look at the actual record of the US armed forces (see Paul Craig Roberts’ superb summary here) and ask: do you think that the US, lead by the likes of Trump, Bolton or Nikki Haley will have the staying power to fight the Iranians to exhaustion (since a land invasion of Iran is out of the question)? Or this: what will happen to the world economy if the entire Middle-East blows up into a major regional war?
Now comes the scary part: both the Israelis and the Neocons always, always, double-down. The notion of cutting their losses and stopping what is a self-evidently mistaken policy is simply beyond them. Their arrogance simply cannot survive even the appearance of having made a mistake (remember how both Dubya and Olmert declared that they had won against Hezbollah in 2006?). As soon as Trump and Netanyahu realize that they did something really fantastically stupid and as soon as they run out of their usual options (missile and airstrikes first, then terrorizing the civilian population) they will have a stark and simple choice: admit defeat or use nukes.
Which one do you think they will choose?
Exactly.
http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-warmakers/
ReplyAnother update, more comment and analysis. Controversial but worth considering.
The Israeli plan “A” (failed)
Initially, the plan was to overthrow all the secular (Baathist) regimes in power and replace them by religious nutcases. That would not only weaken the countries infected by that spiritual rot, it would set them backwards for many decades, some of them would break up into smaller entities, Arabs and Muslims would kill each other in large numbers while the Israelis would proudly claim that they are a “western country” and the “only democracy in the Middle-East”. Even better, when the Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc types commit atrocities on an industrial scale (and always on camera, professionally filmed, by the way), the slow-motion genocide of Palestinians would really be completely forgotten. If anything, Israel would declare itself threatened by “Islamic extremism” and, well, extend a couple of “security zones” beyond its borders (legal or otherwise), and do regular bombing runs “because Arabs only understand force” (which would get the Israelis a standing ovation from the “Christian” Zionist rednecks in the US who love the killing of any Aye-rabs and other “sand ------s”). At the end of all this, the Zionist wet dream: unleashing the Daesh forces against Hezbollah (which they fear and hate since the humiliating defeat the IDF suffered in 2006).
Now I will readily agree that this is a stupid plan. But contrary to the propaganda-induced myth, the Israelis are really not very bright. Pushy, arrogant, nasty, driven – yes. But smart? Not really. How could they not realize that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in Iran becoming the main player in Iraq? This is a testimony of how the Israelis always go for “quick-fix” short-term “solutions”, probably blinded by their arrogance and sense of racial superiority. Or how about their invasion of Lebanon in 2006? What in the world did they think they would achieve there? And now these folks are taking on not Hezbollah, but Iran. Hassan Nasrallah is absolutely correct, that is a truly stupid decision. But, of course, the Israelis now have a “plan B”:
The Israeli plan “B”
Step one, use your propaganda machine and infiltrated agents to re-start the myth about an Iranian military nuclear program. And never mind that the so-called “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” was agreed upon by all five of the UNSC Permanent Members, and Germany (P5+1) and even the European Union! And never mind that this plan places restrictions on Iran which no other country has ever had to ever face, especially considering that since 1970 Iran has been a member in good standing with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Israel, of course, is not. But the Zionists and their Neocon groupies are, of course, quite exceptional people, so they are constrained by neither facts nor logic. If Trump says that the JCPOA is a terrible deal, then this is so. Hey, we are living in the “post-Skripal” and “post-Douma” era – if some Anglo (or Jewish) leaders say “highly likely” then it behooves everybody to show instant “solidarity” lest they are accused of “anti-Semitism” or “fringe conspiracy theories” (you know the drill). So step one is the re-ignition ex nihilo of the Iranian military nuclear program canard.
Step two is to declare that Israel is “existentially threatened” and therefore has the right to “defend itself”. But there is a problem here: the IDF simply does not have the military means to defeat the Iranians. They can strike them, hit a couple of targets, yes, but then when the Iranians (and Hezbollah) unleash a rain of missiles on Israel (and probably the KSA) the Israelis will not have the means to respond. They know that, but they also know that the Iranian counter-attack will give them the perfect pretext to scream “oy vey!! oy, gevalt!!” and let the dumb Americans fight the Iranians.
You might object that the US does not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel. You are wrong. It does, it is called AIPAC. Besides, last year the US established a permanent US military base in Israel, making it a “tripwire”: just claim that “the Ayatollahs” tried to attack the US base with “chemical weapons” and, bingo, you now have a pretext to use all your military forces in retaliation, including, by the way, your tactical nuclear forces to “disarm” the “genocidal Iranians who want to wipe Israel off the map” or some variation of this nonsense.
You might wonder what the point of all that would be if Iran does, as I say, not have any military nuclear program?
My answer would be simple: do you really think the Syrians have been using chemical weapons?!
Of course not!
All this nonsense about Saddam’s WMD, the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian chemical weapons or, for that matter, Gaddafi’s “Viagra armed raping soldiers”, and before that the “Racak massacre” in Kosovo or the various “Markale market” atrocities in Sarajevo for that matter: these were just pretexts for aggression, nothing more.
In Iran’s case, what the Israelis fear is not that they will be “wiped off the map” (that is a mistranslation of words originally spoken by Ayatollah Khomenei) by Iranian nukes; what really freaks them out is to have a large, successful Muslim regional power like Iran openly daring to denounce Israel as an illegitimate, racist state. The Iranians are also openly denouncing the US imperialism and they are even denouncing the Wahabi dictatorship of the House of Saud. That is Iran’s real “sin”: to dare defy openly the AngloZionist Empire and be so successful at it!
So what the Israelis really want to do is:
- inflict a maximum amount of economic damage upon Iran
- punish the Iranian population for daring to support the “wrong” leaders
- overthrow the Islamic Republic (do to it what they did to Serbia)
- make an example to dissuade any other country who dares to follow in Iran’s footsteps
- prove the omnipotence of the AngloZionist Empire’s
To reach this objective, there is no need to invade Iran: a sustained cruise missile and bombing campaign will do the job (again, like in Serbia). Finally, we just have to assume that the Zionists are evil, arrogant and crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on some Iranian facilities (which they will, of course, designate as “secret military nuclear research” installations).
The Israelis hope that by making the US hit Iran really hard, they will weaken the country enough to also weaken Hezbollah and the other allies of Iran in the region sufficiently and break the so-called “Shia crescent”.
In their own way, the Israelis are not wrong when they say that Iran is an existential threat to Israel. They are just lying about the nature of this threat and why it is dangerous for them.
Consider this:
IF the Islamic Republic is allowed to develop and prosper and IF the Islamic Republic refuses to be terrified by the IDF’s undisputed ability to massacre civilians and destroy public infrastructure, then the Islamic Republic will become an attractive alternative to the kind of repugnant Islam embodied by the House of Saud which, in turn, is the prime sponsor of all the collaborator regimes in the Middle-East from the Hariri types in Lebanon to the Palestinian Authority itself. The Israelis like their Arabs fat and corrupt to the bone, not principled and courageous. That is why Iran must, absolutely must, be hit: because Iran by its very existence threatens the linchpin upon which the survival of the Zionist entity depends: the total corruption of the Arab and Muslim leaders worldwide.
Risks with Israel’s plan “B”
Think of 2006. The Israelis had total air supremacy over Lebanon – the skies were simply uncontested. The Israelis also controlled the seas (at least until Hezbollah almost sank their Sa’ar 5-class corvette). The Israelis pounded Lebanon with everything they had, from bombs to artillery strikes, to missiles. They also engaged their very best forces, including their putatively ‘”invincible” “Golani Brigade”. And that for 33 days. And they achieved exactly *nothing*. They could not even control the town of Bint Jbeil right across the Israeli border. And now comes the best part: Hezbollah kept its most capable forces north of the Litany river so the small Hezbollah force (no more than 1000 man) was composed of local militias supported by a much smaller number of professional cadre. That a 30:1 advantage in manpower for the Israelis. But the “invincible Tsahal” got it’s collective butt kicked like few have ever been kicked in history. This is why, in the Arab world, this war is since known as the “Divine Victory”.
As for Hezbollah, it continued to rain down rockets on Israel and destroy indestructible Merkava tanks right up to the last day.
There are various reports discussing the reasons for the abject failure of the IDF (see here or here), but the simple reality is this: to win a war you need capable boots on the ground, especially against an adversary who has learned how to operate without air-cover or superior firepower. Should Israel manipulate the US into attacking Iran, the exact same thing will happen: CENTCOM will establish air superiority and have an overwhelming firepower advantage over the Iranians, but other than destroying a lot of infrastructure and murdering scores of civilians, this will achieve absolutely nothing. Furthermore, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is no Milosevic, he will not simply surrender in the hope that Uncle Sam will allow him to stay in power. The Iranians will fight, and fight, and continue to fight for weeks, and months and then possibly years. And, unlike the “Axis of Kindness” forces, the Iranians do have credible and capable “boots on the ground”, and not only in Iran, but also in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have the missiles to reach a very large number of US military facilities across the region. And they can also not only shut down the Strait of Hormuz (which the USN would eventually be able to re-open, but only at a cost of a huge military operation on the Iranian coast), they can also strike at Saudi Arabia proper and, of course, at Israel. In fact, the Iranians have both the manpower and know-how to declare “open season” on any and all US forces in the Middle-East, and there are plenty of them, mostly very poorly defended (that imperial sense of impunity “they would not dare”).
The Iran-Iraq war lasted for eight years (1980-1988). It cost the Iranians hundreds of thousands of lives (if not more). The Iraqis had the full support of the US, the Soviet Union, France and pretty much everybody else. As for the Iranian military, it had just suffered from a traumatic revolution. The official history (meaning Wikipedia) calls the outcome a “stalemate”. Considering the odds and the circumstances, I call it a magnificent Iranian victory and a total defeat for those who wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic (something which decades of harsh sanctions also failed to achieve, by the way).
Is there any reason at all to believe that this time around, when Iran has had almost 40 years to prepare for a full-scale AngloZionist attack the Iranians will fight less fiercely or less competently? We could also look at the actual record of the US armed forces (see Paul Craig Roberts’ superb summary here) and ask: do you think that the US, lead by the likes of Trump, Bolton or Nikki Haley will have the staying power to fight the Iranians to exhaustion (since a land invasion of Iran is out of the question)? Or this: what will happen to the world economy if the entire Middle-East blows up into a major regional war?
Now comes the scary part: both the Israelis and the Neocons always, always, double-down. The notion of cutting their losses and stopping what is a self-evidently mistaken policy is simply beyond them. Their arrogance simply cannot survive even the appearance of having made a mistake (remember how both Dubya and Olmert declared that they had won against Hezbollah in 2006?). As soon as Trump and Netanyahu realize that they did something really fantastically stupid and as soon as they run out of their usual options (missile and airstrikes first, then terrorizing the civilian population) they will have a stark and simple choice: admit defeat or use nukes.
Which one do you think they will choose?
Exactly.
http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-warmakers/
سيف الله
06-07-2018, 03:45 PM
Salaam
Jewish Power-The power to silence criticism of Jewish Power
Gilad Atzmon
Like to share this, insight into why the ((Neocons)) dont like Russia, (given that their predecessors lost control when the Stalin purged the old Bolsheviks)
Hating Russia Is a Full-Time Job
Neocons resurrect tribal memories to fan the flames
I have long believed that the core hatred of Russia comes from the neocons and is to a large extent tribal or, if you prefer, ethno-religious based. Why? Because if the neoconservatives were actually foreign policy realists there is no good reason to express any visceral dislike of Russia or its government. The allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. are clearly a sham, just as are the tales of the alleged Russian poisoning of the Skripals in Winchester England and, most recently, the claimed assassination of journalist Arkady Babchenko in Kiev which turned out to be a false flag. Even the most cursory examination of the past decade’s developments in Georgia and Ukraine reveal that Russia was reacting to legitimate major security threats engineered by the United States with a little help from Israel and others. Russia has not since the Cold War ended threatened the United States and its ability to re-acquire its former Eastern European satellites is a fantasy. So why the hatred?
In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal goal of his government to turn off the money tap.
With the looting stopped by Putin, the neocons and friends no longer had any reason to play nice, so they used their considerable resources in the media and within the halls of power in places like Washington, London and Paris to turn on Moscow. And they also might have perceived that there was a worse threat looming. The Putin government appeared to be resurrecting what the neocons might perceive as pogrom-plagued Holy Russia! Old churches razed by the Bolsheviks were being rebuilt and people were again going to mass and claiming belief in Jesus Christ. The former Red Square now hosts a Christmas market while the nearby tomb of Lenin is only open one morning in the week and attracts few visitors.
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/hating-russia-is-a-full-time-job/
ReplyJewish Power-The power to silence criticism of Jewish Power
Gilad Atzmon
Like to share this, insight into why the ((Neocons)) dont like Russia, (given that their predecessors lost control when the Stalin purged the old Bolsheviks)
Hating Russia Is a Full-Time Job
Neocons resurrect tribal memories to fan the flames
I have long believed that the core hatred of Russia comes from the neocons and is to a large extent tribal or, if you prefer, ethno-religious based. Why? Because if the neoconservatives were actually foreign policy realists there is no good reason to express any visceral dislike of Russia or its government. The allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. are clearly a sham, just as are the tales of the alleged Russian poisoning of the Skripals in Winchester England and, most recently, the claimed assassination of journalist Arkady Babchenko in Kiev which turned out to be a false flag. Even the most cursory examination of the past decade’s developments in Georgia and Ukraine reveal that Russia was reacting to legitimate major security threats engineered by the United States with a little help from Israel and others. Russia has not since the Cold War ended threatened the United States and its ability to re-acquire its former Eastern European satellites is a fantasy. So why the hatred?
In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal goal of his government to turn off the money tap.
With the looting stopped by Putin, the neocons and friends no longer had any reason to play nice, so they used their considerable resources in the media and within the halls of power in places like Washington, London and Paris to turn on Moscow. And they also might have perceived that there was a worse threat looming. The Putin government appeared to be resurrecting what the neocons might perceive as pogrom-plagued Holy Russia! Old churches razed by the Bolsheviks were being rebuilt and people were again going to mass and claiming belief in Jesus Christ. The former Red Square now hosts a Christmas market while the nearby tomb of Lenin is only open one morning in the week and attracts few visitors.
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/hating-russia-is-a-full-time-job/
سيف الله
06-12-2018, 01:48 AM
Salaam
More comment
A healthy society doesn’t need a ‘truth movement.’ But we Americans, Brits, French and Germans are far from healthy and our so-called ‘truth movements’ haven’t led us towards any sources of light. The question is: Why?
One possible answer is that ‘truth movements’ are ideal environments for the operators of controlled opposition -- those who insist upon vetting any discussion about the truth by claiming to know what ‘the truth’ is, what it comprises and who its enemies are.
Karl Popper posited that since no number of scientific experiments could definitively prove a scientific theory we should utilise a methodology based on falsifiability. While we posses the means to refute a scientific theory or scientific ‘truth,’ we lack the ability to verify a single scientific theory by means of experiments. For instance, if you state that ‘the sun rises in the East’ is a valid scientific truth, a single occasion of the sun popping up early in the morning in the West will refute your theory. “Building Number Seven” may not point at the culprit behind 9/11 but it is thought to refute the official 9/11 narrative. Furthermore, history laws such as Holocaust denial laws in Europe or the Nakba law in Israel exist to defy alteration, refutation or scholarly debate about the past. Instead of helping us to grasp our past, the existence of such laws reveals to us that some parties are desperate to stop anyone from exploring what really happened.
The French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard observed in his book, ‘Heidegger and The Jews’ that history may claim to tell us what happened, but most of the time ‘history’ is institutionally engaged in concealing our shame. The Americans, for instance, conceal the brutality of slavery, the Brits conceal the crimes of the empire, the Jews suppress any inquiry into Jewish accountability for Jewish history’s chain of disasters and so on. The message here is that instead of simply learning history from historians, we may well benefit from adopting a psychoanalytical approach to try to understand what historians work to conceal. We should ask why does America build a holocaust museum in every city? Why did the Brits make the Imperial Wars Museum into a Holocaust shrine? We may even want to understand how it is possible that on the same day Israel celebrated “the biggest Gay Pride Parade in the region” hundreds of Israeli snipers were deployed on the Gaza border with orders to shoot every Palestinian who might try to break out of the Gaza concentration camp. Israel’s liberal LGBT attitude is basically a pink-wash, an attempt to conceal Israel’s abusive racist policies towards the indigenous people of its land.
But there is reason to be optimistic. Against the odds, and despite the open assault on truthfulness, truth has a unique ability to unveil itself.
In this presentation today we will look at Palestine and Israel in the light of truth and truthfulness and we will find out that by now we are all Palestinians. Like the Palestinians we are not allowed to utter the name of our oppressors.
Trump and Truthfulness
If truth reveals itself however involuntarily, President Trump is a leading vehicle or, perhaps, an arch facilitator, for such process to take place. Let us, for instance, examine Trump’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. This cataclysmic political decision was criticised by every reasonable figure globally but it actually provided the opportunity for the truth to unveil itself.
Just a few hours after Trump’s televised announcement, Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas informed Vice President Pence who was at a state visit in the region that he was persona non grata in Ramallah. President Abbas’ reaction to Trump’s Jerusalem move was to declare that America can no longer act as a negotiator, it is a side in the conflict. It was Trump’s Jerusalem move that finally allowed the penny to drop. America hasn’t just taken a side in the conflict, it may as well be an Israeli colony.
Truth Shines on the Jewish Solidarity Spin
Over the last two decades the Palestinian solidarity movement has become a toy for Jewish solidarity. The results of this have been devastating. The core Palestinian plight, namely The Right of Return was practically wiped out and replaced by Israel-friendly terminology such as ‘End of Occupation’ – a set of peaceful sounding bites that in practice legitimise the existence of the pre-1967 Jewish State. New sound bites were attached to the Israeli Palestinian conflict such as: apartheid, colonialism, settler colonialism and even BDS. These misleading terminologies were designed to convey the image that the Israeli Palestinian conflict was not unique, that it had precedents in history. Of course, this is simply wrong and consciously misleading. Zionism is based upon the ludicrous idea that Jews have the right to return to their ‘homeland’ after 2000 years. Who else should enjoy such a ‘universal’ right? Can my Italian drummer claim my house in London as a ‘Roman offspring’?
But Trump’s Jerusalem move reminded the Palestinians that the denial of the Right of Return is at the core of their plight. It is the Right of Return that they should fight for, the Right of Return and nothing but that Right. Since March we have seen huge protests by Palestinians on the Gaza border. These protests have cost a lot of Palestinian lives. Hundreds were murdered by Israeli snipers, thousands have been injured, but the truth has prevailed. The current resistance by the Palestinians has achieved more of an impact than 20 years of wasted diluted kosher solidarity: Israel is now on the defensive: boycotted culturally and spiritually. PM Netanyahu visited every significant European capitol in the last few days begging for support on Iran. He found closed doors. The Argentinian football team cancelled its visit to Israel. Today I read in the Israeli press that more and more Spanish municipalities ban Israeli cultural events. These measures are a direct reaction to Israeli barbarism in Gaza and beyond.
Killing From Afar
The Austrian Philosopher Otto Weininger dedicated his valuable text ‘Sex & Character’ to a harsh deconstruction of the ‘female character,’ and then concluded his work by suggesting that the Jewish male is a woman. Weininger killed himself shortly after, he probably couldn’t stand the fact that he himself was an effeminate character as well as a Jew.
Zionism, either consciously or subconsciously took Weininger very seriously. In its early stages Zionism saw itself as an alpha male factory. It brought to life the new Israeli -- the Sabra named for the prickly pear. The diaspora assimilated Jew, was, in Zionist eyes, indistinguishable from the outside but calculating and mean on the inside. In contrast, the new Israeli Sabra was to be rough and tough on the outside, yet sweet and humane on the inside.
The Zionists promise was to construct the new Jew, to make him and her into warriors -- Combatants that could fight for their cause unlike their Diaspora relatives who were thought to have surrendered like ‘lambs to the slaughter.’
Israeli history suggests that this project seemed successful for a while. In Israel’s early days young Hebrews were willing to fight and die. Indeed, they won a few successive battles (1948, ‘56 and ‘67). I was brought up within this Spartan environment. My peers and I looked forward to sacrificing ourselves on the Jewish nationalist altar. This has clearly changed. The Israeli army is no longer a winning army. Not only does it lack decisive victories, more often it finds itself defeated, withdrawn from the battlefield with its tail between its legs.
What we have seen on the Gaza border in the last two months reveals that Otto Weininger’s observation was indeed prescient. Again the truth has unveiled itself however involuntarily. The Israeli army is an army that kills from afar. It is basically a barbarian criminal outfit dominated by the cowardly nature of its members.
The Israeli military elite has dreaded a March to Jerusalem for decades. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians marching back to their lands, homes, cities and villages is something that can’t be easily addressed militarily. Generals are naturally fearful of such incidents because they entail unpredictability. It is impossible to predict how a lone rifleman will react when confronted by thousands of angry Palestinians closing in on him -- will he stay to defend his position or will he run for safety? And what about the air force, can we count on an F-16 pilot to drop a napalm bomb on unarmed Palestinians marching towards Tel Aviv? Seemingly the Israeli generals have found an answer to the above dilemma – they kill from afar.
Israel has deployed thousands of snipers in Gaza. They are ordered to kill from afar. Not exactly the early Zionist heroic image of a face to face warrior who sees the eyeballs of his foe as he fights for his survival. But the snipers are not alone. Israeli pilots also rocket Gaza from a distance while cruising over the Negev or the Sea. Both the snipers and the pilots are supported by dozens of drones that are controlled by boys and girls who operate in safety and comfort in air-conditioned units.
Otto Weininger’s diagnosis had some merit. Apparently the alpha male transition didn’t work as the early Zionists wished.
We Are All Palestinians
Truth, as we know, is under attack in the West. It doesn’t take a genius to identify the elements that see truth as a threat and seek to suppress truth seeking. The political means that have been designed to suppress truth and truthfulness operate openly. At one stage this online conference was named ‘The Left Out Forum.’ It is the platform for scholars and humanists who unveil the shame that the Left in its current permutation can’t handle. How did it happen to the Left? This is easy to explain – at a certain stage the good old Left was hijacked by the so –called ‘New Left’ -- a corrosive set of ‘ideologies’ that are designed to suppress truth and truthfulness.
The New Left assault on truth is facilitated by two means. The first is ID politics – a divisive crude attempt to teach us to speak ‘as a’ (as a woman, as a Jew, as a Lesbian, as a Black, etc.). ID politics has either consciously or not removed us from authenticity and authentic thinking. Instead of pondering for ourselves, we learned to think ‘as a’ in a collective manner (as a Jew, as a Trans, as a Gay, etc.)
The second New Left tactic is so-called ‘Political Correctness.’ PC culture is basically politics that doesn’t allow political opposition. Interestingly enough, this is exactly how we define authoritarian and tyrannical discourse. The truth of the matter is that tyrannical conditions are light in comparison with PC culture because PC is driven by self-suppression. It represses our ability to express ourselves authentically, and even more dangerously PC stops us from thinking independently.
All of this has led me to the conclusion that in the world in which we live, we are all Palestinians. Palestine is not just some far away conflict. It is here all around us: like the Palestinians we are unable to explicitly utter the name of our oppressors. Like the Palestinians, our dissent has been compromised. In Britain, the police will knock on your door as soon as you tweet your thoughts about Israel and its Lobby. America is catching up. Like the Palestinians, our truth has been hijacked but it has not been murdered.
Truth, as we have seen, is a lasting enduring concept. Truth is that which unveils itself against all odds. Whether we like it or not, truth will shine upon us as it has shined upon Gaza and Palestine in the last two months. However, the truth may not be where we expect to find it.
Otto Weininger taught us that “in art self- realisation is realisation of the world.” The artist, according to Weininger, hits the truth by means of self-reflection. Trying to universalise Weininger’s insight may suggest that truth happens to unveil itself to us because the truth is in us. Truth is not what you find out while examining the world, it is not in the press or in the media, on CNN, the BBC or the Guardian of the Judea. Truth is not what you find in academia or even in a truth movement’s pamphlets. Truth unveils itself because truth is that which we find within ourselves. Truth is found when we close our eyes in disbelief. It reveals itself when we look inward, when we learn to attend to our inner voice of reason and ethics.
Truth is not a personal esoteric experience. Quite the opposite, it is that kernel of humanity we all share. It is that which makes us into one, a one that transcends political affiliation, identity, gender, race, ethnicity or biology. As in Palestine, sooner rather than later, we will realise that truth, so to say our truth, that which we share, is the only thing worth fighting for!
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/6/11/truth-truthfulness-and-palestine
ReplyMore comment
A healthy society doesn’t need a ‘truth movement.’ But we Americans, Brits, French and Germans are far from healthy and our so-called ‘truth movements’ haven’t led us towards any sources of light. The question is: Why?
One possible answer is that ‘truth movements’ are ideal environments for the operators of controlled opposition -- those who insist upon vetting any discussion about the truth by claiming to know what ‘the truth’ is, what it comprises and who its enemies are.
Karl Popper posited that since no number of scientific experiments could definitively prove a scientific theory we should utilise a methodology based on falsifiability. While we posses the means to refute a scientific theory or scientific ‘truth,’ we lack the ability to verify a single scientific theory by means of experiments. For instance, if you state that ‘the sun rises in the East’ is a valid scientific truth, a single occasion of the sun popping up early in the morning in the West will refute your theory. “Building Number Seven” may not point at the culprit behind 9/11 but it is thought to refute the official 9/11 narrative. Furthermore, history laws such as Holocaust denial laws in Europe or the Nakba law in Israel exist to defy alteration, refutation or scholarly debate about the past. Instead of helping us to grasp our past, the existence of such laws reveals to us that some parties are desperate to stop anyone from exploring what really happened.
The French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard observed in his book, ‘Heidegger and The Jews’ that history may claim to tell us what happened, but most of the time ‘history’ is institutionally engaged in concealing our shame. The Americans, for instance, conceal the brutality of slavery, the Brits conceal the crimes of the empire, the Jews suppress any inquiry into Jewish accountability for Jewish history’s chain of disasters and so on. The message here is that instead of simply learning history from historians, we may well benefit from adopting a psychoanalytical approach to try to understand what historians work to conceal. We should ask why does America build a holocaust museum in every city? Why did the Brits make the Imperial Wars Museum into a Holocaust shrine? We may even want to understand how it is possible that on the same day Israel celebrated “the biggest Gay Pride Parade in the region” hundreds of Israeli snipers were deployed on the Gaza border with orders to shoot every Palestinian who might try to break out of the Gaza concentration camp. Israel’s liberal LGBT attitude is basically a pink-wash, an attempt to conceal Israel’s abusive racist policies towards the indigenous people of its land.
But there is reason to be optimistic. Against the odds, and despite the open assault on truthfulness, truth has a unique ability to unveil itself.
In this presentation today we will look at Palestine and Israel in the light of truth and truthfulness and we will find out that by now we are all Palestinians. Like the Palestinians we are not allowed to utter the name of our oppressors.
Trump and Truthfulness
If truth reveals itself however involuntarily, President Trump is a leading vehicle or, perhaps, an arch facilitator, for such process to take place. Let us, for instance, examine Trump’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. This cataclysmic political decision was criticised by every reasonable figure globally but it actually provided the opportunity for the truth to unveil itself.
Just a few hours after Trump’s televised announcement, Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas informed Vice President Pence who was at a state visit in the region that he was persona non grata in Ramallah. President Abbas’ reaction to Trump’s Jerusalem move was to declare that America can no longer act as a negotiator, it is a side in the conflict. It was Trump’s Jerusalem move that finally allowed the penny to drop. America hasn’t just taken a side in the conflict, it may as well be an Israeli colony.
Truth Shines on the Jewish Solidarity Spin
Over the last two decades the Palestinian solidarity movement has become a toy for Jewish solidarity. The results of this have been devastating. The core Palestinian plight, namely The Right of Return was practically wiped out and replaced by Israel-friendly terminology such as ‘End of Occupation’ – a set of peaceful sounding bites that in practice legitimise the existence of the pre-1967 Jewish State. New sound bites were attached to the Israeli Palestinian conflict such as: apartheid, colonialism, settler colonialism and even BDS. These misleading terminologies were designed to convey the image that the Israeli Palestinian conflict was not unique, that it had precedents in history. Of course, this is simply wrong and consciously misleading. Zionism is based upon the ludicrous idea that Jews have the right to return to their ‘homeland’ after 2000 years. Who else should enjoy such a ‘universal’ right? Can my Italian drummer claim my house in London as a ‘Roman offspring’?
But Trump’s Jerusalem move reminded the Palestinians that the denial of the Right of Return is at the core of their plight. It is the Right of Return that they should fight for, the Right of Return and nothing but that Right. Since March we have seen huge protests by Palestinians on the Gaza border. These protests have cost a lot of Palestinian lives. Hundreds were murdered by Israeli snipers, thousands have been injured, but the truth has prevailed. The current resistance by the Palestinians has achieved more of an impact than 20 years of wasted diluted kosher solidarity: Israel is now on the defensive: boycotted culturally and spiritually. PM Netanyahu visited every significant European capitol in the last few days begging for support on Iran. He found closed doors. The Argentinian football team cancelled its visit to Israel. Today I read in the Israeli press that more and more Spanish municipalities ban Israeli cultural events. These measures are a direct reaction to Israeli barbarism in Gaza and beyond.
Killing From Afar
The Austrian Philosopher Otto Weininger dedicated his valuable text ‘Sex & Character’ to a harsh deconstruction of the ‘female character,’ and then concluded his work by suggesting that the Jewish male is a woman. Weininger killed himself shortly after, he probably couldn’t stand the fact that he himself was an effeminate character as well as a Jew.
Zionism, either consciously or subconsciously took Weininger very seriously. In its early stages Zionism saw itself as an alpha male factory. It brought to life the new Israeli -- the Sabra named for the prickly pear. The diaspora assimilated Jew, was, in Zionist eyes, indistinguishable from the outside but calculating and mean on the inside. In contrast, the new Israeli Sabra was to be rough and tough on the outside, yet sweet and humane on the inside.
The Zionists promise was to construct the new Jew, to make him and her into warriors -- Combatants that could fight for their cause unlike their Diaspora relatives who were thought to have surrendered like ‘lambs to the slaughter.’
Israeli history suggests that this project seemed successful for a while. In Israel’s early days young Hebrews were willing to fight and die. Indeed, they won a few successive battles (1948, ‘56 and ‘67). I was brought up within this Spartan environment. My peers and I looked forward to sacrificing ourselves on the Jewish nationalist altar. This has clearly changed. The Israeli army is no longer a winning army. Not only does it lack decisive victories, more often it finds itself defeated, withdrawn from the battlefield with its tail between its legs.
What we have seen on the Gaza border in the last two months reveals that Otto Weininger’s observation was indeed prescient. Again the truth has unveiled itself however involuntarily. The Israeli army is an army that kills from afar. It is basically a barbarian criminal outfit dominated by the cowardly nature of its members.
The Israeli military elite has dreaded a March to Jerusalem for decades. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians marching back to their lands, homes, cities and villages is something that can’t be easily addressed militarily. Generals are naturally fearful of such incidents because they entail unpredictability. It is impossible to predict how a lone rifleman will react when confronted by thousands of angry Palestinians closing in on him -- will he stay to defend his position or will he run for safety? And what about the air force, can we count on an F-16 pilot to drop a napalm bomb on unarmed Palestinians marching towards Tel Aviv? Seemingly the Israeli generals have found an answer to the above dilemma – they kill from afar.
Israel has deployed thousands of snipers in Gaza. They are ordered to kill from afar. Not exactly the early Zionist heroic image of a face to face warrior who sees the eyeballs of his foe as he fights for his survival. But the snipers are not alone. Israeli pilots also rocket Gaza from a distance while cruising over the Negev or the Sea. Both the snipers and the pilots are supported by dozens of drones that are controlled by boys and girls who operate in safety and comfort in air-conditioned units.
Otto Weininger’s diagnosis had some merit. Apparently the alpha male transition didn’t work as the early Zionists wished.
We Are All Palestinians
Truth, as we know, is under attack in the West. It doesn’t take a genius to identify the elements that see truth as a threat and seek to suppress truth seeking. The political means that have been designed to suppress truth and truthfulness operate openly. At one stage this online conference was named ‘The Left Out Forum.’ It is the platform for scholars and humanists who unveil the shame that the Left in its current permutation can’t handle. How did it happen to the Left? This is easy to explain – at a certain stage the good old Left was hijacked by the so –called ‘New Left’ -- a corrosive set of ‘ideologies’ that are designed to suppress truth and truthfulness.
The New Left assault on truth is facilitated by two means. The first is ID politics – a divisive crude attempt to teach us to speak ‘as a’ (as a woman, as a Jew, as a Lesbian, as a Black, etc.). ID politics has either consciously or not removed us from authenticity and authentic thinking. Instead of pondering for ourselves, we learned to think ‘as a’ in a collective manner (as a Jew, as a Trans, as a Gay, etc.)
The second New Left tactic is so-called ‘Political Correctness.’ PC culture is basically politics that doesn’t allow political opposition. Interestingly enough, this is exactly how we define authoritarian and tyrannical discourse. The truth of the matter is that tyrannical conditions are light in comparison with PC culture because PC is driven by self-suppression. It represses our ability to express ourselves authentically, and even more dangerously PC stops us from thinking independently.
All of this has led me to the conclusion that in the world in which we live, we are all Palestinians. Palestine is not just some far away conflict. It is here all around us: like the Palestinians we are unable to explicitly utter the name of our oppressors. Like the Palestinians, our dissent has been compromised. In Britain, the police will knock on your door as soon as you tweet your thoughts about Israel and its Lobby. America is catching up. Like the Palestinians, our truth has been hijacked but it has not been murdered.
Truth, as we have seen, is a lasting enduring concept. Truth is that which unveils itself against all odds. Whether we like it or not, truth will shine upon us as it has shined upon Gaza and Palestine in the last two months. However, the truth may not be where we expect to find it.
Otto Weininger taught us that “in art self- realisation is realisation of the world.” The artist, according to Weininger, hits the truth by means of self-reflection. Trying to universalise Weininger’s insight may suggest that truth happens to unveil itself to us because the truth is in us. Truth is not what you find out while examining the world, it is not in the press or in the media, on CNN, the BBC or the Guardian of the Judea. Truth is not what you find in academia or even in a truth movement’s pamphlets. Truth unveils itself because truth is that which we find within ourselves. Truth is found when we close our eyes in disbelief. It reveals itself when we look inward, when we learn to attend to our inner voice of reason and ethics.
Truth is not a personal esoteric experience. Quite the opposite, it is that kernel of humanity we all share. It is that which makes us into one, a one that transcends political affiliation, identity, gender, race, ethnicity or biology. As in Palestine, sooner rather than later, we will realise that truth, so to say our truth, that which we share, is the only thing worth fighting for!
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/6/11/truth-truthfulness-and-palestine
سيف الله
06-15-2018, 09:37 AM
Salaam
Another update
Trouble Clef
The Jewish Chronicle seems dismayed that the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has escaped jail time, at least for the time being. But the message conveyed by Ms. Chabloz’s conviction is devastating for Britain. This kingdom has, in just a short time, become a crude authoritarian state.
For posting so-called ‘grossly offensive songs’ on the internet, Chabloz was sentenced by District Judge John Zani to 20 weeks imprisonment suspended for two years. It seems that now music is deemed a major threat to Britain.
Chabloz was also banned from posting anything on social media for 12 months. I am perplexed. What kind of countries pre-vet social interaction and intellectual exchange? Israel imposes such prohibitions on its Palestinian citizens. Soviet Russia banned certain types of gatherings and publications and, of course, Nazi Germany saw itself qualified to decide what type of texts were healthy for the people and actively burned books. I guess that Britain is in good company.
Chabloz was further “ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work.” This amounts to something in the proximity of 90 Jazz gigs. And Chabloz is required to attend ‘a 20-day rehabilitation programme.’ In 21st century Britain, a singer songwriter has been sentenced to ‘re-education’ for singing a few tunes that offended some people. The initial objective of the Nazi Concentration camp was also to ‘re-educate the people.’ Dachau was built to re-educate cosmopolitans, dissenter communists and to make them into German patriots. I wonder what this particular rehab program will entail for the revisionist singer? Chabloz was guilty of introducing new lyrics to Ava Nagila, will she have now to learn to sing Ava Nagila in Yiddish, or maybe to try to fit her own original ‘subversive’ lyrics to the music of Richard Wagner? Who is going to take care of Chabloz’s education, and what happens if the singer insists on continuing to mock the primacy of Jewish suffering or far worse, compare Gaza to Auschwitz?
Satire aside, the Chabloz trial and other recent legal cases suggest to me that Britain is no longer the liberty-loving place I settled in more than two decades ago. If liberty can be defined as the right to offend, Britain has voluntarily removed itself from the free world. In contemporary Britain, exercise of the ‘right to offend’ evidently leads to conviction and possible imprisonment. And who defines what establishes ‘an offence’? British law fails to do so. Chabloz was disrespectful to some Jewish cult figures such as Elie Wiesel and Otto Frank (the father of Anne Frank). Would Chabloz be subject to similar legal proceeding if she offended the Queen, the royal family or Winston Churchill? What message is Judge Zani sending to British intellectuals and artists? Since every person, let alone Jews, can be offended by pretty much anything, Britain is now reduced to an Orwellian dystopia. We may have to accept that our big Zionist brother is constantly watching us. If we want to keep out of trouble, we better self-censor our thoughts and learn to accept the new boundaries of our expression.
Democracies are sustained by the belief that their members are qualified to make decisions regarding their own education: they decide what films to watch, what books to read and what clubs to join. Seemingly, this is no longer the case in Britain. Decisions regarding right and wrong thoughts are now taken by ‘the law’. According to the JC, Judge Zani told Chabloz that :“The right to freedom of speech is fundamental to a fully-functioning democratic society. But the law has clearly established that this right is a qualified right.”
While many of us believe that freedom of speech is an absolute right, Judge Zani made it clear today that this is not the case or at least not anymore. Freedom of speech in Britain is now a ‘qualified right.’ In other words Government and the Judicial system are allowed to interfere with such right at any time. Just two years ago, the Crown Prosecution Service didn’t think that Chabloz should stand trial. Presumably at the time the CPS didn’t believe that Chabloz’ rights should be qualified or quantified. Two years later there has been a clear change in speech that is prosecuted.
Article 19e of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by Great Britain and enacted in 1948 declares: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
This was the law in 1948. In 2018, freedom and democracy are rights we have to remember, we experience them no more.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/6/14/trouble-clef
Why Israel wants everyone to get on the anti antisemitism bandwagon.
First 3 minutes are relevant.
ReplyAnother update
Trouble Clef
The Jewish Chronicle seems dismayed that the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has escaped jail time, at least for the time being. But the message conveyed by Ms. Chabloz’s conviction is devastating for Britain. This kingdom has, in just a short time, become a crude authoritarian state.
For posting so-called ‘grossly offensive songs’ on the internet, Chabloz was sentenced by District Judge John Zani to 20 weeks imprisonment suspended for two years. It seems that now music is deemed a major threat to Britain.
Chabloz was also banned from posting anything on social media for 12 months. I am perplexed. What kind of countries pre-vet social interaction and intellectual exchange? Israel imposes such prohibitions on its Palestinian citizens. Soviet Russia banned certain types of gatherings and publications and, of course, Nazi Germany saw itself qualified to decide what type of texts were healthy for the people and actively burned books. I guess that Britain is in good company.
Chabloz was further “ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work.” This amounts to something in the proximity of 90 Jazz gigs. And Chabloz is required to attend ‘a 20-day rehabilitation programme.’ In 21st century Britain, a singer songwriter has been sentenced to ‘re-education’ for singing a few tunes that offended some people. The initial objective of the Nazi Concentration camp was also to ‘re-educate the people.’ Dachau was built to re-educate cosmopolitans, dissenter communists and to make them into German patriots. I wonder what this particular rehab program will entail for the revisionist singer? Chabloz was guilty of introducing new lyrics to Ava Nagila, will she have now to learn to sing Ava Nagila in Yiddish, or maybe to try to fit her own original ‘subversive’ lyrics to the music of Richard Wagner? Who is going to take care of Chabloz’s education, and what happens if the singer insists on continuing to mock the primacy of Jewish suffering or far worse, compare Gaza to Auschwitz?
Satire aside, the Chabloz trial and other recent legal cases suggest to me that Britain is no longer the liberty-loving place I settled in more than two decades ago. If liberty can be defined as the right to offend, Britain has voluntarily removed itself from the free world. In contemporary Britain, exercise of the ‘right to offend’ evidently leads to conviction and possible imprisonment. And who defines what establishes ‘an offence’? British law fails to do so. Chabloz was disrespectful to some Jewish cult figures such as Elie Wiesel and Otto Frank (the father of Anne Frank). Would Chabloz be subject to similar legal proceeding if she offended the Queen, the royal family or Winston Churchill? What message is Judge Zani sending to British intellectuals and artists? Since every person, let alone Jews, can be offended by pretty much anything, Britain is now reduced to an Orwellian dystopia. We may have to accept that our big Zionist brother is constantly watching us. If we want to keep out of trouble, we better self-censor our thoughts and learn to accept the new boundaries of our expression.
Democracies are sustained by the belief that their members are qualified to make decisions regarding their own education: they decide what films to watch, what books to read and what clubs to join. Seemingly, this is no longer the case in Britain. Decisions regarding right and wrong thoughts are now taken by ‘the law’. According to the JC, Judge Zani told Chabloz that :“The right to freedom of speech is fundamental to a fully-functioning democratic society. But the law has clearly established that this right is a qualified right.”
While many of us believe that freedom of speech is an absolute right, Judge Zani made it clear today that this is not the case or at least not anymore. Freedom of speech in Britain is now a ‘qualified right.’ In other words Government and the Judicial system are allowed to interfere with such right at any time. Just two years ago, the Crown Prosecution Service didn’t think that Chabloz should stand trial. Presumably at the time the CPS didn’t believe that Chabloz’ rights should be qualified or quantified. Two years later there has been a clear change in speech that is prosecuted.
Article 19e of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by Great Britain and enacted in 1948 declares: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
This was the law in 1948. In 2018, freedom and democracy are rights we have to remember, we experience them no more.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/6/14/trouble-clef
Why Israel wants everyone to get on the anti antisemitism bandwagon.
First 3 minutes are relevant.
سيف الله
06-19-2018, 07:24 PM
JustTime
06-21-2018, 06:37 AM
And what you failed to acknowledge is how Russia, Assad, and Iran play into this how they even if Israel was wiped clear off the face of the Earth would still manage to kill more Muslims combined than Israel could do even if they did it intentionally. The Majoosi Safawis have a history of this from attacking the Ottomans to assisting the Mongolians in their invasion of Iraq. Allah (AWJ) will never allow the dogs of Persia to step foot in al-Quds or Aqsa. So those of who you think you are wise because you favor the Safawis who invaded Iraq, slaughtered the people of Sham, manages countless death squads and seeks to erase the Sunnah I truly hope you are satisfied because you fell for empty rhetoric, as the Safawis yelled about Israel their guns and missiles were pointed at the Muslims, as the Safawis chanted death to Israel their planes were dropping bombs on the Muslims and as the Safawis marched for "Quds day" their hordes were ravaging the Mashriq, why is it when it came to Saddam Hussein the guardian of the Arabs on the frontier with the Majoos the Zionists and their allies were so quick to take action? Yet with Assad the Nusayri they are hesitant, they negotiate with him? With Russia have you forgotten Chechnya? Have you forgotten their crimes in Afghanistan, and don't say that their actions during the Soviet era are no longer applicable because that is a lie. When you whine about the pitiful Israeli state whilst ignoring, downplaying and even rejecting the people of Syria and Iraq it is your place in Jaheem that is being constructed and becoming firmer and your place in Jannah dwindling and fading.
Every time you tell the lie of how X crime was a so called "false flag" operation or how X crime is exaggerated, it is Shaytan who wins, every time you exaggerate the status of the Israelis it is only them you elevate whilst assisting in the lack of retribution. Allah (AWJ) hates those who exaggerate and spread lies especially regarding their brothers in Islam and so many of you here on this forum, it is sickening to see those whom have a disease in their heart that are so quick to claim that the deaths of their brothers is fake or staged while also quick to praise their murderers because they can speak harshly. When you reject what your brother in Deen says in place in favor of what the the Safawis and their allies say this is the clear sign of a Munafiq, Oh those of you who support Assad and his allies you are disbelievers, Munafiqeen as well as a humiliated and loosing Jamaat, while those who are steadfast against them, verily they are Tayafat ul Mansoura,
The Messenger ﷺ said: (A group of people from my Umma will always remain triumphant on the right path and continue to be triumphant (against their opponents). He who deserts them shall not be able to do them any harm. They will remain in this position until Allah’s Command is executed).[Saheeh Muslim]
It has been this way since the era of the Sahaba and will continue to be this way until the final hour, so while your states and empires crumble, while your false media outlets continue to spew their lies and deception and while your much revered Mushriks and their hordes of death squads continue to fight harshly to murder every last believer they can find and while the tyrants continue to tyrannize, the believers will continue to exist and continue to be unwavering and steadfast on the path of Haqq while the believers of batil continues to exist in their lowly humiliating state of arrogance, stupidity, and lack direction. Jannah is for the righteous Hell is for wicked and the liars, exaggerators and those they stand so firmly by regardless of their crimes no matter how evident and clear and no matter how many of their brothers tell them, and I ask Allah to make Hell the harshest for those who reject, even if they claim to be Ahlus Sunnah they reject like their rejectionists heroes they so revere. and thus they too are Rafida for rejecting their brothers and this Ummah.
ReplyEvery time you tell the lie of how X crime was a so called "false flag" operation or how X crime is exaggerated, it is Shaytan who wins, every time you exaggerate the status of the Israelis it is only them you elevate whilst assisting in the lack of retribution. Allah (AWJ) hates those who exaggerate and spread lies especially regarding their brothers in Islam and so many of you here on this forum, it is sickening to see those whom have a disease in their heart that are so quick to claim that the deaths of their brothers is fake or staged while also quick to praise their murderers because they can speak harshly. When you reject what your brother in Deen says in place in favor of what the the Safawis and their allies say this is the clear sign of a Munafiq, Oh those of you who support Assad and his allies you are disbelievers, Munafiqeen as well as a humiliated and loosing Jamaat, while those who are steadfast against them, verily they are Tayafat ul Mansoura,
The Messenger ﷺ said: (A group of people from my Umma will always remain triumphant on the right path and continue to be triumphant (against their opponents). He who deserts them shall not be able to do them any harm. They will remain in this position until Allah’s Command is executed).[Saheeh Muslim]
It has been this way since the era of the Sahaba and will continue to be this way until the final hour, so while your states and empires crumble, while your false media outlets continue to spew their lies and deception and while your much revered Mushriks and their hordes of death squads continue to fight harshly to murder every last believer they can find and while the tyrants continue to tyrannize, the believers will continue to exist and continue to be unwavering and steadfast on the path of Haqq while the believers of batil continues to exist in their lowly humiliating state of arrogance, stupidity, and lack direction. Jannah is for the righteous Hell is for wicked and the liars, exaggerators and those they stand so firmly by regardless of their crimes no matter how evident and clear and no matter how many of their brothers tell them, and I ask Allah to make Hell the harshest for those who reject, even if they claim to be Ahlus Sunnah they reject like their rejectionists heroes they so revere. and thus they too are Rafida for rejecting their brothers and this Ummah.
سيف الله
06-25-2018, 07:38 AM
Salaam
Another update
Blurb
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are dismissed out of hand as an anti-Semitic fabrication. But how accurate is this when we look at the events of history, and make a comparison to what the text actually says?
More on Jewish history
Edit - More analysis on Zionism.
ReplyAnother update
Blurb
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are dismissed out of hand as an anti-Semitic fabrication. But how accurate is this when we look at the events of history, and make a comparison to what the text actually says?
More on Jewish history
Edit - More analysis on Zionism.
JustTime
07-01-2018, 01:52 AM
This poster is an idiot, and an Iranian propagandist skilled in spreading fake news and malicious content, he is taking advantage of Israel's crimes and the animosity Muslims feel in response to Israel's violations of innocent people to propagate Iran's views and ideology.
ReplyKarl
07-06-2018, 03:18 AM
The Protocols are right on the money. If it is a "fake" the writer must have been a seer or obtained knowledge from Allah as the contents within the book are events that are actually happening. Or it could be actually true that he was a witness to the diabolical treacherous plans that were discussed. The Protocols were published in many countries including Muslim lands so if it was "fictitious nonsense" why would it get published?
ReplyFutuwwa
07-06-2018, 10:26 PM
If the Bible isn't true, why would it get published?
If you can understand why that is an invalid argument, you are able to understand why your last sentence is one too.
The Protocols don't predict anything specific, they lay forth a plan for domination through manipulation of world events in particular ways. Any "predictions" derived from them are after-the-fact rationalizations of past events, so vague that all that needs to happen for them to be fulfilled is that the world continues on much like it has always done, until something happens that matches the predictions.
That's before considering the fact that some of those plans are utterly preposterous considering how the world developed after the Protocols were penned. For instance, it speaks of causing economic hardship for the goyim by withdrawing gold from circulation. Whereas actual world history since then is that gold became irrelevant for currency, the world economy carried on better than ever without it.
ReplyIf you can understand why that is an invalid argument, you are able to understand why your last sentence is one too.
The Protocols don't predict anything specific, they lay forth a plan for domination through manipulation of world events in particular ways. Any "predictions" derived from them are after-the-fact rationalizations of past events, so vague that all that needs to happen for them to be fulfilled is that the world continues on much like it has always done, until something happens that matches the predictions.
That's before considering the fact that some of those plans are utterly preposterous considering how the world developed after the Protocols were penned. For instance, it speaks of causing economic hardship for the goyim by withdrawing gold from circulation. Whereas actual world history since then is that gold became irrelevant for currency, the world economy carried on better than ever without it.
سيف الله
07-20-2018, 07:12 PM
Salaam
They like to plan ahead, where next will they go? (this was written in 2006)
Questions of Survival
Pushing aside competition and even hostility, Jewish leaders sat together last weekend for the first time and discussed what they agree is the unclear future of their people.
https://www.haaretz.com/1.4920795
Interesting comment
The Jewish people (or if you prefer, ha-Am Eretz) have dealt with changing political situations for the last three millenia, all adverse to them, from Pharaoh to Haman to Titus to Hitler. It should not be surprising that modern Jews are a bit dubious of "putting their trust in princes", nor that they (with the exception of a few fools among them) are reluctant to put all their eggs in one basket, be that basket Israel, or the U.S., or some new place.
Vox Day
1. Agreed. What I don't understand is why they keep utilizing the same strategy of attempting to buy the friendship of the king and amass central power over large majorities. THAT DOESN'T FREAKING WORK! It didn't work then. It's not working now, obviously, or there wouldn't be plans in the making to curry favor in Asia.
2. How do modern Jews not realize that is exactly what they're doing by attempting to run Hollywood and Wall Street to their benefit? So many got all bent out of shape because a few thousand Yankee Episcopalians wouldn't let them join their golf clubs, and in reaction, they are taking it out on tens of millions of Baptists, blacks, Southerners, and so forth. Forget about right and wrong, how is that smart?
I never met a single Jew growing up. Never had anything against them anymore than I did Eskimos or Zulus. But I did find it unbelievable, and irritating, that my choices for Senator were the Republican Jew from New York or the DFL Jew from Washington DC, both of whom were contesting the seat of the Republican Jew from New York. That sort of thing really pisses people off and gives the antisemites credibility.
3. I get the "don't put all your eggs in one basket". That's smart. But then, how about "stop trying to change every refuge to your liking"? I mean, is "lay low and don't cause trouble" really that hard to understand? It was astonishing to me to learn how many Europeans, from Brits to French to Poles loathe Jews now. The Italians are about the only ones who don't. Maybe it's justified, maybe it isn't. I don't know the various reasons. But regardless, why give them justification?
I am less than impressed by the alleged "Christians" who have been expressing anti-Semitic sentiments here
There are 300 million guns in the USA. There are what, 2 million Jews? If America was genuinely antisemitic, American Jewry would be gone in an afternoon. Hitler was antisemitic. Dislike for Jewish nepotism and political overrepresentation isn't antisemitic.
I wish the Jewish people well. I genuinely do. But that doesn't mean I want them running my country's financial system into the ground because they think it is "good for the Jews".
ReplyThey like to plan ahead, where next will they go? (this was written in 2006)
Questions of Survival
Pushing aside competition and even hostility, Jewish leaders sat together last weekend for the first time and discussed what they agree is the unclear future of their people.
Two groups of Jews gathered together last weekend at Wye Plantation, Maryland for a long discussion on the situation of the Jewish people. The first group, which met Wednesday and Thursday, consisted of the heads of 15 Jewish organizations such as the Presidents' Conference, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the American Jewish Committee and others. In the second group were the "thinkers," as the organizers termed them: Natan Sharansky from Israel, Charles Krauthammer from The Washington Post, former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler, former Jewish Agency head Sallai Meridor and many others....
The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected "in the coming two decades" - but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power. In all events, it was agreed the Jews "should strengthen cultural links with non-Western civilizations, particularly China and also India," powers that are on the ascent. This is not a question of preference or closeness; it is a question of survival, of readiness for the future.
The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected "in the coming two decades" - but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power. In all events, it was agreed the Jews "should strengthen cultural links with non-Western civilizations, particularly China and also India," powers that are on the ascent. This is not a question of preference or closeness; it is a question of survival, of readiness for the future.
Interesting comment
The Jewish people (or if you prefer, ha-Am Eretz) have dealt with changing political situations for the last three millenia, all adverse to them, from Pharaoh to Haman to Titus to Hitler. It should not be surprising that modern Jews are a bit dubious of "putting their trust in princes", nor that they (with the exception of a few fools among them) are reluctant to put all their eggs in one basket, be that basket Israel, or the U.S., or some new place.
Vox Day
1. Agreed. What I don't understand is why they keep utilizing the same strategy of attempting to buy the friendship of the king and amass central power over large majorities. THAT DOESN'T FREAKING WORK! It didn't work then. It's not working now, obviously, or there wouldn't be plans in the making to curry favor in Asia.
2. How do modern Jews not realize that is exactly what they're doing by attempting to run Hollywood and Wall Street to their benefit? So many got all bent out of shape because a few thousand Yankee Episcopalians wouldn't let them join their golf clubs, and in reaction, they are taking it out on tens of millions of Baptists, blacks, Southerners, and so forth. Forget about right and wrong, how is that smart?
I never met a single Jew growing up. Never had anything against them anymore than I did Eskimos or Zulus. But I did find it unbelievable, and irritating, that my choices for Senator were the Republican Jew from New York or the DFL Jew from Washington DC, both of whom were contesting the seat of the Republican Jew from New York. That sort of thing really pisses people off and gives the antisemites credibility.
3. I get the "don't put all your eggs in one basket". That's smart. But then, how about "stop trying to change every refuge to your liking"? I mean, is "lay low and don't cause trouble" really that hard to understand? It was astonishing to me to learn how many Europeans, from Brits to French to Poles loathe Jews now. The Italians are about the only ones who don't. Maybe it's justified, maybe it isn't. I don't know the various reasons. But regardless, why give them justification?
I am less than impressed by the alleged "Christians" who have been expressing anti-Semitic sentiments here
There are 300 million guns in the USA. There are what, 2 million Jews? If America was genuinely antisemitic, American Jewry would be gone in an afternoon. Hitler was antisemitic. Dislike for Jewish nepotism and political overrepresentation isn't antisemitic.
I wish the Jewish people well. I genuinely do. But that doesn't mean I want them running my country's financial system into the ground because they think it is "good for the Jews".
سيف الله
07-23-2018, 07:59 PM
Salaam
Another update
Oded Yinon Speaks Again
Years after Israel Shahak translated Oded Yinon’s (1982) Plan into English, we have a chance to listen to contemporary Yinon. I was notified about this this youtube video by a FB friend. Strangely enough, the video has as of today, a very small number of views. Yinon is an ultra Zionist. He is not shy about it and considering his 'prophetic' vision of the Middle East back in 1982 it is worth listening to his perception of Israel, World Jewry and the Middle East.
To learn about the Yinon Plan click here
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-...nd-beyond.html
In the interview Yinon insists that his strategic plan for the Middle East wasn't really a plan and it has never matured into an Israeli policy. However, he admits that some of his 1982 ideas were adopted by the IDF intelligence (AMAN) at the time of the Civil War in Syria (22.40). The breaking of the Middle East into tribal wars has been postponed according to Yinon but the roots of such a battle are far from over, they are basically inherent to the region.
According to Yinon peace with the Palestinians is unlikely and Israel should invest in its ownbuilding. Yinon predicts that USA Jews have no future in America, “America was the biggest (best) solution to the Jewish problem before Zionism, but today Zionism proves itself as the only solution.” He argues that American Jews will find themselves detached from American politics, culture and society. The holocaust is long away faded from American consciousness and this is, according to him, bad news for the Jews. They will have to wander and their destination is clear. For those who fail to understand, this is hardly a promising news for the Palestinians and the region.
ReplyAnother update
Oded Yinon Speaks Again
Years after Israel Shahak translated Oded Yinon’s (1982) Plan into English, we have a chance to listen to contemporary Yinon. I was notified about this this youtube video by a FB friend. Strangely enough, the video has as of today, a very small number of views. Yinon is an ultra Zionist. He is not shy about it and considering his 'prophetic' vision of the Middle East back in 1982 it is worth listening to his perception of Israel, World Jewry and the Middle East.
To learn about the Yinon Plan click here
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-...nd-beyond.html
In the interview Yinon insists that his strategic plan for the Middle East wasn't really a plan and it has never matured into an Israeli policy. However, he admits that some of his 1982 ideas were adopted by the IDF intelligence (AMAN) at the time of the Civil War in Syria (22.40). The breaking of the Middle East into tribal wars has been postponed according to Yinon but the roots of such a battle are far from over, they are basically inherent to the region.
According to Yinon peace with the Palestinians is unlikely and Israel should invest in its ownbuilding. Yinon predicts that USA Jews have no future in America, “America was the biggest (best) solution to the Jewish problem before Zionism, but today Zionism proves itself as the only solution.” He argues that American Jews will find themselves detached from American politics, culture and society. The holocaust is long away faded from American consciousness and this is, according to him, bad news for the Jews. They will have to wander and their destination is clear. For those who fail to understand, this is hardly a promising news for the Palestinians and the region.
سيف الله
07-24-2018, 06:34 PM
Salaam
Another update, this will stir controversy
Israel’s National Bill and the Jewish Solidarity Spin
Last Thursday the Israeli Knesset adopted Israel’s National Bill. The law specifies that self-determination is "exclusive" to the Jewish people. It endorses the establishment of Jews-only settlements as a part of Israel’s national interests. The National Bill demotes Arabic from an official national language to "special” status. Israel’s national symbols include the Israeli flag, the menorah, Jewish holidays, the Hatikva national anthem, the Hebrew calendar and Israel's Independence Day.
The new National Bill legislates what has been an active policy of segregation and discrimination by Israeli authorities since Israel’s inception. As many critics of the bill noted, the bill reveals that in the Jewish State Jews and goyim are not equal citizens.
It is crucial to point out that the bill doesn’t define Israel as ‘the Judaic State.” It repeatedly refers to Israel as the state of the ‘Jewish People.’ In Hebrew, the law is named the ‘Nation Bill.’ The law refers to the ‘Jewish State’ and the ‘Jewish folk.’ It provides an invaluable glimpse into the true meaning of Jewishness particularly as perceived by Israeli Jews.
In 2011, I published The Wandering Who? The basic premise of the book was definitional. I argued that if Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, in order to understand that term, we have to ask: who are the Jews? What is Judaism? What is Jewishness? And then we could proceed to try to figure out how these terms relate to each other. How do they affect the world in which we live, Israeli politics, Jewish pressure groups and so on.
As I expected, not a single Israeli or Zionist opposed the principles of my study. Israelis and Zionists do accept that Israel is the Jewish State. They are intimately familiar with the discourse of Jewishness (יהודיות) and the meaning of the term. However, despite the fact that my study was praised and endorsed by some of the most respected academics and humanists, Jewish Palestinian solidarity activists were desperate to silence me and erase my work. Just a few weeks after the book came out, Palestinian blogger Ali Abunimah managed to gather another 20 Palestinians to call for my ‘disavowal.’ Clearly Abunimah didn’t want or approve of my attempt to focus on the core ideology and culture that drives Israeli supremacy, discrimination and brutality inflicted on his own people. A few years later, Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist Tony Greenstein was foolish enough to reveal that it was he who had actually “engineered” Ali Abunimah’s call for my ‘disavowal.’
Jewishness, as I argue in The Wandering Who?, is a wide ranging array of ideas that celebrate different variations on choseness - a radical sense of tribal exceptionalism. Zionism, for instance, made its followers feel special – because unlike their Diaspora brethren, the Zionist promised to transform the Jews into ‘people like all other people.’ In so doing, the Zionists vowed to become ordinary people, yet ‘chosen’ in comparison with the Diaspora Jews. Zionism failed completely. It quickly evolved into a Jewish supremacist criminal entity. Jewish anti Zionist institutions were invented to form a satellite opposition to Zionism. The Jewish anti Zionists are there to show that ‘not all Jews are Zionists.’ By their lights, the anti -Zionists are the real chosen people. They are so chosen that ordinary goyim aren’t racially qualified and so can’t really join their league. If this observation upsets you, try to count the non-Jews on the board of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).
Jewish anti Zionism is, as practiced, a political discipline that is there to police the Palestinian solidarity discourse by thwarting any focus on the basic tenets that drive Zionism, Israeli policy and the Jewish lobby around the world. Jewish anti Zionism acts to eliminate any reference to the ‘J-word.’
In 2012, the Jewish pro-Palestinian site Mondoweiss changed its comment policy to bar any discussion of Jewish culture in the context of Israeli politics. “From here on out, the Mondoweiss comment section will no longer serve as a forum to pillory Jewish culture and religion as the driving factors in Israeli and US policy” editors Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz openly declared.
JVP, probably the largest pro-Palestinian Jewish activist network, has dedicated much of its time and energy to silencing those who dare to look at Israel’s actions in terms of Jewishness, Jewish culture and Jewish politics. In its performance of the Talmudic Herem practice, JVP has excommunicated 'transgressors,' including some of the greatest spokespersons for Palestine such as Alison Weir and Greta Berlin.
And now there is a dilemma. In 2018 the Jewishness of the Jewish State is no longer a product of “Gilad Atzmon’s imagination.” It is a cardinal Israeli law approved by the Knesset. Will Ali Abunimah and the Jewish Solidarity network come to their senses? Will they be brave enough to admit leading their followers astray for decades? Will they have the courage to self-reflect and address the fundamentals that fuel the oppression of the Palestinian people?
I somehow doubt it. I do not believe that the institutional Jewish solidarity is an authentic movement. More likely, it is there to make sure that the boundaries of solidarity with the oppressed (Palestinians) are shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressor (Antisemitsm, Holocaust etc.).
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/7/24/israels-national-bill-and-the-jewish-solidarity-spin
ReplyAnother update, this will stir controversy
Israel’s National Bill and the Jewish Solidarity Spin
Last Thursday the Israeli Knesset adopted Israel’s National Bill. The law specifies that self-determination is "exclusive" to the Jewish people. It endorses the establishment of Jews-only settlements as a part of Israel’s national interests. The National Bill demotes Arabic from an official national language to "special” status. Israel’s national symbols include the Israeli flag, the menorah, Jewish holidays, the Hatikva national anthem, the Hebrew calendar and Israel's Independence Day.
The new National Bill legislates what has been an active policy of segregation and discrimination by Israeli authorities since Israel’s inception. As many critics of the bill noted, the bill reveals that in the Jewish State Jews and goyim are not equal citizens.
It is crucial to point out that the bill doesn’t define Israel as ‘the Judaic State.” It repeatedly refers to Israel as the state of the ‘Jewish People.’ In Hebrew, the law is named the ‘Nation Bill.’ The law refers to the ‘Jewish State’ and the ‘Jewish folk.’ It provides an invaluable glimpse into the true meaning of Jewishness particularly as perceived by Israeli Jews.
In 2011, I published The Wandering Who? The basic premise of the book was definitional. I argued that if Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, in order to understand that term, we have to ask: who are the Jews? What is Judaism? What is Jewishness? And then we could proceed to try to figure out how these terms relate to each other. How do they affect the world in which we live, Israeli politics, Jewish pressure groups and so on.
As I expected, not a single Israeli or Zionist opposed the principles of my study. Israelis and Zionists do accept that Israel is the Jewish State. They are intimately familiar with the discourse of Jewishness (יהודיות) and the meaning of the term. However, despite the fact that my study was praised and endorsed by some of the most respected academics and humanists, Jewish Palestinian solidarity activists were desperate to silence me and erase my work. Just a few weeks after the book came out, Palestinian blogger Ali Abunimah managed to gather another 20 Palestinians to call for my ‘disavowal.’ Clearly Abunimah didn’t want or approve of my attempt to focus on the core ideology and culture that drives Israeli supremacy, discrimination and brutality inflicted on his own people. A few years later, Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist Tony Greenstein was foolish enough to reveal that it was he who had actually “engineered” Ali Abunimah’s call for my ‘disavowal.’
Jewishness, as I argue in The Wandering Who?, is a wide ranging array of ideas that celebrate different variations on choseness - a radical sense of tribal exceptionalism. Zionism, for instance, made its followers feel special – because unlike their Diaspora brethren, the Zionist promised to transform the Jews into ‘people like all other people.’ In so doing, the Zionists vowed to become ordinary people, yet ‘chosen’ in comparison with the Diaspora Jews. Zionism failed completely. It quickly evolved into a Jewish supremacist criminal entity. Jewish anti Zionist institutions were invented to form a satellite opposition to Zionism. The Jewish anti Zionists are there to show that ‘not all Jews are Zionists.’ By their lights, the anti -Zionists are the real chosen people. They are so chosen that ordinary goyim aren’t racially qualified and so can’t really join their league. If this observation upsets you, try to count the non-Jews on the board of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).
Jewish anti Zionism is, as practiced, a political discipline that is there to police the Palestinian solidarity discourse by thwarting any focus on the basic tenets that drive Zionism, Israeli policy and the Jewish lobby around the world. Jewish anti Zionism acts to eliminate any reference to the ‘J-word.’
In 2012, the Jewish pro-Palestinian site Mondoweiss changed its comment policy to bar any discussion of Jewish culture in the context of Israeli politics. “From here on out, the Mondoweiss comment section will no longer serve as a forum to pillory Jewish culture and religion as the driving factors in Israeli and US policy” editors Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz openly declared.
JVP, probably the largest pro-Palestinian Jewish activist network, has dedicated much of its time and energy to silencing those who dare to look at Israel’s actions in terms of Jewishness, Jewish culture and Jewish politics. In its performance of the Talmudic Herem practice, JVP has excommunicated 'transgressors,' including some of the greatest spokespersons for Palestine such as Alison Weir and Greta Berlin.
And now there is a dilemma. In 2018 the Jewishness of the Jewish State is no longer a product of “Gilad Atzmon’s imagination.” It is a cardinal Israeli law approved by the Knesset. Will Ali Abunimah and the Jewish Solidarity network come to their senses? Will they be brave enough to admit leading their followers astray for decades? Will they have the courage to self-reflect and address the fundamentals that fuel the oppression of the Palestinian people?
I somehow doubt it. I do not believe that the institutional Jewish solidarity is an authentic movement. More likely, it is there to make sure that the boundaries of solidarity with the oppressed (Palestinians) are shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressor (Antisemitsm, Holocaust etc.).
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/7/24/israels-national-bill-and-the-jewish-solidarity-spin
سيف الله
07-27-2018, 05:50 AM
Salaam
Another update
Blurb
In this video I expose the obvious contradictions intrinsic to Jewish progressive thoughts as explored by Paul Jay and Max Blumenthal. We are dealing here with nothing short of controlled opposition.
ReplyAnother update
Blurb
In this video I expose the obvious contradictions intrinsic to Jewish progressive thoughts as explored by Paul Jay and Max Blumenthal. We are dealing here with nothing short of controlled opposition.
سيف الله
07-29-2018, 09:55 PM
Salaam
Another update
Blurb
President Trump handed Prime Minister Netanyahu a significant win when he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocated the US Embassy there. Now, Israeli lobbying groups in Washington are pushing Republican lawmakers for the recognition of Israel’s claim over the Golan Heights. Such an act would mark the most significant validation of forcefully acquired land since 1945, and it would have a dramatic impact on the interpretation of international law.
ReplyAnother update
Blurb
President Trump handed Prime Minister Netanyahu a significant win when he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocated the US Embassy there. Now, Israeli lobbying groups in Washington are pushing Republican lawmakers for the recognition of Israel’s claim over the Golan Heights. Such an act would mark the most significant validation of forcefully acquired land since 1945, and it would have a dramatic impact on the interpretation of international law.
سيف الله
07-31-2018, 07:37 PM
Salaam
Another update
Blurb
Israel has passed a widely-condemned law that defines Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and gives Jews the sole right to self-determination. It also declares Hebrew the country’s only official language and encourages the building of Jewish-only settlements on occupied territory as a “national value.” The law has drawn international condemnation and accusations that Israel has legalized apartheid. For more we speak with world-renowned political dissident, author, and linguist Noam Chomsky. He is a laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona and Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than 50 years.
ReplyAnother update
Blurb
Israel has passed a widely-condemned law that defines Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and gives Jews the sole right to self-determination. It also declares Hebrew the country’s only official language and encourages the building of Jewish-only settlements on occupied territory as a “national value.” The law has drawn international condemnation and accusations that Israel has legalized apartheid. For more we speak with world-renowned political dissident, author, and linguist Noam Chomsky. He is a laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona and Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than 50 years.
سيف الله
08-01-2018, 07:53 PM
Salaam
Another update
Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms' anything Russia has done, claims Noam Chomsky
The 89-year-old said the media was largely ignoring vital issues such as climate change
Veteran activist Noam Chomsky has accused Israel of “brazenly” interfering in US electoral politics in a way that vastly outweighs any efforts that may have been carried out by Russia.
In comments in which he accused much of the media of concentrating on stories he considered marginal and ignoring issues such as the “existential threat” of climate change, the 89-year-old linguist said in much of the world, the US media’s focus with Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 was "a joke".
“First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support,” he said.
Speaking to Democracy Now, Mr Chomsky added: “Israeli intervention in US elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies - what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015.”
In March 2015, at the invitation of then Republican House Speaker John Boehner, and assisted by Israel’s Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the joint houses of Congress about the yet to be signed Iran nuclear deal. He did so without formally informing the White House, something said to have infuriated Barack Obama, whose administration would the following month join a seven-party agreement to limit Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.
In a speech to Congress that was boycotted by more than 50 Democrats, Mr Netanyahu made clear his opposition to the deal.
“This deal won’t be a farewell to arms,” said Mr Netanyahu, to loud applause. “It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.”
Attacking Mr Obama proposal of dealing with Iran, he added: “We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”
Mr Chomsky said Mr Putin had never made such a speech to Congress, which political observers said was unique in the way a foreign leader so acidly attacked the policy of the US government.
“Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to…calling on them to reverse US policy, without even informing the president,” he said.
“And that’s just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence. So if you happen to be interested in influence of- foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.”
The power of the pro-Israel lobby has long been one of the contentious, and disputed, issues in Washington. In 2007, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, published The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, which described the lobby as “loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction”.
The coalition includes groups such as the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) a US-based pro-Israel lobbying group this year has spent $1.75m to promote pro-Israel policies.
The group’s annual convention is a frequent stopping off point for politicians seeking election or reelection, and Mr Netanyahu has addressed it several times. In 2016, top speakers included Vice President Joe Biden, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Governor John Kasich, Senator Ted Cruz, and Speaker Paul Ryan.
The group’s website says: “The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the US-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.”
Neither the Israeli Embassy in Washington or AIPAC immediately responded to enquiries about Mr Chomsky’s claim.
In his comments to Democracy Now, Mr Chomsky said the media was “focusing on issues which are pretty marginal. There are much more serious issues that are being put to the side”.
“Of all Trump’s policies, the one that is the most dangerous and destructive, in fact poses an existential threat, is his policies on climate change, on global warming,” he said.
“That’s really destructive. And we’re facing an imminent threat, not far removed, of enormous damage. The effects are already visible but nothing like what’s going to come.”
He added: “These are the kinds of issues that should be under discussion. Instead…here is a focus on what I believe are marginalia.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
ReplyAnother update
Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms' anything Russia has done, claims Noam Chomsky
The 89-year-old said the media was largely ignoring vital issues such as climate change
Veteran activist Noam Chomsky has accused Israel of “brazenly” interfering in US electoral politics in a way that vastly outweighs any efforts that may have been carried out by Russia.
In comments in which he accused much of the media of concentrating on stories he considered marginal and ignoring issues such as the “existential threat” of climate change, the 89-year-old linguist said in much of the world, the US media’s focus with Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 was "a joke".
“First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support,” he said.
Speaking to Democracy Now, Mr Chomsky added: “Israeli intervention in US elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies - what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015.”
In March 2015, at the invitation of then Republican House Speaker John Boehner, and assisted by Israel’s Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the joint houses of Congress about the yet to be signed Iran nuclear deal. He did so without formally informing the White House, something said to have infuriated Barack Obama, whose administration would the following month join a seven-party agreement to limit Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.
In a speech to Congress that was boycotted by more than 50 Democrats, Mr Netanyahu made clear his opposition to the deal.
“This deal won’t be a farewell to arms,” said Mr Netanyahu, to loud applause. “It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.”
Attacking Mr Obama proposal of dealing with Iran, he added: “We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”
Mr Chomsky said Mr Putin had never made such a speech to Congress, which political observers said was unique in the way a foreign leader so acidly attacked the policy of the US government.
“Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to…calling on them to reverse US policy, without even informing the president,” he said.
“And that’s just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence. So if you happen to be interested in influence of- foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.”
The power of the pro-Israel lobby has long been one of the contentious, and disputed, issues in Washington. In 2007, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, published The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, which described the lobby as “loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction”.
The coalition includes groups such as the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) a US-based pro-Israel lobbying group this year has spent $1.75m to promote pro-Israel policies.
The group’s annual convention is a frequent stopping off point for politicians seeking election or reelection, and Mr Netanyahu has addressed it several times. In 2016, top speakers included Vice President Joe Biden, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Governor John Kasich, Senator Ted Cruz, and Speaker Paul Ryan.
The group’s website says: “The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the US-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.”
Neither the Israeli Embassy in Washington or AIPAC immediately responded to enquiries about Mr Chomsky’s claim.
In his comments to Democracy Now, Mr Chomsky said the media was “focusing on issues which are pretty marginal. There are much more serious issues that are being put to the side”.
“Of all Trump’s policies, the one that is the most dangerous and destructive, in fact poses an existential threat, is his policies on climate change, on global warming,” he said.
“That’s really destructive. And we’re facing an imminent threat, not far removed, of enormous damage. The effects are already visible but nothing like what’s going to come.”
He added: “These are the kinds of issues that should be under discussion. Instead…here is a focus on what I believe are marginalia.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
سيف الله
08-02-2018, 07:40 AM
Salaam
Salaam
Another update.
For The Few, Not The Many
The relationship between Zionism and the Jews has been the source of confusion for many years. Both Zionists and the so called ‘anti’ have preached to us that ‘not all Jews are Zionists’ and ‘Judaism is not Zionism.’
But we are confused no more. Two weeks ago, the chief rabbi of Britain together with 68 other rabbis mounted pressure on the Labour party to change its ‘antisemitsm code.’ The British rabbis were upset because, although Labour generally adopted the IHRA's working definition of anti-Semitism, left out of Labour’s definition were four examples from the IHRA that restrict criticism of Israel* The Labour party seems to believe that it is kosher to criticise an ethnic cleansing state that deploys snipers against unarmed protestors. Chief Rabbi Mirvis couldn’t agree less. He told the BBC that it is "astonishing that the Labour Party presumes it is more qualified to define anti-Semitism than the Jewish community.” The clear message is that, at least from a rabbinical perspective, the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is nebulous to nonexistent.
Last Friday the so-called British Jewish ‘establishment’ went a dangerous step further. Britain’s three main Jewish newspapers were emblazoned with identical front pages. Under the headline “United We Stand”, they all claimed that a Jeremy Corbyn-led government would be an “existential threat to Jewish life” in the UK. The British Jewish leadership insists that Britain’s No.1 anti-racist is a Hitler type. I would like to believe that this is just the latest phase in Jewish humour. But the Jewish papers appeared damn serious. Stephen Pollard, Editor of the JC, said in a Sky interview, that while a teeny tiny minority of British Jews are fine with what is going on with the Labour party, “we are saying to the Jewish community, we’re united, the media is united behind you, the community is united.” It seems that the Jewish media establishment also sees the alleged ‘dichotomy’ between Jews and Zionists as a false dichotomy.
Since the British Jewish leadership seems to be united more than ever, we are left with no other option but to dig into the belly of the beast in order to grasp what seems an unprecedented outburst of collective Jewish Corbyn phobia.
I admit that, like the British Jewish leadership, I am upset by Corbyn and Labour’s attitude to the IHRA definition. My reasons though are very different. I would expect the Labour party to adhere to its universal values and reject the IHRA definition altogether. This is an anti universalist definition. It prefers one people over all the rest.
Racism and bigotry, I hope we all agree, are bad. But racism and bigotry are not that difficult to define. We are dealing with an expression of hatred or discrimination against X for being X (X might be Black, a Woman, a Jew, a Gay person, or a member of any other such group). This definition is universal and sufficient to tackle any form of racism including anti Jewish bigotry. In contrast, the IHRA's working definition of anti-Semitism suggests that Jews are actually not people like all other people. We have yet to see an international working definition of racism against Blacks or a working definition that addresses anti Muslim bigotry. The IHRA's working definition confirms that Jews, at least in their eyes, are somehow chosen. The fact that British institutions have adopted such an exclusivist definition may suggest that Britain is drifting away from its universal heritage. This is, obviously, an alarming news for everyone including Jews.
That the IHRA's working definition is treated as an ‘international’ definition and is pushed globally by different pro Israeli pressure groups also suggests that, at least in the eyes of leading Jewish bodies, Jews are once again hated globally. I do not believe that this is the case, but the Jews who buy into this tormenting line of thought should ask themselves how this is happening again just 70 years after the Holocaust. After all, this is exactly what Zionism and Israel vowed to prevent.
Zionism promised to make Jews people like all other people. Early Zionists thinkers diagnosed some very problematic traits in Jewish diaspora culture. The Labour Zionists were upset by what they saw as the ‘non-proletarian’ nature of Jewish diaspora society. They were disturbed by the proximity between Jews and capital. They were also troubled by a lack of proletarian spirit amongst their brethren. Some early Zionists including Herzl were worried about the concept of the ‘court Jew,’ the Jew who bought political influence through financial support of monarchs and royals. In that regard, early Zionism promised to take the Jews away - to relieve the Goyim of Jewish political lobbying and pressure groups.
If we examine the IHRA's working definition within a Zionist ideological framework we find that the definition may provide the most anti Zionist statement in Zionist history. The definition highlights the notion that Jews aren’t people like all other people but are in need of special and particular treatment. The definition treats the Zionist’s promise to make the Jews respected and loved as a complete failure, and it contemplates that antisemitsm is back. The IHRA’s definition also confirms that the Jewish State is not a state like all other states; no other state bothers to restrict criticism of its politics by others.
As things stand, the only genuine principled Zionist left in the world of politics is Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy, like the early Zionists, insists that Jews are indeed people like all other people. Jeremy believes that Israel is a state like all other states and is, accordingly, subject to criticism.
Jeremy’s blunt anti racism is at the core of the Jewish leadership’s feud with him. Jeremy preaches to the Brits a simple unifying message namely, ‘For The Many Not The Few.’ The Jewish leadership and their embarrassing IHRA definition seem to push the opposite -- For the few, not the many.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018...w-not-the-many
ReplySalaam
Another update.
For The Few, Not The Many
The relationship between Zionism and the Jews has been the source of confusion for many years. Both Zionists and the so called ‘anti’ have preached to us that ‘not all Jews are Zionists’ and ‘Judaism is not Zionism.’
But we are confused no more. Two weeks ago, the chief rabbi of Britain together with 68 other rabbis mounted pressure on the Labour party to change its ‘antisemitsm code.’ The British rabbis were upset because, although Labour generally adopted the IHRA's working definition of anti-Semitism, left out of Labour’s definition were four examples from the IHRA that restrict criticism of Israel* The Labour party seems to believe that it is kosher to criticise an ethnic cleansing state that deploys snipers against unarmed protestors. Chief Rabbi Mirvis couldn’t agree less. He told the BBC that it is "astonishing that the Labour Party presumes it is more qualified to define anti-Semitism than the Jewish community.” The clear message is that, at least from a rabbinical perspective, the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is nebulous to nonexistent.
Last Friday the so-called British Jewish ‘establishment’ went a dangerous step further. Britain’s three main Jewish newspapers were emblazoned with identical front pages. Under the headline “United We Stand”, they all claimed that a Jeremy Corbyn-led government would be an “existential threat to Jewish life” in the UK. The British Jewish leadership insists that Britain’s No.1 anti-racist is a Hitler type. I would like to believe that this is just the latest phase in Jewish humour. But the Jewish papers appeared damn serious. Stephen Pollard, Editor of the JC, said in a Sky interview, that while a teeny tiny minority of British Jews are fine with what is going on with the Labour party, “we are saying to the Jewish community, we’re united, the media is united behind you, the community is united.” It seems that the Jewish media establishment also sees the alleged ‘dichotomy’ between Jews and Zionists as a false dichotomy.
Since the British Jewish leadership seems to be united more than ever, we are left with no other option but to dig into the belly of the beast in order to grasp what seems an unprecedented outburst of collective Jewish Corbyn phobia.
I admit that, like the British Jewish leadership, I am upset by Corbyn and Labour’s attitude to the IHRA definition. My reasons though are very different. I would expect the Labour party to adhere to its universal values and reject the IHRA definition altogether. This is an anti universalist definition. It prefers one people over all the rest.
Racism and bigotry, I hope we all agree, are bad. But racism and bigotry are not that difficult to define. We are dealing with an expression of hatred or discrimination against X for being X (X might be Black, a Woman, a Jew, a Gay person, or a member of any other such group). This definition is universal and sufficient to tackle any form of racism including anti Jewish bigotry. In contrast, the IHRA's working definition of anti-Semitism suggests that Jews are actually not people like all other people. We have yet to see an international working definition of racism against Blacks or a working definition that addresses anti Muslim bigotry. The IHRA's working definition confirms that Jews, at least in their eyes, are somehow chosen. The fact that British institutions have adopted such an exclusivist definition may suggest that Britain is drifting away from its universal heritage. This is, obviously, an alarming news for everyone including Jews.
That the IHRA's working definition is treated as an ‘international’ definition and is pushed globally by different pro Israeli pressure groups also suggests that, at least in the eyes of leading Jewish bodies, Jews are once again hated globally. I do not believe that this is the case, but the Jews who buy into this tormenting line of thought should ask themselves how this is happening again just 70 years after the Holocaust. After all, this is exactly what Zionism and Israel vowed to prevent.
Zionism promised to make Jews people like all other people. Early Zionists thinkers diagnosed some very problematic traits in Jewish diaspora culture. The Labour Zionists were upset by what they saw as the ‘non-proletarian’ nature of Jewish diaspora society. They were disturbed by the proximity between Jews and capital. They were also troubled by a lack of proletarian spirit amongst their brethren. Some early Zionists including Herzl were worried about the concept of the ‘court Jew,’ the Jew who bought political influence through financial support of monarchs and royals. In that regard, early Zionism promised to take the Jews away - to relieve the Goyim of Jewish political lobbying and pressure groups.
If we examine the IHRA's working definition within a Zionist ideological framework we find that the definition may provide the most anti Zionist statement in Zionist history. The definition highlights the notion that Jews aren’t people like all other people but are in need of special and particular treatment. The definition treats the Zionist’s promise to make the Jews respected and loved as a complete failure, and it contemplates that antisemitsm is back. The IHRA’s definition also confirms that the Jewish State is not a state like all other states; no other state bothers to restrict criticism of its politics by others.
As things stand, the only genuine principled Zionist left in the world of politics is Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy, like the early Zionists, insists that Jews are indeed people like all other people. Jeremy believes that Israel is a state like all other states and is, accordingly, subject to criticism.
Jeremy’s blunt anti racism is at the core of the Jewish leadership’s feud with him. Jeremy preaches to the Brits a simple unifying message namely, ‘For The Many Not The Few.’ The Jewish leadership and their embarrassing IHRA definition seem to push the opposite -- For the few, not the many.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018...w-not-the-many
سيف الله
08-02-2018, 08:33 AM
Salaam
Another update, how the anti semitism hysteria is undermining the British Labour party.
UK Labour cruising towards split over Israel-Palestine
Britain’s Labour Party prepares to split; the Israel-Palestine issue breaks up the party after 100 years to the relief of Prime Minister Theresa May.
At least that’s the proximate cause of the rapidly approaching schism in the opposition Labour Party.
Attempts to effectively outlaw existential criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel have foundered on the rocks of the obduracy of the veteran Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn whose commitment to the Palestinian cause has been a leitmotif of his 40 years in left-wing politics.
Support for the Palestinians and opposition to Israel has grown massively in recent decades in Britain and throughout the Western world. The recent decision after a passionate debate in the Irish Senate to ban the products of illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories was a high point for the BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) movement. And this decision preceded the new controversial National Law passed in the Israeli Knesset, which UN bodies and others have said makes Israel officially an apartheid state, giving a spur to the BDS cause.
Widespread ostracism of apartheid South Africa was an important factor in the downfall of the system in South Africa.
But Israel is far from taking these defeats lying down. The Israeli embassy in London is a vital center for counter-offensives, Ambassador Mark Regev a key operative in Netanyahu’s machine. That Israel chose to send Regev to London was an early sign of the importance of the UK battleground.
When I joined the Palestinian struggle in 1975, you could’ve fitted all British supporters of the PLO into a small hall, with room for elephants at the back. Now you couldn’t fit us into Hyde Park. We are millions, literally.
I know when the tide turned because I was there, literally.
I left West Beirut in 1982, just ahead of the advancing Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Within hours they were at the gates. Their capture of President Arafat’s fiefdom in the West of the city led to the departure of Arafat and his forces under an agreement brokered by the US plenipotentiary Philip Habib. Its terms included the protection of the families the fighters were leaving behind. They were promptly fallen upon by the Israeli backed Lebanese Phalange militia and massacred.
The UN and the Israeli Kahan Commission later held that former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon – present at the scene of the massacre in the Sabra-Shatila refugee camp – shared responsibility for the murder of thousands of unarmed civilians.
General Sharon was required to resign from the government of Menachem Begin but would later return as prime minister himself.
The massacre marked the beginning of a long, slow but inexorable turn away from Israel by the British labor and trade union movement.
I wrote the resolutions that passed that year in both the Labour Party Conference and the Trade Union Congress against fierce Israeli lobbying (I could show you my scars). The resolutions established policy for the first time in favor of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and for the recognition of the PLO as the “sole legitimate representatives” of the Palestinian people. In 1982, this was a heady brew, I assure you.
Year by year, as Israeli governments became evermore right wing and as the plight of the Palestinians grew ever more grim, the giant tanker turned a little more.
Although his lifelong fidelity to this cause was not the reason for Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader – the Iraq War and austerity was much more so – it certainly marked a high water mark in the growing movement against Netanyahu’s Israel.
And Mr Regev and the embassy were not slow to recognise the danger to their position in a Britain whose perfidy played such a key role for over a century in the Israel-Palestine question.
The full might of the Israel lobby has been mobilized to first stop Corbyn winning the leadership, to depose him once he had won it, and above all to stop him becoming prime minister.
They have had some success, particularly within the ranks of Corbyn’s MPs – most of them products of the long reign of Tony Blair. Revolt after revolt from within against Corbyn has been mounted on everything from Brexit to arms sales to Saudi Arabia. But the most potent is the now-rampant virulent campaign against “anti-Semitism” in Corbyn’s Labour. What this boils down to is, of course, not anti-Semitism at all but opposition to Israel. The idea that the vegetarian left-wing bicycling peacenik and anti-racism fanatic Jeremy Corbyn hates Jews is as absurd as it is offensive.
Having failed to dislodge him and failed to make him kneel, his enemies are planning to breakaway and form a new centrist bloc against Brexit, in favor of NATO and Trident nuclear weapons, and of course in defense of Israel.
The last time this happened nearly 40 years ago it failed to prosper. But by dividing the anti-Conservative vote, it kept Mrs Thatcher in power for a whole decade. And thus the only person laughing in British politics today is the beleaguered Mrs May.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/434850-corb...estine-labour/
ReplyAnother update, how the anti semitism hysteria is undermining the British Labour party.
UK Labour cruising towards split over Israel-Palestine
Britain’s Labour Party prepares to split; the Israel-Palestine issue breaks up the party after 100 years to the relief of Prime Minister Theresa May.
At least that’s the proximate cause of the rapidly approaching schism in the opposition Labour Party.
Attempts to effectively outlaw existential criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel have foundered on the rocks of the obduracy of the veteran Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn whose commitment to the Palestinian cause has been a leitmotif of his 40 years in left-wing politics.
Support for the Palestinians and opposition to Israel has grown massively in recent decades in Britain and throughout the Western world. The recent decision after a passionate debate in the Irish Senate to ban the products of illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories was a high point for the BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) movement. And this decision preceded the new controversial National Law passed in the Israeli Knesset, which UN bodies and others have said makes Israel officially an apartheid state, giving a spur to the BDS cause.
Widespread ostracism of apartheid South Africa was an important factor in the downfall of the system in South Africa.
But Israel is far from taking these defeats lying down. The Israeli embassy in London is a vital center for counter-offensives, Ambassador Mark Regev a key operative in Netanyahu’s machine. That Israel chose to send Regev to London was an early sign of the importance of the UK battleground.
When I joined the Palestinian struggle in 1975, you could’ve fitted all British supporters of the PLO into a small hall, with room for elephants at the back. Now you couldn’t fit us into Hyde Park. We are millions, literally.
I know when the tide turned because I was there, literally.
I left West Beirut in 1982, just ahead of the advancing Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Within hours they were at the gates. Their capture of President Arafat’s fiefdom in the West of the city led to the departure of Arafat and his forces under an agreement brokered by the US plenipotentiary Philip Habib. Its terms included the protection of the families the fighters were leaving behind. They were promptly fallen upon by the Israeli backed Lebanese Phalange militia and massacred.
The UN and the Israeli Kahan Commission later held that former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon – present at the scene of the massacre in the Sabra-Shatila refugee camp – shared responsibility for the murder of thousands of unarmed civilians.
General Sharon was required to resign from the government of Menachem Begin but would later return as prime minister himself.
The massacre marked the beginning of a long, slow but inexorable turn away from Israel by the British labor and trade union movement.
I wrote the resolutions that passed that year in both the Labour Party Conference and the Trade Union Congress against fierce Israeli lobbying (I could show you my scars). The resolutions established policy for the first time in favor of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and for the recognition of the PLO as the “sole legitimate representatives” of the Palestinian people. In 1982, this was a heady brew, I assure you.
Year by year, as Israeli governments became evermore right wing and as the plight of the Palestinians grew ever more grim, the giant tanker turned a little more.
Although his lifelong fidelity to this cause was not the reason for Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader – the Iraq War and austerity was much more so – it certainly marked a high water mark in the growing movement against Netanyahu’s Israel.
And Mr Regev and the embassy were not slow to recognise the danger to their position in a Britain whose perfidy played such a key role for over a century in the Israel-Palestine question.
The full might of the Israel lobby has been mobilized to first stop Corbyn winning the leadership, to depose him once he had won it, and above all to stop him becoming prime minister.
They have had some success, particularly within the ranks of Corbyn’s MPs – most of them products of the long reign of Tony Blair. Revolt after revolt from within against Corbyn has been mounted on everything from Brexit to arms sales to Saudi Arabia. But the most potent is the now-rampant virulent campaign against “anti-Semitism” in Corbyn’s Labour. What this boils down to is, of course, not anti-Semitism at all but opposition to Israel. The idea that the vegetarian left-wing bicycling peacenik and anti-racism fanatic Jeremy Corbyn hates Jews is as absurd as it is offensive.
Having failed to dislodge him and failed to make him kneel, his enemies are planning to breakaway and form a new centrist bloc against Brexit, in favor of NATO and Trident nuclear weapons, and of course in defense of Israel.
The last time this happened nearly 40 years ago it failed to prosper. But by dividing the anti-Conservative vote, it kept Mrs Thatcher in power for a whole decade. And thus the only person laughing in British politics today is the beleaguered Mrs May.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/434850-corb...estine-labour/
سيف الله
08-02-2018, 09:48 AM
Salaam
Just to elaborate
ReplyJust to elaborate
By chedarman
Seems as if the middle east has become Israel's sand box. Sadam is gone and Iraq is a failed state, Gafaffi is gone and Libya is a failed state, Assad is on the way out or will rule over a rump state of Syria. Iran is boxed in. Egypt does not have a real military to speak of. The Saudis and Persian Guld states have no significant military power to wield against Israel. Israel has 75-400 nuclear war heads, and the means to launch them against most major population centers in the region.
Israel can continue annexing land in the West Bank until there is none left for the palestinians, and probably take land from Lebanon and Jordan. Who will stop them? Europe and the U.S. dont have the will, China does not care as long as they get access to natural resources. Russia may care, but they dont have the ability to counter aqny direct action by Israel in the region.
I dont see why any one would bet against Israel's long term success.
Seems as if the middle east has become Israel's sand box. Sadam is gone and Iraq is a failed state, Gafaffi is gone and Libya is a failed state, Assad is on the way out or will rule over a rump state of Syria. Iran is boxed in. Egypt does not have a real military to speak of. The Saudis and Persian Guld states have no significant military power to wield against Israel. Israel has 75-400 nuclear war heads, and the means to launch them against most major population centers in the region.
Israel can continue annexing land in the West Bank until there is none left for the palestinians, and probably take land from Lebanon and Jordan. Who will stop them? Europe and the U.S. dont have the will, China does not care as long as they get access to natural resources. Russia may care, but they dont have the ability to counter aqny direct action by Israel in the region.
I dont see why any one would bet against Israel's long term success.
سيف الله
08-02-2018, 08:43 PM
Salaam
Analysis on the current state of Israeli leadership.
Blurb
Afshin Rattansi goes underground on the recent Israeli attack on Gaza. Norman Finkelstein, author of ‘Method and Madness - The hidden story of Israel's assaults on Gaza’, says the Goldstone report was 'devastating' in its conclusion that Israel was trying to punish and humiliate the citizens of Gaza, and that Israel has a 'maniac' for a head of state.
ReplyAnalysis on the current state of Israeli leadership.
Blurb
Afshin Rattansi goes underground on the recent Israeli attack on Gaza. Norman Finkelstein, author of ‘Method and Madness - The hidden story of Israel's assaults on Gaza’, says the Goldstone report was 'devastating' in its conclusion that Israel was trying to punish and humiliate the citizens of Gaza, and that Israel has a 'maniac' for a head of state.
سيف الله
08-02-2018, 09:18 PM
Salaam
Another update
The Holocaust and its Deniers
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, some Jewish intellectuals and humanists expressed the thought that ‘after Auschwitz Jews have to locate themselves at the forefront of the battle for humanity and against all forms of oppression.’
This is a principled and heroic ideal, but the reality on the ground has been somewhat different. Just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the Jewish state ethnically cleansed the vast majority of indigenous Palestinians. Two years later, in 1950, Israel’s Knesset passed the Law of Return, a racist law that distinguishes between Jews who have the right to ‘return’ to someone else’s land and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees that were expelled by force from their villages and cities.
In the seven decades since, the Jewish State has committed every possible human rights abuse. It made Gaza into the biggest open-air prison in human history and has repeatedly dropped bombs on the most overpopulated place on earth. Recently the Jewish State deployed hundreds of snipers against unarmed Gazans who were protesting at the border. Israel killed dozens and wounded more than 13,000 Palestinians, the majority severely, with over 1,400 struck by three to five bullets.
If the Holocaust left Jews with a mission to fix the world, the Jewish State has done the opposite. Its crimes against humanity can be seen as a complete denial of the Holocaust's message.
Some Jews who survived the Holocaust did dedicate their lives to a universal battle for a better world. Among these heroes was Hajo Meyer, a Dutch Auschwitz survivor who, for the obvious reasons, saw the similarities between his own suffering and the Palestinian plight.
In 2003 Meyer wrote The End of Judaism, accusing Israel of usurping the Holocaust to justify crimes against the Arabs. He participated in the 2011 “Never Again – For Anyone” tour. He correctly argued that Zionism predated fascism, and he also reiterated that Zionists and Fascists had a history of collaboration.
Meyer exemplified the Jewish post-Shoah humanist promise. After Auschwitz he located himself at the forefront of the fight against oppression. He fought Israel.
On Holocaust Memorial Day 2010, Meyer was invited to an event at the British Parliament which included MP Jeremy Corbyn. At the event Meyer compared Israeli racial policy to the Nuremberg laws. At the same event, Haidar Eid, a Palestinian academic from Gaza, pointed out that “the world was absolutely wrong to think that Nazism was defeated in 1945. Nazism has won because it has finally managed to Nazify the consciousness of its own victims.”
Eid didn’t ‘compare’ Zionism with Nazism, he described an ideological continuum between Nazi ideology and Israeli policy. He maintained that the racial discriminatory ideology of the Nazis was picked up by the Jewish state and has been rife in the Jewish State since then.
Yesterday MP Jeremy Corbyn was attacked by the Jewish lobby for being present at that meeting that explored these universal ethical positions. Our Labour candidate for prime minister anemically recalled that at the event in question views were expressed which he did not “accept or condone.” Corbyn even apologized “for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.” I wonder why my preferred candidate has to express regret for being in the presence of a humanist exchange. I wonder why our next PM feels the need to disassociate himself from people who advocate ‘for the many, not the few.’
The message for the rest of us is devastating. The battle for a better world can’t be left to Corbyn alone. Needless to say, the Jewish State and its Lobby haven’t located themselves at the forefront of humanity. It is actually the Palestinians who have been pushed to the front of that frustrating struggle. Not to see that is to deny their holocaust.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018...nd-its-deniers
ReplyAnother update
The Holocaust and its Deniers
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, some Jewish intellectuals and humanists expressed the thought that ‘after Auschwitz Jews have to locate themselves at the forefront of the battle for humanity and against all forms of oppression.’
This is a principled and heroic ideal, but the reality on the ground has been somewhat different. Just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the Jewish state ethnically cleansed the vast majority of indigenous Palestinians. Two years later, in 1950, Israel’s Knesset passed the Law of Return, a racist law that distinguishes between Jews who have the right to ‘return’ to someone else’s land and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees that were expelled by force from their villages and cities.
In the seven decades since, the Jewish State has committed every possible human rights abuse. It made Gaza into the biggest open-air prison in human history and has repeatedly dropped bombs on the most overpopulated place on earth. Recently the Jewish State deployed hundreds of snipers against unarmed Gazans who were protesting at the border. Israel killed dozens and wounded more than 13,000 Palestinians, the majority severely, with over 1,400 struck by three to five bullets.
If the Holocaust left Jews with a mission to fix the world, the Jewish State has done the opposite. Its crimes against humanity can be seen as a complete denial of the Holocaust's message.
Some Jews who survived the Holocaust did dedicate their lives to a universal battle for a better world. Among these heroes was Hajo Meyer, a Dutch Auschwitz survivor who, for the obvious reasons, saw the similarities between his own suffering and the Palestinian plight.
In 2003 Meyer wrote The End of Judaism, accusing Israel of usurping the Holocaust to justify crimes against the Arabs. He participated in the 2011 “Never Again – For Anyone” tour. He correctly argued that Zionism predated fascism, and he also reiterated that Zionists and Fascists had a history of collaboration.
Meyer exemplified the Jewish post-Shoah humanist promise. After Auschwitz he located himself at the forefront of the fight against oppression. He fought Israel.
On Holocaust Memorial Day 2010, Meyer was invited to an event at the British Parliament which included MP Jeremy Corbyn. At the event Meyer compared Israeli racial policy to the Nuremberg laws. At the same event, Haidar Eid, a Palestinian academic from Gaza, pointed out that “the world was absolutely wrong to think that Nazism was defeated in 1945. Nazism has won because it has finally managed to Nazify the consciousness of its own victims.”
Eid didn’t ‘compare’ Zionism with Nazism, he described an ideological continuum between Nazi ideology and Israeli policy. He maintained that the racial discriminatory ideology of the Nazis was picked up by the Jewish state and has been rife in the Jewish State since then.
Yesterday MP Jeremy Corbyn was attacked by the Jewish lobby for being present at that meeting that explored these universal ethical positions. Our Labour candidate for prime minister anemically recalled that at the event in question views were expressed which he did not “accept or condone.” Corbyn even apologized “for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.” I wonder why my preferred candidate has to express regret for being in the presence of a humanist exchange. I wonder why our next PM feels the need to disassociate himself from people who advocate ‘for the many, not the few.’
The message for the rest of us is devastating. The battle for a better world can’t be left to Corbyn alone. Needless to say, the Jewish State and its Lobby haven’t located themselves at the forefront of humanity. It is actually the Palestinians who have been pushed to the front of that frustrating struggle. Not to see that is to deny their holocaust.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018...nd-its-deniers
سيف الله
08-05-2018, 08:10 AM
Salaam
Israels slow economic takeover of the Middle East is continuing.
Blurb
Work has begun on a 65-kilometer pipeline which is supposed to start bringing gas from Israel to Jordan in early 2020. The Jordanian government says the deal will save hundreds of millions of dollars a year. But many organizations involved in anti-normalisation campaigns have been criticising the deal. Jordanian society, many of whom are Palestinian refugees, continue to resist official efforts to promote ties with Israel.
It's been more than two decades since Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel but it is still largely unpopular.
Related
Egypt to Begin Importing Israeli Gas in 2019
Egypt’s Dolphinus Holdings plans to start importing gas from Israel for re-export
Egypt to begin importing Israeli gas in 2019
Egypt’s Dolphinus Holdings plans to start importing gas from Israel for re-export in the first quarter of 2019, sources in the country’s energy sector said on Sunday, under agreements signed in February to buy $15 billion worth of gas over 10 years. “Imports will start in small quantities first and will gradually increase to reach their climax in September 2019,” one source told Reuters. The source gave no details on prices or quantities. Partners in Israel’s Tamar and Leviathan offshore gas fields, which include Delek Group, Isramco and Ratio, said in February that they would supply Dolphinus with around 64 billion cubic meters of gas over a decade. Although controversial in Egypt, Cairo hopes that the imports will help in its efforts to become a regional energy hub. Delek shares ended up 0.4% at 528.60 shekels ($143.15). (Reuters)
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...2019-1.6343222
ReplyIsraels slow economic takeover of the Middle East is continuing.
Blurb
Work has begun on a 65-kilometer pipeline which is supposed to start bringing gas from Israel to Jordan in early 2020. The Jordanian government says the deal will save hundreds of millions of dollars a year. But many organizations involved in anti-normalisation campaigns have been criticising the deal. Jordanian society, many of whom are Palestinian refugees, continue to resist official efforts to promote ties with Israel.
It's been more than two decades since Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel but it is still largely unpopular.
Related
Egypt to Begin Importing Israeli Gas in 2019
Egypt’s Dolphinus Holdings plans to start importing gas from Israel for re-export
Egypt to begin importing Israeli gas in 2019
Egypt’s Dolphinus Holdings plans to start importing gas from Israel for re-export in the first quarter of 2019, sources in the country’s energy sector said on Sunday, under agreements signed in February to buy $15 billion worth of gas over 10 years. “Imports will start in small quantities first and will gradually increase to reach their climax in September 2019,” one source told Reuters. The source gave no details on prices or quantities. Partners in Israel’s Tamar and Leviathan offshore gas fields, which include Delek Group, Isramco and Ratio, said in February that they would supply Dolphinus with around 64 billion cubic meters of gas over a decade. Although controversial in Egypt, Cairo hopes that the imports will help in its efforts to become a regional energy hub. Delek shares ended up 0.4% at 528.60 shekels ($143.15). (Reuters)
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...2019-1.6343222
سيف الله
08-06-2018, 07:53 PM
Salaam
Hmmm Im wary of trusting the Zios and the narrative they are trying to create, but interesting article nevertheless.
Why Younger Saudis Won't Fund, Facilitate or Fight for a Palestinian State
An emerging Gulf leadership has shaken off its elders' attachment to the Palestinian cause. They're convinced an independent Palestine means handing Iran and Sunni political Islamists yet another Arab capital
That there is a wide gap between the position of Saudi Arabia's King Salman bin Abdel Aziz, endorsing full rights for Palestinians, as opposed to his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (known as MBS) should come as no surprise to Western policymakers.
There have been clear recent indications of this difference. The Crown Prince has recognized Israel's right to exist and was reported as saying the Palestinians should either "shut up" or make peace with Israel.
Pushing back, King Salman reiterated "the kingdom's steadfast position towards the Palestinian issue and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to an independent state," and lately declared that U.S. President Trump's peace plan had to include East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.
The Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are experiencing tremendous socio-political change that has accelerated a generation gap that has been widening for some time. One particular divergence in the thinking between the younger generations and the older ones is what approach to adopt towards the Palestinians.
Older Saudis grew up in the 1950s and 1960s during the heyday of Arab nationalism, and its embrace of the Palestinian cause as the main driver for all events in the region. While the Saudis never fully embraced Arab nationalism, they adopted the Palestinian cause to preempt attacks based on a lack of solidarity from their arch-opponents, Arab nationalists.
Thus, the older generation in the Gulf that Saudi King Salman embodies believes deeply in the Palestinian cause, whatever political complexion the Palestinian leadership exhibits.
However, the younger generations, characterized and led by MBS and his close ally Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ), the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and primary driver of the UAE's foreign policy, display far less political equanimity; they prioritize realpolitik over political nostalgia. They long ago stopped overlooking what they consider problematic political biases within the West Bank, Gaza, and even among the Palestinian diaspora around the world.
They realize that Palestinians in general are not enthusiastic toward or supporters of Saudi and Emirati interests in checking the power of political Shia Islamists, most notably Iran, and Sunni political Islamists, primarily the Muslim Brotherhood.
There has long been a school of thought in the Gulf that called for a separation between Gulf states' national interests and the Palestinian cause, but this was still an unpopular position among the general public. But over the last few years, this position has been increasingly adopted, first by younger elites and then more broadly, not least as Saudi Arabia itself has come under missile attack from Iranian proxies.
The younger Gulf generation has seen for itself the attacks launched by Palestinians against their countries on social media, including the burning of MBS’ pictures in Gaza. During the soccer World Cup, many Palestinians rushed to root for Iran against its Western opponents, while supporting Western countries against the Saudi national team. This immediate, visceral experience differentiates the younger Gulf generation from its elders.
The older generation of Saudi and Emirati policymakers have known these Palestinian political tendencies for years, but they overlooked them in the hope that once a Palestinian state is established, local actors sympathetic to Iran would have an incentive to moderate their positions, providing the Saudis offer generous financial contributions. The general prognosis was that the emergence of other moderate groups would counterbalance the radicals.
However, the younger Gulf generations are now unconvinced that moderation would follow the establishment of a Palestinian state. They believe it is more likely that a fully independent Palestinian state would itself be hostage to radical forces, and would in fact become an extreme source of instability in the region.
MBS and MBZ believe that establishing a Palestinian state would mean handing Iran and Sunni political Islamists another Arab capital to control and influence. Iranian influence among Palestinian groups has solidified over the years, and the two crown princes' assessment is that it is irreversible.
They are fortified in that position by the example of Gaza. Sunni political Islamists have run the Strip disastrously for over a decade, opening the door for Qatar and Turkey to project influence there. That this is also leading to conflict in Egypt further reinforces the belief that an independent Palestine would be a source of instability.
MBS and MBZ are certainly not foolish enough to lobby for and fund the establishment of a state that would most certainly be an Iranian client state, analogous to a Soviet-era satellite state.
Despite this, many Western policymakers still fantasize about the idea that the Gulf countries could provide money to birth and develop a Palestinian state – indeed, this is reportedly one of the founding principles of the Trump-Kushner peace plan.
That is never going to happen. Those who actively dictate policy in the Gulf are convinced that every dollar the Saudis give to the Palestinians means handing it to Iran. The Saudis and Emirates are likely to promise to provide financial assistance in public, but U.S. policymakers should not believe that they would ever deliver when push really comes to shove.
For those in Washington dreaming of another peace process breakthrough, another Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn, this time midwifed by the Gulf – there is little chance this will become anything more than a mirage.
The Middle East has moved on from the 1990s, and just like the Saudis and Emirates have woken up to the facts of the Palestinians' political biases, policymakers in D.C. must keep up and evolve their thinking to better serve American interests, and not repeat the mistakes of the past.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-why-younger-saudis-won-t-fund-facilitate-or-fight-for-a-palestinian-state-1.6342634
ReplyHmmm Im wary of trusting the Zios and the narrative they are trying to create, but interesting article nevertheless.
Why Younger Saudis Won't Fund, Facilitate or Fight for a Palestinian State
An emerging Gulf leadership has shaken off its elders' attachment to the Palestinian cause. They're convinced an independent Palestine means handing Iran and Sunni political Islamists yet another Arab capital
That there is a wide gap between the position of Saudi Arabia's King Salman bin Abdel Aziz, endorsing full rights for Palestinians, as opposed to his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (known as MBS) should come as no surprise to Western policymakers.
There have been clear recent indications of this difference. The Crown Prince has recognized Israel's right to exist and was reported as saying the Palestinians should either "shut up" or make peace with Israel.
Pushing back, King Salman reiterated "the kingdom's steadfast position towards the Palestinian issue and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to an independent state," and lately declared that U.S. President Trump's peace plan had to include East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.
The Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are experiencing tremendous socio-political change that has accelerated a generation gap that has been widening for some time. One particular divergence in the thinking between the younger generations and the older ones is what approach to adopt towards the Palestinians.
Older Saudis grew up in the 1950s and 1960s during the heyday of Arab nationalism, and its embrace of the Palestinian cause as the main driver for all events in the region. While the Saudis never fully embraced Arab nationalism, they adopted the Palestinian cause to preempt attacks based on a lack of solidarity from their arch-opponents, Arab nationalists.
Thus, the older generation in the Gulf that Saudi King Salman embodies believes deeply in the Palestinian cause, whatever political complexion the Palestinian leadership exhibits.
However, the younger generations, characterized and led by MBS and his close ally Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ), the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and primary driver of the UAE's foreign policy, display far less political equanimity; they prioritize realpolitik over political nostalgia. They long ago stopped overlooking what they consider problematic political biases within the West Bank, Gaza, and even among the Palestinian diaspora around the world.
They realize that Palestinians in general are not enthusiastic toward or supporters of Saudi and Emirati interests in checking the power of political Shia Islamists, most notably Iran, and Sunni political Islamists, primarily the Muslim Brotherhood.
There has long been a school of thought in the Gulf that called for a separation between Gulf states' national interests and the Palestinian cause, but this was still an unpopular position among the general public. But over the last few years, this position has been increasingly adopted, first by younger elites and then more broadly, not least as Saudi Arabia itself has come under missile attack from Iranian proxies.
The younger Gulf generation has seen for itself the attacks launched by Palestinians against their countries on social media, including the burning of MBS’ pictures in Gaza. During the soccer World Cup, many Palestinians rushed to root for Iran against its Western opponents, while supporting Western countries against the Saudi national team. This immediate, visceral experience differentiates the younger Gulf generation from its elders.
The older generation of Saudi and Emirati policymakers have known these Palestinian political tendencies for years, but they overlooked them in the hope that once a Palestinian state is established, local actors sympathetic to Iran would have an incentive to moderate their positions, providing the Saudis offer generous financial contributions. The general prognosis was that the emergence of other moderate groups would counterbalance the radicals.
However, the younger Gulf generations are now unconvinced that moderation would follow the establishment of a Palestinian state. They believe it is more likely that a fully independent Palestinian state would itself be hostage to radical forces, and would in fact become an extreme source of instability in the region.
MBS and MBZ believe that establishing a Palestinian state would mean handing Iran and Sunni political Islamists another Arab capital to control and influence. Iranian influence among Palestinian groups has solidified over the years, and the two crown princes' assessment is that it is irreversible.
They are fortified in that position by the example of Gaza. Sunni political Islamists have run the Strip disastrously for over a decade, opening the door for Qatar and Turkey to project influence there. That this is also leading to conflict in Egypt further reinforces the belief that an independent Palestine would be a source of instability.
MBS and MBZ are certainly not foolish enough to lobby for and fund the establishment of a state that would most certainly be an Iranian client state, analogous to a Soviet-era satellite state.
Despite this, many Western policymakers still fantasize about the idea that the Gulf countries could provide money to birth and develop a Palestinian state – indeed, this is reportedly one of the founding principles of the Trump-Kushner peace plan.
That is never going to happen. Those who actively dictate policy in the Gulf are convinced that every dollar the Saudis give to the Palestinians means handing it to Iran. The Saudis and Emirates are likely to promise to provide financial assistance in public, but U.S. policymakers should not believe that they would ever deliver when push really comes to shove.
For those in Washington dreaming of another peace process breakthrough, another Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn, this time midwifed by the Gulf – there is little chance this will become anything more than a mirage.
The Middle East has moved on from the 1990s, and just like the Saudis and Emirates have woken up to the facts of the Palestinians' political biases, policymakers in D.C. must keep up and evolve their thinking to better serve American interests, and not repeat the mistakes of the past.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-why-younger-saudis-won-t-fund-facilitate-or-fight-for-a-palestinian-state-1.6342634
سيف الله
08-06-2018, 08:45 PM
Salaam
Another update
Antisemitism and the suppression of truth.
Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to silence opposition to Jewish power. The scandal over the alleged antisemitism within the Labour party provides a perfect example. The Labour Party is accused of being “an existential threat to British Jews” (no more no less) because the NEC, its ruling body, defined antisemitism for the Labour party, without clearly including in its definition criticism of Israel.
In its definition for its own code, the Labour party adopted the problematic IHRA working definition of antisemitism but omitted the following ‘examples of antisemitism’ included with the IHRA:
§ Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country,
§ Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavor,
§ Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations, and
§ Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.
According to Labour’s ruling body, these examples may not be treated as anti -Jewish bigotry without clear evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This treatment is the proper one according to most reasonable minds.
Since some Diaspora Jews admit to being more loyal to Israel than to their home country, it would be a bit problematic to accuse a goy of hatefulness for repeating what many Jews openly declare. Since the new racist Israeli National Bill has been duly approved by the Knesset, it would be bizarre to accuse a Labour Party member of anti-Jewish bigotry for saying that Israel is a racist endeavour.
Although such an accusation may well be accurate, it runs afoul of the omitted examples in the IHRA definition exactly because the definition is designed to suppress criticism of Israel and its politics. Last week, the Guardian published an wide range of Jewish writers and their views of the IHRA definition in the context of the current Labour ‘antisemitism’ crisis. Some of the views expressed are insightful and deserve close attention.
Antisemitism, according to Stephen Sedley, a law scholar and a former judge, is “hostility towards Jews as Jews. This straightforward definition is at the disposal of any institution or organisation that needs it. It places no prior restrictions on the form antisemitism may take.”
Sedley comes to a conclusion that the IHRA definition with examples exists “to neutralise serious criticism of Israel by stigmatising it as a form of antisemitism.” Sedley’s view in this context fits nicely with the definition of Jewish power above.
Sedley points out that The UK government, which has adopted the “working definition” including the examples, was warned by the Commons home affairs select committee in October 2016 that in the interests of free speech it ought to adopt an explicit rider that it is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel …without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.” Sedley emphasises that this recommendation “was ignored.”
Geoffrey Bindman, a QC, solicitor and a legal scholar agrees with Sedley’s criticism. Bindman also refers to the recommendations of the all-party Commons home affairs select committee that the IHRA definition should only be adopted if qualified by caveats making clear that it is not antisemitic to criticise the Israeli government without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. “Unfortunately the caveats were omitted when the definition was approved by the UK government.”
These men make clear that the IHRA definition is a faulty definition. The British government should reconsider its use of this definition. The other bodies and institutions that were pushed to adopt this non-universalist text would do well to drop it.
Sedley’s opinion is that even though the UK has adopted the IHRA definition, Brits are not forbidden by law from telling the truth about Israel’s being a racist state. This is because Britain also has the “Human Rights Act [that] enacts article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the right of free expression.” According to Sedley “whatever criticism the IHRA’s ‘examples’ may seek to suppress, both Jews and non-Jews in the UK are entitled, without being stigmatised as antisemites, to contend that a state that by law denies Palestinians any right of self-determination is a racist state, or to ask whether there is some moral equivalence between shooting down defenceless Jews in eastern Europe and unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza.”
Geoffrey Bindman argues that the IHRA definition and examples are “poorly drafted, misleading, and in practice have led to the suppression of legitimate debate and freedom of expression. Nevertheless, clumsily worded as it is, the definition does describe the essence of antisemitism: irrational hostility towards Jews.”
Here Bindman opens Pandora’s box. If antisemitism is irrational hostility toward Jews simply for being Jews, then the IHRA definition together with its clauses treats even rational and reasonable opposition to Israeli politics as ‘irrational hatred.’ This presents a dangerous precedent and an Orwellian turn for British society. It suggests that Britain is a free country no more. In Britain in 2018, those who oppose a certain type of evil, racist politics are labelled ‘irrational haters’ (antisemites). Clearly Labour’s NEC attempted to fix this problem by requiring a finding of hateful intent at the core of certain so-called anti-Semitic behaviour. This reasonable requirement led to an irrational reaction by Jewish institutions and an aggressive response.
It is difficult to judge whether the Guardian’s choices to defend the IHRA were made as a genuine attempt to represent the Zionist side. Perhaps the Guardian was making a desperate attempt to provide its readers with some comic relief: like the British Chief Rabbi and 68 additional British rabbis who were upset by Labour ‘s slight deviation from the IHRA definition, Reform Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner also expressed her dissatisfaction with the party of the workers.
“If the Labour party wanted to prioritise antisemitism by choosing a bespoke definition then it could have listened to the full diversity of the Jewish community,” Janner-Klausner wrote. But why does anyone need to follow the Rabbis or self-appointed Jewish ‘representative bodies’ for that matter? If antisemitism is racism, then we all ought to oppose antisemitism as we do any form of racism: universally. And if antisemitism is a piece of our universal concern with racism, then we all should be equally involved in opposing it. This is similar to the line of thought that was, I believe, at the core of the American Civil Rights Movement. It was a universal call that had a universal appeal. It aimed to protect the many not just the few. This is pretty much the opposite of the IHRA definition that is concerned with one people only.
In that regard, it is of note that Labour’s NEC was not attempting to define what antisemitsm means to Jews. NEC defined what antisemitsm means for the Labour party and in accordance with Labour values.
Keith Kahn-Harris, a London sociologist not known for his sophistication also contributed to the Guardian’s panel. He reiterated my definition of Jewish power, probably without realising it. “It’s certainly true that the IHRA definition does tightly constrain anti-Israel and anti-Zionist speech, but it doesn’t make it impossible.” I guess that Kahn-Harris is saying that IHRA definition allows support of Palestine as long as the speaker can successfully zigzag around Jewish sensitivities. Maybe you can talk about Palestinian suffering as long as you avoid mentioning Israel. “It might have been possible to see the IHRA definition as a challenge to pro-Palestinian activists to be more creative in their language: after all, whether or not you think Israel is acting just like the Nazis, saying so is predictable, lazy and cliched.” I would advise Khan Harris that living for 70 years as a stateless refugee in Lebanon or being imprisoned in Gaza by an Israeli siege is more than enough. Palestinians and their supporters do not need this ‘extra challenge.’ What they want is to make their plight known and to be able to talk truth to power. Even to describe, for instance, an equivalence between two nationalist, racist and expansionist political ideologies that were fermented around the same time and even collaborated for a while. And this is exactly what the IHRA is there to prevent.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/8/5/antisemitsm-and-the-suppression-of-truth
ReplyAnother update
Antisemitism and the suppression of truth.
Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to silence opposition to Jewish power. The scandal over the alleged antisemitism within the Labour party provides a perfect example. The Labour Party is accused of being “an existential threat to British Jews” (no more no less) because the NEC, its ruling body, defined antisemitism for the Labour party, without clearly including in its definition criticism of Israel.
In its definition for its own code, the Labour party adopted the problematic IHRA working definition of antisemitism but omitted the following ‘examples of antisemitism’ included with the IHRA:
§ Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country,
§ Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavor,
§ Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations, and
§ Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.
According to Labour’s ruling body, these examples may not be treated as anti -Jewish bigotry without clear evidence of anti-Semitic intent. This treatment is the proper one according to most reasonable minds.
Since some Diaspora Jews admit to being more loyal to Israel than to their home country, it would be a bit problematic to accuse a goy of hatefulness for repeating what many Jews openly declare. Since the new racist Israeli National Bill has been duly approved by the Knesset, it would be bizarre to accuse a Labour Party member of anti-Jewish bigotry for saying that Israel is a racist endeavour.
Although such an accusation may well be accurate, it runs afoul of the omitted examples in the IHRA definition exactly because the definition is designed to suppress criticism of Israel and its politics. Last week, the Guardian published an wide range of Jewish writers and their views of the IHRA definition in the context of the current Labour ‘antisemitism’ crisis. Some of the views expressed are insightful and deserve close attention.
Antisemitism, according to Stephen Sedley, a law scholar and a former judge, is “hostility towards Jews as Jews. This straightforward definition is at the disposal of any institution or organisation that needs it. It places no prior restrictions on the form antisemitism may take.”
Sedley comes to a conclusion that the IHRA definition with examples exists “to neutralise serious criticism of Israel by stigmatising it as a form of antisemitism.” Sedley’s view in this context fits nicely with the definition of Jewish power above.
Sedley points out that The UK government, which has adopted the “working definition” including the examples, was warned by the Commons home affairs select committee in October 2016 that in the interests of free speech it ought to adopt an explicit rider that it is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel …without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.” Sedley emphasises that this recommendation “was ignored.”
Geoffrey Bindman, a QC, solicitor and a legal scholar agrees with Sedley’s criticism. Bindman also refers to the recommendations of the all-party Commons home affairs select committee that the IHRA definition should only be adopted if qualified by caveats making clear that it is not antisemitic to criticise the Israeli government without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. “Unfortunately the caveats were omitted when the definition was approved by the UK government.”
These men make clear that the IHRA definition is a faulty definition. The British government should reconsider its use of this definition. The other bodies and institutions that were pushed to adopt this non-universalist text would do well to drop it.
Sedley’s opinion is that even though the UK has adopted the IHRA definition, Brits are not forbidden by law from telling the truth about Israel’s being a racist state. This is because Britain also has the “Human Rights Act [that] enacts article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the right of free expression.” According to Sedley “whatever criticism the IHRA’s ‘examples’ may seek to suppress, both Jews and non-Jews in the UK are entitled, without being stigmatised as antisemites, to contend that a state that by law denies Palestinians any right of self-determination is a racist state, or to ask whether there is some moral equivalence between shooting down defenceless Jews in eastern Europe and unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza.”
Geoffrey Bindman argues that the IHRA definition and examples are “poorly drafted, misleading, and in practice have led to the suppression of legitimate debate and freedom of expression. Nevertheless, clumsily worded as it is, the definition does describe the essence of antisemitism: irrational hostility towards Jews.”
Here Bindman opens Pandora’s box. If antisemitism is irrational hostility toward Jews simply for being Jews, then the IHRA definition together with its clauses treats even rational and reasonable opposition to Israeli politics as ‘irrational hatred.’ This presents a dangerous precedent and an Orwellian turn for British society. It suggests that Britain is a free country no more. In Britain in 2018, those who oppose a certain type of evil, racist politics are labelled ‘irrational haters’ (antisemites). Clearly Labour’s NEC attempted to fix this problem by requiring a finding of hateful intent at the core of certain so-called anti-Semitic behaviour. This reasonable requirement led to an irrational reaction by Jewish institutions and an aggressive response.
It is difficult to judge whether the Guardian’s choices to defend the IHRA were made as a genuine attempt to represent the Zionist side. Perhaps the Guardian was making a desperate attempt to provide its readers with some comic relief: like the British Chief Rabbi and 68 additional British rabbis who were upset by Labour ‘s slight deviation from the IHRA definition, Reform Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner also expressed her dissatisfaction with the party of the workers.
“If the Labour party wanted to prioritise antisemitism by choosing a bespoke definition then it could have listened to the full diversity of the Jewish community,” Janner-Klausner wrote. But why does anyone need to follow the Rabbis or self-appointed Jewish ‘representative bodies’ for that matter? If antisemitism is racism, then we all ought to oppose antisemitism as we do any form of racism: universally. And if antisemitism is a piece of our universal concern with racism, then we all should be equally involved in opposing it. This is similar to the line of thought that was, I believe, at the core of the American Civil Rights Movement. It was a universal call that had a universal appeal. It aimed to protect the many not just the few. This is pretty much the opposite of the IHRA definition that is concerned with one people only.
In that regard, it is of note that Labour’s NEC was not attempting to define what antisemitsm means to Jews. NEC defined what antisemitsm means for the Labour party and in accordance with Labour values.
Keith Kahn-Harris, a London sociologist not known for his sophistication also contributed to the Guardian’s panel. He reiterated my definition of Jewish power, probably without realising it. “It’s certainly true that the IHRA definition does tightly constrain anti-Israel and anti-Zionist speech, but it doesn’t make it impossible.” I guess that Kahn-Harris is saying that IHRA definition allows support of Palestine as long as the speaker can successfully zigzag around Jewish sensitivities. Maybe you can talk about Palestinian suffering as long as you avoid mentioning Israel. “It might have been possible to see the IHRA definition as a challenge to pro-Palestinian activists to be more creative in their language: after all, whether or not you think Israel is acting just like the Nazis, saying so is predictable, lazy and cliched.” I would advise Khan Harris that living for 70 years as a stateless refugee in Lebanon or being imprisoned in Gaza by an Israeli siege is more than enough. Palestinians and their supporters do not need this ‘extra challenge.’ What they want is to make their plight known and to be able to talk truth to power. Even to describe, for instance, an equivalence between two nationalist, racist and expansionist political ideologies that were fermented around the same time and even collaborated for a while. And this is exactly what the IHRA is there to prevent.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/8/5/antisemitsm-and-the-suppression-of-truth
سيف الله
08-08-2018, 10:18 PM
Salaam
Another update
In Israel, growing fascism and a racism akin to early Nazism
T
hey don’t wish to physically harm Palestinians. They only wish to deprive them of their basic human rights, such as self-rule in their own state and freedom from oppression
Zeev Sternhell | Jan. 19, 2018 | 2:00 AM |
I frequently ask myself how a historian in 50 or 100 years will interpret our period. When, he will ask, did people in Israel start to realize that the state that was established in the War of Independence, on the ruins of European Jewry and at the cost of the blood of combatants some of whom were Holocaust survivors, had devolved into a true monstrosity for its non-Jewish inhabitants. When did some Israelis understand that their cruelty and ability to bully others, Palestinians or Africans, began eroding the moral legitimacy of their existence as a sovereign entity?
The answer, that historian might say, was embedded in the actions of Knesset members such as Miki Zohar and Bezalel Smotrich and the bills proposed by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. The nation-state law, which looks like it was formulated by the worst of Europe’s ultra-nationalists, was only the beginning. Since the left did not protest against it in its Rothschild Boulevard demonstrations, it served as a first nail in the coffin of the old Israel, the one whose Declaration of Independence will remain as a museum showpiece. This archaeological relic will teach people what Israel could have become if its society hadn’t disintegrated from the moral devastation brought on by the occupation and apartheid in the territories.
The left is no longer capable of overcoming the toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here, the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people. The interviews Haaretz’s Ravit Hecht held with Smotrich and Zohar (December 3, 2016 and October 28, 2017) should be widely disseminated on all media outlets in Israel and throughout the Jewish world. In both of them we see not just a growing Israeli fascism but racism akin to Nazism in its early stages.
Like every ideology, the Nazi race theory developed over the years. At first it only deprived Jews of their civil and human rights. It’s possible that without World War II the “Jewish problem” would have ended only with the “voluntary” expulsion of Jews from Reich lands. After all, most of Austria and Germany’s Jews made it out in time. It’s possible that this is the future facing Palestinians.
Indeed, Smotrich and Zohar don’t wish to physically harm Palestinians, on condition that they don’t rise against their Jewish masters. They only wish to deprive them of their basic human rights, such as self-rule in their own state and freedom from oppression, or equal rights in case the territories are officially annexed to Israel. For these two representatives of the Knesset majority, the Palestinians are doomed to remain under occupation forever. It’s likely that the Likud’s Central Committee also thinks this way. The reasoning is simple: The Arabs aren’t Jews, so they cannot demand ownership over any part of the land that was promised to the Jewish people.
According to the concepts of Smotrich, Zohar and Shaked, a Jew from Brooklyn who has never set foot in this country is the legitimate owner of this land, while a Palestinian whose family has lived here for generations is a stranger, living here only by the grace of the Jews. “A Palestinian,” Zohar tells Hecht, “has no right to national self-determination since he doesn’t own the land in this country. Out of decency I want him here as a resident, since he was born here and lives here – I won’t tell him to leave. I’m sorry to say this but they have one major disadvantage – they weren’t born as Jews.”
From this one may assume that even if they all converted, grew side-curls and studied Torah, it would not help. This is the situation with regard to Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers and their children, who are Israeli for all intents and purposes. This is how it was with the Nazis. Later comes apartheid, which could apply under certain circumstances to Arabs who are citizens of Israel. Most Israelis don’t seem worried.
https://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-in-israel-growing-fascism-and-a-racism-akin-to-early-nazism-1.5746488
- - - Updated - - -
Salaam
Another update
Labour’s crisis is over Israel, not anti-semitism
If there is indeed an anti-semitism problem in the UK’s Labour party, it is not in the places where the British corporate media have been directing our attention. What can be said with even more certainty is that there is rampant hatred expressed towards Jews in the same British media that is currently decrying the supposed anti-semitism of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Here is a piece of what I hope is wisdom, earnt the hard way as a reporter in Israel over nearly two decades. I offer it in case it helps to resolve the confusion felt by some still pondering the endless reports of Labour’s supposed anti-semitism “crisis”.
Racism towards Palestinians
In the first year after my arrival in Israel in late 2001, during the most violent phase of Israel’s suppression of the Palestinians’ second intifada, I desperately tried to make sense of the events raging around me. Like most new reporters, I searched for experts – at that time, mostly leftwing Israeli analysts and academics. But the more I listened, the less I understood. I felt like a ball in a pinball machine, bounced from one hair-trigger to the next.
My problem was exacerbated by the fact that, unlike my colleagues, I had chosen to locate myself in Nazareth, the largest Palestinian city in Israel, rather than in a Jewish area or in the occupied territories. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians seemed much more complex when viewed through the prism of Palestinian “citizens” living inside a self-declared Jewish state.
The Israeli experts I contacted deplored the brutality of the occupation unequivocally and in ways it was difficult not to admire, given the morass of anti-Palestinian sentiment and self-righteousness into which the rest of Israeli society was rapidly sinking. But each time I latched on to such an Israeli in the hope of deepening my own understanding, something they said would knock me sideways.
As readily as they condemned the occupation, they would laud the self-evidently bogus liberal democratic credentials of a Jewish state, one that I could see from my location in Nazareth was structurally organised to deny equal rights to its Palestinian citizens. Or the experts would echo the Israeli government’s inciteful claims that this largely quiescent Palestinian minority in Israel – a fifth of the population – was at best a demographic threat to the Jewish majority, and at worst a Trojan horse secretly working to destroy the Jewish state from within.
The very racism towards Palestinians in the occupied territories these experts eschewed, they readily flaunted when discussing Palestinians inside Israel. Were they really leftists or covert ethnic chauvinists?
Appearances can be deceptive
It was many months before I could make sense of this puzzle. An answer was only possible when I factored in the Israeli state’s official ideology: Zionism.
Israeli leftists who were also avowed Zionists – the vast majority of them – saw the conflict exclusively through the colonial prism of their own ethnic privilege. They didn’t much care for Palestinians or their rights. Their opposition to the occupation was barely related to the tangible harm it did to the Palestinian population.
Rather, they wanted an end to the occupation because they believed it brutalised and corrupted Israeli Jewish society, seeping into its pores like a toxin. Or they wanted the occupation to end because the combined populations of Palestinians in “Greater Israel” – in the occupied territories and inside Israel – would soon outnumber Jews, leading, they feared, to comparisons with apartheid South Africa. They wanted Israel out of all or most of the occupied territories, cutting off these areas like a gangrenous limb threatening the rest of the body’s health.
Only later, when I started to meet anti-Zionist Jews, did I find an opposition to the occupation rooted in a respect for the rights and dignity of the Palestinians in the territories. And because their position was an ethical, rights-based one, rather than motivated by opportunism and self-interest, these anti-Zionist Jews also cared about ending discrimination against the one in five Israeli citizens who were Palestinian. Unlike my experts, they were morally consistent.
I raise this, because the lesson I eventually learnt was this: you should never assume that, because someone has adopted a moral position you share, their view is based on the moral principles that led you to adopt that position. The motives of those you stand alongside can be very different from your own. People can express a morally sound view for morally dubious, or even outright immoral, reasons. If you ally yourself with such people, you will invariably be disappointed or betrayed.
There was another, more particular lesson. Ostensible support for Palestinians may in fact be cover for other ways of oppressing them.
And so it has been with most of those warning of an anti-semitism “crisis” in Labour. Anti-semitism, like all racisms, is to be denounced. But not all denunciations of it are what they seem. And not all professions of support for Palestinians should be taken at face value.
The vilification of Corbyn
Most reasonable observers, especially if they are not Jewish, instinctively recoil from criticising a Jew who is highlighting anti-semitism. It is that insulation from criticism, that protective shield, that encouraged Labour MP Margaret Hodge recently to publicly launch a verbal assault on Corbyn, vilifying him, against all evidence, as an “anti-semite and racist”.
It was that same protective shield that led to Labour officials dropping an investigation of Hodge, even though it is surely beyond doubt that her actions brought the party “into disrepute” – in this case, in a flagrant manner hard to imagine being equalled. This is the same party, remember, that recently expelled Marc Wadsworth, a prominent black anti-racism activist, on precisely those grounds after he accused Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth of colluding with rightwing newspapers to undermine Corbyn.
The Labour party is so hamstrung by fears about anti-semitism, it seems, that it decided that an activist (Wadsworth) denigrating a Labour MP (Smeeth) was more damaging to the party’s reputation than a Labour MP (Hodge) vilifying the party’s leader (Corbyn). In this twisted set of priorities, a suspicion of possible racism towards a Jewish MP served to justify actual racism against a black party activist.
But the perversion of Labour party values goes much further. Recent events have proven that party officials have decisively prioritised the rights of diehard supporters of Israel among British Jewry to defend Israel at all costs over the right of others, including Jews, to speak out about the continuing brutalisation of Palestinians by Israel’s occupation regime.
Hodge and the other Labour MPs trumpeting anti-semitism might be entitled to the benefit of the doubt – that they truly fear anti-semitism is on the rise in the Labour party – had they not repeatedly indulged in the kind of anti-semitism they themselves have deplored.
What do I mean?
When they speak of an anti-semitism “crisis” in the party, these Labour MPs – and the fervently pro-Israel lobby groups behind them like the Jewish Labour Movement – intentionally gloss over the fact that many of the prominent activists who have been investigated, suspended or expelled for anti-semitism in recent months – fuelling the claim of a “crisis” – are in fact Jewish.
Why are the “Jewish” sensitivities of Margaret Hodge, Ruth Smeeth or Louise Ellman more important than those of Moshe Machover, Tony Greenstein, Cyril Chilson, Jackie Walker or Glyn Secker – all Labour activists who have found their sensitivities, as Jews opposing the abuse of Palestinians, count for little or nothing among Labour officials? Why must we tiptoe around Hodge because she is Jewish, ignoring her bullygirl tactics to promote her political agenda in defence of Israel, but crack down on Greenstein and Chilson, even though they are Jewish, to silence their voices in defence of the rights of Palestinians?
‘Wrong kind of Jews’
The problem runs deeper still. Labour MPs like Hodge, Smeeth, Ellman and John Mann have stoked the anti-semitic predilections of the British media, which has been only too ready to indict “bad Jews” while extolling “good Jews”.
That was only too evident earlier this year when Corbyn tried to put out the fire that such Labour MPs had intentionally fuelled. He joined Jewdas, a satirical leftwing Jewish group that is critical of Israel, for a Passover meal. He was roundly condemned for the move.
Jewdas were declared by rightwing Jewish establishment organisations like the Board of Deputies and by the British corporate media as the “wrong kind of Jews”, or even as not “real” Jews. In the view of the Board and the media, Corbyn was tainted by his association with them.
How are Jewdas the “wrong kind of Jews”? Because they do not reflexively kneel before Israel. Ignore Corbyn for a moment. Did Labour MPs Hodge, Ellman or Smeeth speak out in the defence of fellow Jews under attack over their Jewishness? No, they did not.
If Greenstein and Chilson are being excommunicated as (Jewish) “anti-semites” for their full-throated condemnations of Israel’s institutional racism, why are Hodge and Ellman not equally anti-semites for their collusion in the vilification of supposedly “bad” or “phoney” Jews like Jewdas, Greenstein and Chilson.
It should be clear that this anti-semitism “crisis” is not chiefly about respecting Jewish sensitivities or even about Jewish identity. It is about protecting the sensitivities of some Jews on Israel, a state oppressing and dispossessing the Palestinian people.
Policing debates on Israel
When the Guardian’s senior columnist Jonathan Freedland insists that his Jewish identity is intimately tied to Israel, and that to attack Israel is to attack him personally, he is demanding the exclusive right to police the parameters of discussions about Israel. He is asserting his right, over the rights of other Jews – and, of course, Palestinians – to determine what the boundaries of political discourse on Israel are, and where the red lines denoting anti-semitism are drawn.
This is why Labour MPs like Hodge and journalists like Freedland are at the centre of another confected anti-semitism row in the Labour party: over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-semitism and an associated set of examples. They want all the IHRA’s examples adopted by Labour, not just most of them.
There are very clear, existing definitions of anti-semitism. They are variations of the simple formulation: “Anti-semitism is the hatred of Jews for being Jews.” But the IHRA takes this clear definition and muddies it to the point that all sorts of political debates can be viewed as potentially anti-semitic, as leading jurists have warned (see here and here).
That is only undercored by the fact that a majority of the IHRA’s examples of anti-semitism relate to Israel – a nuclear-armed state now constitutionally designed to privilege Jews over non-Jews inside its recognised borders and engaged in a half-century of brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people outside its borders.
To be fair to the drafters of the IHRA guidelines, these examples were supposed only to be treated as potentially anti-semitic, depending on the context. That is the express view of the definition’s drafter, Kenneth Stern, a Jewish lawyer, who has warned that the guidelines are being perverted to silence criticism of Israel and stifle free speech.
And who are leading precisely the moves that Stern has warned against? People like Jonathan Freedland and Margaret Hodge, cheered on by large swaths of Labour MPs, who have strongly implied that Corbyn and his allies in the party are anti-semitic for sharing Stern’s concerns.
Hodge and Freedland are desperate to strong-arm the Labour party into setting the IHRA guidelines in stone, as the unchallengeable, definitive new definition of anti-semitism. That will relieve them of the arduous task of policing those discourse boundaries on the basis of evidence and of context. They will have a ready-made, one-size-fits-all definition to foreclose almost all serious debate about Israel.
Want to suggest that Israel’s new Nation-State Law, giving Jewish citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights denied to non-Jewish citizens, is proof of the institutional racism on which political Zionism is premised and that was enshrined in the founding principles of the state of Israel? Well, you just violated one of the IHRA guidelines by arguing that Israel is a “racist endeavour”. If Freedland and Hodge get their way, you would be certain to be declared an anti-semite and expelled from the Labour party.
Grovelling apology
Revealing how cynical this manoeuvring by Hodge, Freedland and others is, one only has to inspect the faux-outrage over the latest “anti-semitism crisis” involving Corbyn. He has been forced to make a grovelling apology – one that deeply discredits him – for hosting an anti-racism conference in 2010 at which a speaker made a comparison between Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and the Nazis’ treatment of Jews. That violated another of the IHRA examples.
But again, what none of these anti-semitism warriors has wanted to highlight is that the speaker given a platform at the conference was the late Hajo Meyer, a Jewish Holocaust survivor who dedicated his later years to supporting Palestinian rights. Who, if not Meyer, deserved the right to make such a comparison? And to imply that he was an anti-semite because he prioritised Palestinian rights over the preservation of Israel’s privileges for Jews is truly contemptible.
In fact, it is more than that. It is far closer to anti-semitism than the behaviour of Jewish critics of Israel like Greenstein and Chilson, who have been expelled from the Labour party. To intentionally exploit and vilify a Holocaust survivor for cheap, short-term political advantage – in an attempt to damage Corbyn – is malevolence of the worst kind.
Having stoked fears of an anti-semitism crisis, Hodge, Freedland and others have actively sought to obscure the wider context in which it must be judged – as, in large part, a painful debate raging inside the Jewish community. It is a debate between fervently pro-Israel Jewish establishment groups and a growing body of marginalised anti-Zionist Jewish activists who wish to show solidarity with the Palestinians. Labour is not suffering from an “anti-semitism crisis”; it is mired in an “Israel crisis”.
‘Repulsive’ campaign
In their silence about the abuses of Meyer, Jewdas, Greenstein, Chilson and many others, Freedland and Hodge have shown that they do not really care about the safety or sensitivities of Jews. What they chiefly care about is protecting their chosen cause of Israel, and crippling the chances of a committed supporter of Palestinian rights from ever reaching power. They are prepared to sacrifice other Jews, even victims of the Holocaust, as well as the Labour party itself, for that kind of political gain.
Hodge and Freedland are behaving as though they are decent Jews, the only ones who have the right to a voice and to sensitivities. They are wrong.
They are like the experts I first met in Israel who concealed their racism towards Palestinians by flaunting their self-serving anti-occupation credentials. Under the cover of concerns about anti-semitism, Freedland and Hodge have helped stoke hatred – either explicitly or through their silence – towards the “wrong kind of Jews”, towards Jews whose critical views of Israel they fear.
It does not have to be this way. Rather than foreclose it, they could allow a debate to flourish within Britain’s Jewish community and within the Labour party. They could admit that not only is there no evidence that Corbyn is racist, but that he has clearly been committed to fighting racism all his life.
Don’t want to take my word for it? You don’t have to. Listen instead to Stephen Oryszczuk, foreign editor of the Corbyn-hating Jewish News. His newspaper was one of three Jewish weeklies that recently published the same front-page editorial claiming that Corbyn was an “existential threat” to British Jews.
Oryszczuk, even if no friend to the Labour leader, deplored the behaviour of his own newspaper. In an interview, he observed of this campaign to vilify Corbyn: “It’s repulsive. This is a dedicated anti-racist we’re trashing. I just don’t buy into it at all.” He added of Corbyn: “I don’t believe he’s antisemitic, nor do most reasonable people. He’s anti-Israel and that’s not the same.”
Oryszczuk conceded that some people were weaponising anti-semitism and that these individuals were “certainly out to get him [Corbyn]”. Unlike Freedland and Hodge, he was also prepared to admit that some voices in the Jewish community were being actively silenced: “It’s partly our fault, in the mainstream Jewish media. We could – and arguably should – have done a better job at giving a voice to Jews who think differently, for which I personally feel a little ashamed. … On Israel today, what you hear publicly tends to be very uniform.”
And that is exactly how Hodge and Freedland would like to keep it – in the Labour party, in the Jewish community, and in wider British society.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-08-08/labour-crisis-israel-anti-semitism/
ReplyAnother update
In Israel, growing fascism and a racism akin to early Nazism
T
hey don’t wish to physically harm Palestinians. They only wish to deprive them of their basic human rights, such as self-rule in their own state and freedom from oppression
Zeev Sternhell | Jan. 19, 2018 | 2:00 AM |
I frequently ask myself how a historian in 50 or 100 years will interpret our period. When, he will ask, did people in Israel start to realize that the state that was established in the War of Independence, on the ruins of European Jewry and at the cost of the blood of combatants some of whom were Holocaust survivors, had devolved into a true monstrosity for its non-Jewish inhabitants. When did some Israelis understand that their cruelty and ability to bully others, Palestinians or Africans, began eroding the moral legitimacy of their existence as a sovereign entity?
The answer, that historian might say, was embedded in the actions of Knesset members such as Miki Zohar and Bezalel Smotrich and the bills proposed by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. The nation-state law, which looks like it was formulated by the worst of Europe’s ultra-nationalists, was only the beginning. Since the left did not protest against it in its Rothschild Boulevard demonstrations, it served as a first nail in the coffin of the old Israel, the one whose Declaration of Independence will remain as a museum showpiece. This archaeological relic will teach people what Israel could have become if its society hadn’t disintegrated from the moral devastation brought on by the occupation and apartheid in the territories.
The left is no longer capable of overcoming the toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here, the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people. The interviews Haaretz’s Ravit Hecht held with Smotrich and Zohar (December 3, 2016 and October 28, 2017) should be widely disseminated on all media outlets in Israel and throughout the Jewish world. In both of them we see not just a growing Israeli fascism but racism akin to Nazism in its early stages.
Like every ideology, the Nazi race theory developed over the years. At first it only deprived Jews of their civil and human rights. It’s possible that without World War II the “Jewish problem” would have ended only with the “voluntary” expulsion of Jews from Reich lands. After all, most of Austria and Germany’s Jews made it out in time. It’s possible that this is the future facing Palestinians.
Indeed, Smotrich and Zohar don’t wish to physically harm Palestinians, on condition that they don’t rise against their Jewish masters. They only wish to deprive them of their basic human rights, such as self-rule in their own state and freedom from oppression, or equal rights in case the territories are officially annexed to Israel. For these two representatives of the Knesset majority, the Palestinians are doomed to remain under occupation forever. It’s likely that the Likud’s Central Committee also thinks this way. The reasoning is simple: The Arabs aren’t Jews, so they cannot demand ownership over any part of the land that was promised to the Jewish people.
According to the concepts of Smotrich, Zohar and Shaked, a Jew from Brooklyn who has never set foot in this country is the legitimate owner of this land, while a Palestinian whose family has lived here for generations is a stranger, living here only by the grace of the Jews. “A Palestinian,” Zohar tells Hecht, “has no right to national self-determination since he doesn’t own the land in this country. Out of decency I want him here as a resident, since he was born here and lives here – I won’t tell him to leave. I’m sorry to say this but they have one major disadvantage – they weren’t born as Jews.”
From this one may assume that even if they all converted, grew side-curls and studied Torah, it would not help. This is the situation with regard to Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers and their children, who are Israeli for all intents and purposes. This is how it was with the Nazis. Later comes apartheid, which could apply under certain circumstances to Arabs who are citizens of Israel. Most Israelis don’t seem worried.
https://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-in-israel-growing-fascism-and-a-racism-akin-to-early-nazism-1.5746488
- - - Updated - - -
Salaam
Another update
Labour’s crisis is over Israel, not anti-semitism
If there is indeed an anti-semitism problem in the UK’s Labour party, it is not in the places where the British corporate media have been directing our attention. What can be said with even more certainty is that there is rampant hatred expressed towards Jews in the same British media that is currently decrying the supposed anti-semitism of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Here is a piece of what I hope is wisdom, earnt the hard way as a reporter in Israel over nearly two decades. I offer it in case it helps to resolve the confusion felt by some still pondering the endless reports of Labour’s supposed anti-semitism “crisis”.
Racism towards Palestinians
In the first year after my arrival in Israel in late 2001, during the most violent phase of Israel’s suppression of the Palestinians’ second intifada, I desperately tried to make sense of the events raging around me. Like most new reporters, I searched for experts – at that time, mostly leftwing Israeli analysts and academics. But the more I listened, the less I understood. I felt like a ball in a pinball machine, bounced from one hair-trigger to the next.
My problem was exacerbated by the fact that, unlike my colleagues, I had chosen to locate myself in Nazareth, the largest Palestinian city in Israel, rather than in a Jewish area or in the occupied territories. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians seemed much more complex when viewed through the prism of Palestinian “citizens” living inside a self-declared Jewish state.
The Israeli experts I contacted deplored the brutality of the occupation unequivocally and in ways it was difficult not to admire, given the morass of anti-Palestinian sentiment and self-righteousness into which the rest of Israeli society was rapidly sinking. But each time I latched on to such an Israeli in the hope of deepening my own understanding, something they said would knock me sideways.
As readily as they condemned the occupation, they would laud the self-evidently bogus liberal democratic credentials of a Jewish state, one that I could see from my location in Nazareth was structurally organised to deny equal rights to its Palestinian citizens. Or the experts would echo the Israeli government’s inciteful claims that this largely quiescent Palestinian minority in Israel – a fifth of the population – was at best a demographic threat to the Jewish majority, and at worst a Trojan horse secretly working to destroy the Jewish state from within.
The very racism towards Palestinians in the occupied territories these experts eschewed, they readily flaunted when discussing Palestinians inside Israel. Were they really leftists or covert ethnic chauvinists?
Appearances can be deceptive
It was many months before I could make sense of this puzzle. An answer was only possible when I factored in the Israeli state’s official ideology: Zionism.
Israeli leftists who were also avowed Zionists – the vast majority of them – saw the conflict exclusively through the colonial prism of their own ethnic privilege. They didn’t much care for Palestinians or their rights. Their opposition to the occupation was barely related to the tangible harm it did to the Palestinian population.
Rather, they wanted an end to the occupation because they believed it brutalised and corrupted Israeli Jewish society, seeping into its pores like a toxin. Or they wanted the occupation to end because the combined populations of Palestinians in “Greater Israel” – in the occupied territories and inside Israel – would soon outnumber Jews, leading, they feared, to comparisons with apartheid South Africa. They wanted Israel out of all or most of the occupied territories, cutting off these areas like a gangrenous limb threatening the rest of the body’s health.
Only later, when I started to meet anti-Zionist Jews, did I find an opposition to the occupation rooted in a respect for the rights and dignity of the Palestinians in the territories. And because their position was an ethical, rights-based one, rather than motivated by opportunism and self-interest, these anti-Zionist Jews also cared about ending discrimination against the one in five Israeli citizens who were Palestinian. Unlike my experts, they were morally consistent.
I raise this, because the lesson I eventually learnt was this: you should never assume that, because someone has adopted a moral position you share, their view is based on the moral principles that led you to adopt that position. The motives of those you stand alongside can be very different from your own. People can express a morally sound view for morally dubious, or even outright immoral, reasons. If you ally yourself with such people, you will invariably be disappointed or betrayed.
There was another, more particular lesson. Ostensible support for Palestinians may in fact be cover for other ways of oppressing them.
And so it has been with most of those warning of an anti-semitism “crisis” in Labour. Anti-semitism, like all racisms, is to be denounced. But not all denunciations of it are what they seem. And not all professions of support for Palestinians should be taken at face value.
The vilification of Corbyn
Most reasonable observers, especially if they are not Jewish, instinctively recoil from criticising a Jew who is highlighting anti-semitism. It is that insulation from criticism, that protective shield, that encouraged Labour MP Margaret Hodge recently to publicly launch a verbal assault on Corbyn, vilifying him, against all evidence, as an “anti-semite and racist”.
It was that same protective shield that led to Labour officials dropping an investigation of Hodge, even though it is surely beyond doubt that her actions brought the party “into disrepute” – in this case, in a flagrant manner hard to imagine being equalled. This is the same party, remember, that recently expelled Marc Wadsworth, a prominent black anti-racism activist, on precisely those grounds after he accused Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth of colluding with rightwing newspapers to undermine Corbyn.
The Labour party is so hamstrung by fears about anti-semitism, it seems, that it decided that an activist (Wadsworth) denigrating a Labour MP (Smeeth) was more damaging to the party’s reputation than a Labour MP (Hodge) vilifying the party’s leader (Corbyn). In this twisted set of priorities, a suspicion of possible racism towards a Jewish MP served to justify actual racism against a black party activist.
But the perversion of Labour party values goes much further. Recent events have proven that party officials have decisively prioritised the rights of diehard supporters of Israel among British Jewry to defend Israel at all costs over the right of others, including Jews, to speak out about the continuing brutalisation of Palestinians by Israel’s occupation regime.
Hodge and the other Labour MPs trumpeting anti-semitism might be entitled to the benefit of the doubt – that they truly fear anti-semitism is on the rise in the Labour party – had they not repeatedly indulged in the kind of anti-semitism they themselves have deplored.
What do I mean?
When they speak of an anti-semitism “crisis” in the party, these Labour MPs – and the fervently pro-Israel lobby groups behind them like the Jewish Labour Movement – intentionally gloss over the fact that many of the prominent activists who have been investigated, suspended or expelled for anti-semitism in recent months – fuelling the claim of a “crisis” – are in fact Jewish.
Why are the “Jewish” sensitivities of Margaret Hodge, Ruth Smeeth or Louise Ellman more important than those of Moshe Machover, Tony Greenstein, Cyril Chilson, Jackie Walker or Glyn Secker – all Labour activists who have found their sensitivities, as Jews opposing the abuse of Palestinians, count for little or nothing among Labour officials? Why must we tiptoe around Hodge because she is Jewish, ignoring her bullygirl tactics to promote her political agenda in defence of Israel, but crack down on Greenstein and Chilson, even though they are Jewish, to silence their voices in defence of the rights of Palestinians?
‘Wrong kind of Jews’
The problem runs deeper still. Labour MPs like Hodge, Smeeth, Ellman and John Mann have stoked the anti-semitic predilections of the British media, which has been only too ready to indict “bad Jews” while extolling “good Jews”.
That was only too evident earlier this year when Corbyn tried to put out the fire that such Labour MPs had intentionally fuelled. He joined Jewdas, a satirical leftwing Jewish group that is critical of Israel, for a Passover meal. He was roundly condemned for the move.
Jewdas were declared by rightwing Jewish establishment organisations like the Board of Deputies and by the British corporate media as the “wrong kind of Jews”, or even as not “real” Jews. In the view of the Board and the media, Corbyn was tainted by his association with them.
How are Jewdas the “wrong kind of Jews”? Because they do not reflexively kneel before Israel. Ignore Corbyn for a moment. Did Labour MPs Hodge, Ellman or Smeeth speak out in the defence of fellow Jews under attack over their Jewishness? No, they did not.
If Greenstein and Chilson are being excommunicated as (Jewish) “anti-semites” for their full-throated condemnations of Israel’s institutional racism, why are Hodge and Ellman not equally anti-semites for their collusion in the vilification of supposedly “bad” or “phoney” Jews like Jewdas, Greenstein and Chilson.
It should be clear that this anti-semitism “crisis” is not chiefly about respecting Jewish sensitivities or even about Jewish identity. It is about protecting the sensitivities of some Jews on Israel, a state oppressing and dispossessing the Palestinian people.
Policing debates on Israel
When the Guardian’s senior columnist Jonathan Freedland insists that his Jewish identity is intimately tied to Israel, and that to attack Israel is to attack him personally, he is demanding the exclusive right to police the parameters of discussions about Israel. He is asserting his right, over the rights of other Jews – and, of course, Palestinians – to determine what the boundaries of political discourse on Israel are, and where the red lines denoting anti-semitism are drawn.
This is why Labour MPs like Hodge and journalists like Freedland are at the centre of another confected anti-semitism row in the Labour party: over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-semitism and an associated set of examples. They want all the IHRA’s examples adopted by Labour, not just most of them.
There are very clear, existing definitions of anti-semitism. They are variations of the simple formulation: “Anti-semitism is the hatred of Jews for being Jews.” But the IHRA takes this clear definition and muddies it to the point that all sorts of political debates can be viewed as potentially anti-semitic, as leading jurists have warned (see here and here).
That is only undercored by the fact that a majority of the IHRA’s examples of anti-semitism relate to Israel – a nuclear-armed state now constitutionally designed to privilege Jews over non-Jews inside its recognised borders and engaged in a half-century of brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people outside its borders.
To be fair to the drafters of the IHRA guidelines, these examples were supposed only to be treated as potentially anti-semitic, depending on the context. That is the express view of the definition’s drafter, Kenneth Stern, a Jewish lawyer, who has warned that the guidelines are being perverted to silence criticism of Israel and stifle free speech.
And who are leading precisely the moves that Stern has warned against? People like Jonathan Freedland and Margaret Hodge, cheered on by large swaths of Labour MPs, who have strongly implied that Corbyn and his allies in the party are anti-semitic for sharing Stern’s concerns.
Hodge and Freedland are desperate to strong-arm the Labour party into setting the IHRA guidelines in stone, as the unchallengeable, definitive new definition of anti-semitism. That will relieve them of the arduous task of policing those discourse boundaries on the basis of evidence and of context. They will have a ready-made, one-size-fits-all definition to foreclose almost all serious debate about Israel.
Want to suggest that Israel’s new Nation-State Law, giving Jewish citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights denied to non-Jewish citizens, is proof of the institutional racism on which political Zionism is premised and that was enshrined in the founding principles of the state of Israel? Well, you just violated one of the IHRA guidelines by arguing that Israel is a “racist endeavour”. If Freedland and Hodge get their way, you would be certain to be declared an anti-semite and expelled from the Labour party.
Grovelling apology
Revealing how cynical this manoeuvring by Hodge, Freedland and others is, one only has to inspect the faux-outrage over the latest “anti-semitism crisis” involving Corbyn. He has been forced to make a grovelling apology – one that deeply discredits him – for hosting an anti-racism conference in 2010 at which a speaker made a comparison between Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and the Nazis’ treatment of Jews. That violated another of the IHRA examples.
But again, what none of these anti-semitism warriors has wanted to highlight is that the speaker given a platform at the conference was the late Hajo Meyer, a Jewish Holocaust survivor who dedicated his later years to supporting Palestinian rights. Who, if not Meyer, deserved the right to make such a comparison? And to imply that he was an anti-semite because he prioritised Palestinian rights over the preservation of Israel’s privileges for Jews is truly contemptible.
In fact, it is more than that. It is far closer to anti-semitism than the behaviour of Jewish critics of Israel like Greenstein and Chilson, who have been expelled from the Labour party. To intentionally exploit and vilify a Holocaust survivor for cheap, short-term political advantage – in an attempt to damage Corbyn – is malevolence of the worst kind.
Having stoked fears of an anti-semitism crisis, Hodge, Freedland and others have actively sought to obscure the wider context in which it must be judged – as, in large part, a painful debate raging inside the Jewish community. It is a debate between fervently pro-Israel Jewish establishment groups and a growing body of marginalised anti-Zionist Jewish activists who wish to show solidarity with the Palestinians. Labour is not suffering from an “anti-semitism crisis”; it is mired in an “Israel crisis”.
‘Repulsive’ campaign
In their silence about the abuses of Meyer, Jewdas, Greenstein, Chilson and many others, Freedland and Hodge have shown that they do not really care about the safety or sensitivities of Jews. What they chiefly care about is protecting their chosen cause of Israel, and crippling the chances of a committed supporter of Palestinian rights from ever reaching power. They are prepared to sacrifice other Jews, even victims of the Holocaust, as well as the Labour party itself, for that kind of political gain.
Hodge and Freedland are behaving as though they are decent Jews, the only ones who have the right to a voice and to sensitivities. They are wrong.
They are like the experts I first met in Israel who concealed their racism towards Palestinians by flaunting their self-serving anti-occupation credentials. Under the cover of concerns about anti-semitism, Freedland and Hodge have helped stoke hatred – either explicitly or through their silence – towards the “wrong kind of Jews”, towards Jews whose critical views of Israel they fear.
It does not have to be this way. Rather than foreclose it, they could allow a debate to flourish within Britain’s Jewish community and within the Labour party. They could admit that not only is there no evidence that Corbyn is racist, but that he has clearly been committed to fighting racism all his life.
Don’t want to take my word for it? You don’t have to. Listen instead to Stephen Oryszczuk, foreign editor of the Corbyn-hating Jewish News. His newspaper was one of three Jewish weeklies that recently published the same front-page editorial claiming that Corbyn was an “existential threat” to British Jews.
Oryszczuk, even if no friend to the Labour leader, deplored the behaviour of his own newspaper. In an interview, he observed of this campaign to vilify Corbyn: “It’s repulsive. This is a dedicated anti-racist we’re trashing. I just don’t buy into it at all.” He added of Corbyn: “I don’t believe he’s antisemitic, nor do most reasonable people. He’s anti-Israel and that’s not the same.”
Oryszczuk conceded that some people were weaponising anti-semitism and that these individuals were “certainly out to get him [Corbyn]”. Unlike Freedland and Hodge, he was also prepared to admit that some voices in the Jewish community were being actively silenced: “It’s partly our fault, in the mainstream Jewish media. We could – and arguably should – have done a better job at giving a voice to Jews who think differently, for which I personally feel a little ashamed. … On Israel today, what you hear publicly tends to be very uniform.”
And that is exactly how Hodge and Freedland would like to keep it – in the Labour party, in the Jewish community, and in wider British society.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-08-08/labour-crisis-israel-anti-semitism/
سيف الله
08-10-2018, 06:39 AM
Salaam
Like to share
Blurb
After an #IDF tank struck Palestinian targets, Hamas responded with a rocket barrage toward Israeli occupied territories. The IDF responded by striking 140 targets in Gaza, killing a pregnant mother and her young child. And in Yemen, Saudi Arabia blew up a bus and slaughtered scores of children. The United States supplied the weapons for both operations.
ReplyLike to share
Blurb
After an #IDF tank struck Palestinian targets, Hamas responded with a rocket barrage toward Israeli occupied territories. The IDF responded by striking 140 targets in Gaza, killing a pregnant mother and her young child. And in Yemen, Saudi Arabia blew up a bus and slaughtered scores of children. The United States supplied the weapons for both operations.
سيف الله
08-12-2018, 10:32 PM
Salaam
On the Israeli lobby.
Some background reading
This was written in the 1980s
Steven Sica
4.0 out of 5 stars The More Things Don't Change, The More They Stay The Same
This is one of the most important books published in the 1980s dealing with the question of US foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Never heard of it, you say? Small wonder.
It's sad to comtemplate how this book reads like the parent to the much better known and more recently published "The Israel Lobby And U. S. Foreign Policy" by professors John Mearshirmer and Stephen Walt. Tivnan, a journalist, has done a masterful job in laying out the problems presented to the US in it's policies toward the Palestinians and the Israelis by the remoreseless, relentless, take-no-prisoners, bare-knuckled political approach of AIPAC and the other various groups which make up what is called "The Israel Lobby." [The only substantial difference between then and now is the growth of the tragically self-deluded "Christian Fundamantalists" who, in pursuit of their bizarre theology, advocate unquestioned support of every very questionable word and deed of Israel.] Indeed, so prescient is Tivnan in his analysis that it's barely an exaggerastion to write that the great work of Mearshirmer and Walt is but an extended footnote to the ground so competently and so cogently surveyed by Tivan two decades earlier.
By all means, read this book. And then read the work of Mearshirmer and Walt. And than get angry, get very angry, and ask yourself to what extent does US support of Israel help or hinder the security and welfare of the US and it's citizenry.
Blurb
Does America’s pro-Israel lobby wield inappropriate control over US foreign policy?
This book has created a storm of controversy by bringing out into the open America’s relationship with the Israel lobby: a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape foreign policy in a way that is profoundly damaging both to the United States and Israel itself.
Israel is an important, valued American ally, yet Mearsheimer and Walt show that, by encouraging unconditional US financial and diplomatic support for Israel and promoting the use of its power to remake the Middle East, the lobby has jeopardized America’s and Israel’s long-term security and put other countries – including Britain – at risk.
ReplyOn the Israeli lobby.
Some background reading
This was written in the 1980s
Steven Sica
4.0 out of 5 stars The More Things Don't Change, The More They Stay The Same
This is one of the most important books published in the 1980s dealing with the question of US foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Never heard of it, you say? Small wonder.
It's sad to comtemplate how this book reads like the parent to the much better known and more recently published "The Israel Lobby And U. S. Foreign Policy" by professors John Mearshirmer and Stephen Walt. Tivnan, a journalist, has done a masterful job in laying out the problems presented to the US in it's policies toward the Palestinians and the Israelis by the remoreseless, relentless, take-no-prisoners, bare-knuckled political approach of AIPAC and the other various groups which make up what is called "The Israel Lobby." [The only substantial difference between then and now is the growth of the tragically self-deluded "Christian Fundamantalists" who, in pursuit of their bizarre theology, advocate unquestioned support of every very questionable word and deed of Israel.] Indeed, so prescient is Tivnan in his analysis that it's barely an exaggerastion to write that the great work of Mearshirmer and Walt is but an extended footnote to the ground so competently and so cogently surveyed by Tivan two decades earlier.
By all means, read this book. And then read the work of Mearshirmer and Walt. And than get angry, get very angry, and ask yourself to what extent does US support of Israel help or hinder the security and welfare of the US and it's citizenry.
Blurb
Does America’s pro-Israel lobby wield inappropriate control over US foreign policy?
This book has created a storm of controversy by bringing out into the open America’s relationship with the Israel lobby: a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape foreign policy in a way that is profoundly damaging both to the United States and Israel itself.
Israel is an important, valued American ally, yet Mearsheimer and Walt show that, by encouraging unconditional US financial and diplomatic support for Israel and promoting the use of its power to remake the Middle East, the lobby has jeopardized America’s and Israel’s long-term security and put other countries – including Britain – at risk.
سيف الله
08-16-2018, 08:04 PM
Salaam
Another update
Antisemitism and Antiblackness
Great Britain’s Labour Party has been wrestling with allegations of antisemitism. One of the charges is that although the Labour party adopted The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) ‘s definition (often incorrectly identified as the ‘international’ definition) of antisemitism, Labour did not include in its definition all of the examples listed in the IHRA definition. Specifically, Labour omitted the provisions that define criticism of Israel as antisemitism.
Israel may claim that it wants to be a state like all others, but it vigorously campaigns to limit criticism of its expansionist policies by forcing critics to navigate a minefield of potential claims of antisemitism. I can think of no other country that even attempts to limit criticism by outsiders.
Even without the provisions relating to Israel, the IHRA definition of antisemitism seems overly broad and unnecessary in light of the discrimination that many people have faced. In the United States our record is spotty at best and many immigrant groups have faced discrimination by the legal system, by the actions of our public institutions and by the behavior of other Americans. Notably, and at different times, Asians and Jews have been affected by quota systems in our universities, the Chinese were exploited and then deported under the exclusion acts, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps during World War II and our president has accused Mexican Americans of being rapists.
And then, no group has suffered the systemic racism that has been directed against African Americans. Not only do we have few laws that begin to atone for their continued exploitation and incarceration, we don’t even have a word in common usage that refers specifically to discrimination against African Americans. There is such a word in the dictionary, however, and it is ‘antiblack.’
Since the United States has not treated Jews any worse than its other immigrants, it seems odd that the State Department has adopted a specific definition of antisemitism and not of antiblackness. Borrowing from the IHRA definition of antisemitism, I would like to offer the following, modeled on the IHRA definition, to fill this void. Other groups may wish to follow suit. Words from the IHRA definition are italicized.
Antiblackness is a certain perception of Blacks, which may be expressed as hatred toward Blacks. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antiblackness are directed toward Black or non-Black individuals and/or their property, toward Black community institutions and religious facilities, especially the targeting of Black churches.
Two examples: the Charleston church shooting, in which the killer argued that he didn’t deserve the death penalty since the nine people he killed were Black; or the killing of four young girls at a church in Birmingham, Alabama after which the killers were protected by the federal government for at least 15 years.
Manifestations might include the targeting of majority black countries, conceived as merely a collection of Blacks. (e.g., calling them shitholes) However, criticism of such countries similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antiblack. So, if you wanted to criticize apartheid South Africa, you must find another apartheid country to criticize in the same way. (Israel?)
Antiblackness frequently charges Blacks with conspiring to harm whites, and it is often used to blame Blacks for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. For example, the negative stereotypes of Blacks as portrayed in film, the press, etc. as people who are shiftless, crime seeking, etc.
Contemporary examples of antiblackness in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming or mass incarceration of Blacks for crimes that are routinely charged only against Blacks, such as vagrancy, in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of race.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Blacks as Blacks such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about the advantages of slavery over life in Africa, the myth that more Blacks than others are on death row, or that Blacks do not contribute to society. Included in this is the theft by artists of the intellectual property of Blacks, under the antiblack assumption that Blacks will not respond. For example, The Beach Boys ‘ ripoff of Chuck Berry in Surfing USA (Sweet Little Sixteen) or George Harrison’s theft of My Sweet Lord from Ronnie Mack (He’s So Fine).
• Accusing Blacks as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by any Black person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Blacks, this would include blaming Blacks for the deterioration of a neighborhood.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms or intentionality of the enslavement of Black people at the hands of the United States, and the financial gain from such labor enjoyed by the South and its accomplices in the North, as well as in a number of European countries who continued to finance the South during the Civil War. Included in this is the de facto slavery of Black people that continued in many states after slavery was abolished, including using convicts guilty of dubious crimes, such as loitering, as ‘free’ labor in factories, mines and other businesses or the sharecropping system that left Blacks unable to exercise the right to move or to realize any financial gain from their own labor.
• Accusing Blacks as a people of inventing or exaggerating slavery or the millions of deaths that occurred in the brutal passage of Blacks from Africa to various parts of the ‘new world.’
• Accusing Black citizens of not being loyal to the United States when they protest the treatment of Blacks in the United States.
• Denying Blacks their right to choose leaders, either as in the past through poll taxes or absurd history tests, or as in the present through voter id laws or by gerrymandering of voting districts. The paragraph in the IHRA definition refers to denying Jews the right to self determination by claiming Israel is a racist endeavor. Two points here: if Israel is the collective state of the Jews then we are not talking about self-determination but policies set by some number of Jews and Israel is a racist endeavor in that only those who are racially qualified may become citizens and others may not.
• Applying double standards by requiring of Blacks behavior not expected or demanded of other people such as submission to stop and frisk policies.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antiblackness (e.g., unhinged accusations of rape or use of Aunt Jemima or Little Black Sambo) to characterize Blacks.
• The next IHRA paragraph prohibits drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, but since Gaza resembles a mega Warsaw ghetto I’m not sure why this is not simply an observation.
•Profiling Blacks as lawbreakers by targeting them in ‘random’ traffic stops.
•Failure to provide Black communities with decent infrastructure similar to that enjoyed by nearby white communities (Flint water).
•Using Blacks purely for financial gain such as for medical experiments deemed too risky for the general public, or incarcerating a vastly disproportionate number of Blacks in for profit private prisons.
Of course, Blacks are not the only group facing discrimination. Hispanics, Native Americans and others may wish to get into this speech inhibiting game. Then they too can decide how and for what they may be criticized. Or we could prohibit racism against any subgroup by defining racism as Unesco has, as “a theory of races hierarchy which argues that the superior race should be preserved and should dominate the others. Racism can also be an unfair attitude towards another ethnic group. Finally, racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group.”
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/8/16/antisemitism-and-antiblackness
ReplyAnother update
Antisemitism and Antiblackness
Great Britain’s Labour Party has been wrestling with allegations of antisemitism. One of the charges is that although the Labour party adopted The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) ‘s definition (often incorrectly identified as the ‘international’ definition) of antisemitism, Labour did not include in its definition all of the examples listed in the IHRA definition. Specifically, Labour omitted the provisions that define criticism of Israel as antisemitism.
Israel may claim that it wants to be a state like all others, but it vigorously campaigns to limit criticism of its expansionist policies by forcing critics to navigate a minefield of potential claims of antisemitism. I can think of no other country that even attempts to limit criticism by outsiders.
Even without the provisions relating to Israel, the IHRA definition of antisemitism seems overly broad and unnecessary in light of the discrimination that many people have faced. In the United States our record is spotty at best and many immigrant groups have faced discrimination by the legal system, by the actions of our public institutions and by the behavior of other Americans. Notably, and at different times, Asians and Jews have been affected by quota systems in our universities, the Chinese were exploited and then deported under the exclusion acts, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps during World War II and our president has accused Mexican Americans of being rapists.
And then, no group has suffered the systemic racism that has been directed against African Americans. Not only do we have few laws that begin to atone for their continued exploitation and incarceration, we don’t even have a word in common usage that refers specifically to discrimination against African Americans. There is such a word in the dictionary, however, and it is ‘antiblack.’
Since the United States has not treated Jews any worse than its other immigrants, it seems odd that the State Department has adopted a specific definition of antisemitism and not of antiblackness. Borrowing from the IHRA definition of antisemitism, I would like to offer the following, modeled on the IHRA definition, to fill this void. Other groups may wish to follow suit. Words from the IHRA definition are italicized.
Antiblackness is a certain perception of Blacks, which may be expressed as hatred toward Blacks. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antiblackness are directed toward Black or non-Black individuals and/or their property, toward Black community institutions and religious facilities, especially the targeting of Black churches.
Two examples: the Charleston church shooting, in which the killer argued that he didn’t deserve the death penalty since the nine people he killed were Black; or the killing of four young girls at a church in Birmingham, Alabama after which the killers were protected by the federal government for at least 15 years.
Manifestations might include the targeting of majority black countries, conceived as merely a collection of Blacks. (e.g., calling them shitholes) However, criticism of such countries similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antiblack. So, if you wanted to criticize apartheid South Africa, you must find another apartheid country to criticize in the same way. (Israel?)
Antiblackness frequently charges Blacks with conspiring to harm whites, and it is often used to blame Blacks for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. For example, the negative stereotypes of Blacks as portrayed in film, the press, etc. as people who are shiftless, crime seeking, etc.
Contemporary examples of antiblackness in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming or mass incarceration of Blacks for crimes that are routinely charged only against Blacks, such as vagrancy, in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of race.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Blacks as Blacks such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about the advantages of slavery over life in Africa, the myth that more Blacks than others are on death row, or that Blacks do not contribute to society. Included in this is the theft by artists of the intellectual property of Blacks, under the antiblack assumption that Blacks will not respond. For example, The Beach Boys ‘ ripoff of Chuck Berry in Surfing USA (Sweet Little Sixteen) or George Harrison’s theft of My Sweet Lord from Ronnie Mack (He’s So Fine).
• Accusing Blacks as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by any Black person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Blacks, this would include blaming Blacks for the deterioration of a neighborhood.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms or intentionality of the enslavement of Black people at the hands of the United States, and the financial gain from such labor enjoyed by the South and its accomplices in the North, as well as in a number of European countries who continued to finance the South during the Civil War. Included in this is the de facto slavery of Black people that continued in many states after slavery was abolished, including using convicts guilty of dubious crimes, such as loitering, as ‘free’ labor in factories, mines and other businesses or the sharecropping system that left Blacks unable to exercise the right to move or to realize any financial gain from their own labor.
• Accusing Blacks as a people of inventing or exaggerating slavery or the millions of deaths that occurred in the brutal passage of Blacks from Africa to various parts of the ‘new world.’
• Accusing Black citizens of not being loyal to the United States when they protest the treatment of Blacks in the United States.
• Denying Blacks their right to choose leaders, either as in the past through poll taxes or absurd history tests, or as in the present through voter id laws or by gerrymandering of voting districts. The paragraph in the IHRA definition refers to denying Jews the right to self determination by claiming Israel is a racist endeavor. Two points here: if Israel is the collective state of the Jews then we are not talking about self-determination but policies set by some number of Jews and Israel is a racist endeavor in that only those who are racially qualified may become citizens and others may not.
• Applying double standards by requiring of Blacks behavior not expected or demanded of other people such as submission to stop and frisk policies.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antiblackness (e.g., unhinged accusations of rape or use of Aunt Jemima or Little Black Sambo) to characterize Blacks.
• The next IHRA paragraph prohibits drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, but since Gaza resembles a mega Warsaw ghetto I’m not sure why this is not simply an observation.
•Profiling Blacks as lawbreakers by targeting them in ‘random’ traffic stops.
•Failure to provide Black communities with decent infrastructure similar to that enjoyed by nearby white communities (Flint water).
•Using Blacks purely for financial gain such as for medical experiments deemed too risky for the general public, or incarcerating a vastly disproportionate number of Blacks in for profit private prisons.
Of course, Blacks are not the only group facing discrimination. Hispanics, Native Americans and others may wish to get into this speech inhibiting game. Then they too can decide how and for what they may be criticized. Or we could prohibit racism against any subgroup by defining racism as Unesco has, as “a theory of races hierarchy which argues that the superior race should be preserved and should dominate the others. Racism can also be an unfair attitude towards another ethnic group. Finally, racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group.”
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/8/16/antisemitism-and-antiblackness
manofIslam
08-17-2018, 09:04 PM
Yes; I think, by far, the best thing that we Muslims can do, is to pray to Allah (SWT) about all of this; Sadly, our Ummah is not in a good state, and so I think we all need to get back to basics again: Performing our Salat 5 times a day; Reading The Holy Qur'an; Reading and following the Sunnah of our Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by reading the Hadith; and avoiding what is Haram; and by treating our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters with respect; So the first step is to strengthen ourselves and our Ummah!
Replyسيف الله
08-18-2018, 08:57 AM
Salaam
Another update
THE CHIMERA OF BRITISH ANTI-SEMITISM, AND HOW NOT TO FIGHT IT IF IT WERE REAL
The current hysteria engulfing the British Labour Party resolves itself into a pair of interrelated, if discrete, premises: Anti-Semitism in British society at large and the Labour Party in particular have reached crisis proportions. If neither of these premises can be sustained, then the hysteria is a fabrication. In fact, no evidence has been adduced to substantiate either of them; on the contrary, all the evidence points in the opposite direction. The rational conclusion is that the brouhaha is a calculated hoax—dare it be said, plot?—to oust Jeremy Corbyn and the principled leftist politics he represents from British public life. But even if the allegations were true, the solution would still not be to curb freedom of thought in the Labour Party. At its worthiest, the Left-Liberal tradition has attached a unique, primordial value to Truth; but Truth cannot be attained if dissentients, however obnoxious, are silenced. Given the fraught history of anti-Semitism, on the one hand, and its crude manipulation by Jewish elites, on the other, an objective, dispassionate assessment could appear beyond reach. Still, it must be attempted. The prospect of a historic victory for the Left might otherwise be sabotaged as, thus far, Corbyn’s supporters, whether it be from fear, calculation, or political correctness, dare not speak the name of the evil that is afoot.
The degree of anti-Semitism infecting British society has been the subject of numerous polls over a sustained period of time. These surveys have uniformly, consistently, and unambiguously concluded that anti-Semitism (1) has long been a marginal phenomenon in British society, infecting under 10 percent of the population, (2) is far less salient than hostility to other British minorities, and (3) is less pronounced in the UK than almost anywhere else in Europe. One might suppose that settled matters. But in 2017 the British Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) published a study that purportedly refined conventional wisdom by measuring the “elasticity” of anti-Semitism: that is, not just the percentage of confirmed anti-Semites, but also the prevalence of stereotypes that stigmatize Jews.[1] It found that, whereas a mere 2-5 percent of the British population can be reckoned anti-Semites, fully 30 percent harbor at least one anti-Semitic stereotype.
Before parsing the study’s data, a couple of truisms warrant recalling. First, a generalization is something that is held to be generally true; it evidently allows for exceptions. Although Engels the mill-owner generously subsidized his impecunious comrade, it didn’t prevent Marx from generalizing about capitalist “vampires.” Were it not for the heuristic value of broad generalizations, the discipline of sociology would have to close up shop. Its mandate is to map and predict the behavior, on the whole and in the main, of the multitudinous groups and subgroups crosscutting society. Second, every national/ethnic group is subject to generalizations: “The French are,” “The Italians are,” “The Germans are,” . . . These generalizations range from more to less flattering to downright vicious, from more to less valid to outright false. It also ought to be obvious that if most positive generalizations raise no hackles, then neither should most negative ones. The fact that stereotypes of Jews run the full gamut is scarcely cause for alarm; it would be surprising were it otherwise.
In fact, the JPR does not sound an alarm. Whereas some anti-Semitism-mongers have latched onto its findings, the researchers themselves sought to answer a different question: “Why [do] the levels of anxiety found within the UK Jewish population about the scale of contemporary antisemitism appear to be so far out of sync with the low levels of antisemitic sentiment observed among the general UK population?”[2] The study posits that, if British Jews express deep anxiety even as anti-Semites are going the way of the dodo, then it springs from the wider “diffusion” in British society of anti-Semitic stereotypes: “This [diffusion] goes a considerable way towards explaining contemporary Jewish concerns about antisemitism.”[3] But isn’t that a hasty inference? If residents of Salem, Massachusetts, experienced deep anxiety about witches; if Americans experienced deep anxiety about Communists; if White southerners experienced deep anxiety about Black rapists; if Germans experienced deep anxiety about a “Judeo-Bolshevik” conspiracy; and if, for that matter, Christians experienced deep anxiety about Jewish ritual child-murderers—if an anxiety is widespread, surely it doesn’t necessarily, or even probably, follow that it is a rational fear. It could just as plausibly have been induced by powerful social forces standing to benefit from a deliberately contrived paranoia. Or, in the case at hand, it could spring from Jewish hypersensitivity—in light of historical experience wholly understandable—to a phantom anti-Semitism (see Woody Allen’s Annie Hall).
The JPR study compiles a seven-item roster of stereotypes. If they are designated anti-Semitic, according to the researchers, that’s because Jews find them hurtful: “Some ideas are known to resonate with Jews as antisemitic, and this study adopts a Jewish perspective on what constitutes antisemitism as its starting point.”[4] But a generalization can plainly be both hurtful and true, as in truth is often a bitter pill to swallow. If the hurtful generalization is true, then—inasmuch as the epithet anti-Semitic signals an irrational animus—it cannot be anti-Semitic. Some 20 years ago, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen wrote a book purporting that the Nazi holocaust originated in an ingrained German predisposition to murder Jews. Were it true, his thesis could not fairly be labeled anti-Teutonic: “There are no prima facie grounds for dismissing Goldhagen’s thesis,” this writer observed at the time. “It is not intrinsically racist or otherwise illegitimate. There is no obvious reason why a culture can’t be fanatically consumed by hatred.”[5] Even as Germans might recoil at this depiction of them, indeed, find it singularly offensive, if the facts vindicated it, then it couldn’t be said to be rooted in irrational malice. As it happened, the evidence adduced by Goldhagen didn’t support his thesis, but that’s a separate matter.
Consider now several of the stereotypes assembled in the JPR study to gauge the prevalence of British anti-Semitism:
Jews think they are better than other people. Between their secular success, on the one hand, and their theological “chosenness,” on the other, Jews themselves believe in their group superiority. Isn’t that why they kvell over the Jewish pedigree of the seminal figures of modernity—Marx, Einstein, and Freud—as well as 20 percent of Nobel laureates? What a Jewish child inherits is “no body of law, no body of learning, and no language, and finally, no Lord,” eminent Jewish novelist Philip Roth once observed, “but a kind of psychology: and the psychology can be translated in three words—‘Jews are better.’” A prominent Jewish-American scholar shamelessly gushed: “Jews would have been less than human had they eschewed any notion of superiority altogether,” and “it is extraordinarily difficult for American Jews to expunge the sense of superiority altogether, however much they may try to suppress it.”[6] A popular American publication, in an article under the headline “Are Jews Smarter?,” pondered the genetic evidence.[7] Lest this be pigeonholed as a peculiarly American-Jewish conceit, prominent Anglo-Jewish author Howard Jacobson speculates that at the heart of anti-Semitism lies Gentile ressentiment of Jewish smarts: “Freud argues that Jews . . . over-evolved their mental and intellectual side. . . . We all have our arrogances and that is a Jewish arrogance. But the idea of the Jew as over-evolved mentally is one of the reasons humanity is in a constant argument with us. We gave the world ethics, morals, the mental life, for which the physical world will never forgive us.”[8] If it’s anti-Semitism to believe that “Jews think they are better than other people,” then most Jews would appear to be infected by this virus.
Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes. Voluble Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban is supposed to have quipped “There’s no business like Shoah business.” But when this writer published a little book in 2000 entitled The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering,[9] it evoked a torrent of ad hominem attacks. “It is perhaps too easy to write off a critic like Finkelstein as a self-hating Jew,” Jonathan Freedland opined in the Guardian, but that didn’t deter him from traversing this squalid path: “Finkelstein does the anti-Semites’ work for them,” indeed, is “closer to the people who created the Holocaust than to those who suffered in it.”[10] Unsurprisingly, Freedland is now among those leading the charge against Corbyn’s alleged anti-Semitism. Be that as it may, nearly two decades have elapsed since the book’s hostile reception, and by now its argument no longer even raises eyebrows as it has passed into a cliché. Whether it be to justify another war of aggression or another massacre of civilians, whether it be to market another schlock Holocaust film or another schlock Holocaust novel, Jews have not hesitated—on the contrary—to wrap themselves in the sacred mantle of Jewish martyrdom. A book by former speaker of the Israeli parliament Avraham Burg decrying Israel’s fixation on the Holocaust casually refers to “the Shoah industry.” It “converts piercing pain into hollowness and kitsch,” Burg observes, and extenuates Israeli crimes: “American Jews, like Israelis, are . . . raising the Shoah banner high to the sky and exploiting it politically . . . . All is compared to the Shoah, dwarfed by the Shoah, and therefore all is allowed—be it fences, sieges . . . food and water deprivation. . . . All is permitted because we have been through the Shoah and you will not tell us how to behave.”[11] Is Burg guilty of anti-Semitism?
Jews have too much power in Britain. The three richest Brits are Jewish.[12] Jews comprise only .5 percent of the population but fully 20 percent of the 100 richest Brits.[13] Relative both to the general population and to other ethno-religious groups, British Jews are in the aggregate disproportionately wealthy, educated, and professionally successful.[14] These data track closely with the picture elsewhere. Jews comprise only 2 percent of the US population but fully 30 percent of the 100 richest Americans, while Jews enjoy the highest household income among religious groups.[15] Jews comprise less than .2 percent of the world’s population but, of the world’s 200 richest people, fully 20 percent are Jewish.[16] Jews are incomparably organized as they have created a plethora of interlocking, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing communal and defense organizations that operate in both the domestic and international arenas. In many countries, not least the US and the UK, Jews occupy strategic positions in the entertainment industry, the arts, publishing, journals of opinion, the academy, the legal profession, and government.
“Jews are represented in Britain in numbers that are many times their proportion of the population,” British-Israeli journalist Anshel Pfeffer notes, “in both Houses of Parliament, on the Sunday Times Rich List, in media, academia, professions, and just about every walk of public life.”[17] The wonder would be if these raw data didn’t translate into outsized Jewish political power. The Israel-based Jewish People Policy Planning Institute rhapsodizes that “The Jewish People today is at a historical zenith of wealth creation” and “has never been as powerful as now.”[18] It is certainly legitimate to query the amplitude of this political power and whether it has been exaggerated,[19] but it cannot be right to deny (or suppress) critical socioeconomic facts. When virtually every member of the US Congress acts like a broken Jack-in-the-Box, as they give an Israeli head of state, who has barged into the Capitol in brazen and obnoxious defiance of the sitting US president, one standing ovation after another, surely it is fair to ask: What the hell is going on here?[20] Were it not for the outsized power of British Jews, it’s hard to conceive that British society would be interminably chasing after a hobgoblin. True, although fighting anti-Semitism is the rallying cry, a broad array of powerful entrenched social forces, acting on not-so-hidden agendas of their own, have coalesced around this putative cause.
It cannot be gainsaid, however, that Jewish organizations form the poisoned tip of this spear. It might still be asked, But is this “too much” power? Consider these facts. Jeremy Corbyn is the democratically elected head of the Labour Party. His ascendancy vastly expanded and galvanized the party’s ranks. Corbyn has devoted a lifetime to fighting racism; like eponymous labor organizer Joe Hill, where workers strike and organize, it’s there you’ll find Jeremy Corbyn. By British and even global leadership standards, he cuts a saintly figure. On the opposite side, mostly unelected Jewish bodies[21] have dragged Corbyn’s name through the mud, slandering and defaming him. They have refused to meet with Corbyn, even as he has repeatedly extended olive branches and offered substantive compromises.[22] Instead they issue take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums. As it happens, Jews overwhelmingly do not support Labour, even when the head of the party list is Jewish (Ed Miliband in 2015). Nonetheless, these pious-cum-pompous communal leaders do not find it unseemly or even amiss to dictate from afar and from above internal Labour policy. This writer’s late mother used to muse, “It’s no accident that Jews invented the word chutzpah.” The transparent motive behind this cynical campaign is to demonize Corbyn, not because he’s a “----ing anti-Semite,” but because he’s a principled champion of Palestinian rights.
However, Corbyn’s candidacy is not just about Palestine or even the British laboring classes. It’s a beacon for the homeless, the hungry, and the hopeless, the despised, the downtrodden, and the destitute everywhere. If Corbyn’s traducers succeed, the glimmer of possibility he has held out will be snuffed out by a gang of moral blackmailers and extortionists. Is it anti-Semitism to believe that “Jews have too much power in Britain”—or is it just plain common sense? (It is, to be sure, a question apart and not one amenable to simple solution how to rectify this power inequity while not impinging on anyone’s democratic rights.) Still, isn’t it anti-Semitic to generalize that “Jews” have abused their power? But even granting that a portion have been manipulated or duped, it certainly appears as if British Jews in general support the anti-Corbyn juggernaut. If this indeed is a misapprehension, whose fault is it? The tacit message of the unprecedented joint editorial on the front page of the major Jewish periodicals was: British Jews are united—Corbyn must go! Is it anti-Semitic to take these Jewish organizations at their word?
The upshot is, the JPR study does not prove the “elasticity” of anti-Semitism in British society. A couple of the incendiary propositions it tests do arguably indicate anti-Semitism—“The Holocaust is a myth,” “The Holocaust has been exaggerated”—but only an infinitesimal portion of Brits (2 and 4 percent, respectively) subscribe to them. Anti-Semitism of course exists in British society but the JPR has stretched the evidence beyond the snapping point. There’s no ground to doubt the conventional polling data that put its incidence at under 10 percent of British society.
Even if the JPR study withstood scrutiny, it still wouldn’t prove that anti-Semitism threatens British Jews. Amidst the nauseating nonstop spectacle of solipsistic, narcissistic, self-pitying navel-gazing, a reality check is in order. Were popular stereotypes plotted along a spectrum from benign to malignant, most anti-Semitic ones would fall near the benign end whereas those of truly oppressed minorities would cluster at the opposite end. Yes, Jews must endure the reputation of being stingy, pushy, and clannish—but Muslims are profiled as terrorists and misogynists, Blacks are despised as chronically lazy and genetically stupid, and Roma/Sinti are loathed as dirty beggars and thieves. Nor do Jews suffer the losses attending actual victimhood. How many Jews qua Jews have been refused a job or flat? How many Jews have been shot dead by police or railroaded into jail? Whereas being Black or Muslim closes doors, being Jewish opens them.
If whites occupying seats of power discriminate in favor of other whites, and men occupying seats of power discriminate in favor of other men, it would be surprising if largely successful Jews didn’t discriminate in favor of other Jews. Not only is it no longer a social liability to be Jewish, it even carries social cachet. Whereas it once was a step up for a Jew to marry into a ruling elite family, it now appears to be a step up for the ruling elite to marry into a Jewish family. Isn’t it a straw in the wind that both President Bill Clinton’s pride and joy Chelsea and President Donald Trump’s pride and joy Ivanka married Jews? Making the rounds of the British talk show circuit, self-anointed authority Barnaby Raine grimaces that “there’s a very, very serious problem of antisemitism across British society.” (Except for the fact that he is a “proud British Jew” and was once called a “kike,” it’s hard to make out the basis for his confident pronunciamentos.) Bertrand Russell once wrote of Trotsky, “He is very good-looking, with admirable wavy hair; one feels he would be irresistible to women.” Something similar can be said, more or less, of Barnaby the Bolshevik—or, at any rate, of the ideal to which he aspires. The question then comes down to this: Would he prefer to be ugly and bald or to be Jewish in Britain today? It’s not a trivial or tongue-in-cheek query.
The fact is, personally as well as professionally, these physical stigmata are ten thousand times heavier a cross to bear than to be born a Jew. If the nonproblem of anti-Semitism ranks a “very, very serious problem” in the UK, then the British people are most fortunate. In fact, the Corbyn candidacy would be redundant as they will already have reached the Promised Land.
“Those who cannot remember the past,” George Santayana famously warned, “are condemned to repeat it.” In light of the catastrophe that befell them during World War II, shouldn’t Jews assume and prepare for the worst and can they really be faulted for hypervigilance? Even if the indicators are for the moment faint, still it can’t be denied that it might happen here. If the availability of resources, time, and energy were infinite, such an argument could carry conviction. But they aren’t. “Economy of time,” Marx observed in the Grundrisse, “to this all economy ultimately reduces itself.” Whatever time is expended in one direction means less time expended in other directions.
Can it seriously be contended that, in the face of the multiple domestic and global crises wracking British society—from homelessness, healthcare, and unemployment to Brexit, nuclear proliferation and climate change—anti-Semitism looms large on the list of urgent matters demanding immediate attention; that the finite resources at Britain’s disposal to fight here-and-now matters of life and death should instead be rechanneled to combating nebulous apocalyptic future scenarios? But the truth is, Jewish elites do not for a moment believe that anti-Semitism is a burning issue. If they truly feared that it posed a clear and present danger now or in the foreseeable future, they wouldn’t be shouting from the rooftops that Corbyn was a “----ing anti-Semite.”
For, if the UK was awash with closet anti-Semites, then, logically, broadcasting this accusation would hand Corbyn free publicity as it would be dulcet tones to the ears of potential voters. Far from damaging him, its diffusion could only facilitate Corbyn’s victory and pave the way for a second Holocaust. On the contrary, Jewish organizations know full well that vilifying Corbyn as an anti-Semite would drastically reduce his appeal, as anti-Semitism resonates only among assorted antediluvians, troglodytes, and fruitcakes. In other words, the irrefutable proof that Corbyn’s pursuers don’t believe a word they’re saying is that by labeling him an anti-Semite they hope and expect to isolate him. However, as the accusation is manifestly a red herring, it’s also possible that the current hysteria will pass most people by entirely, not because they are unconcerned by anti-Semitism but because it hardly occurs to them as an issue at all. If the controversy has an effect it will be restricted to exacerbating divisions in the Labour leadership and perhaps also adding to a more general perception that the stories promoted by mainstream media are fake news.
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/08/17/finkelstein-on-corbyn-mania/
ReplyAnother update
THE CHIMERA OF BRITISH ANTI-SEMITISM, AND HOW NOT TO FIGHT IT IF IT WERE REAL
The current hysteria engulfing the British Labour Party resolves itself into a pair of interrelated, if discrete, premises: Anti-Semitism in British society at large and the Labour Party in particular have reached crisis proportions. If neither of these premises can be sustained, then the hysteria is a fabrication. In fact, no evidence has been adduced to substantiate either of them; on the contrary, all the evidence points in the opposite direction. The rational conclusion is that the brouhaha is a calculated hoax—dare it be said, plot?—to oust Jeremy Corbyn and the principled leftist politics he represents from British public life. But even if the allegations were true, the solution would still not be to curb freedom of thought in the Labour Party. At its worthiest, the Left-Liberal tradition has attached a unique, primordial value to Truth; but Truth cannot be attained if dissentients, however obnoxious, are silenced. Given the fraught history of anti-Semitism, on the one hand, and its crude manipulation by Jewish elites, on the other, an objective, dispassionate assessment could appear beyond reach. Still, it must be attempted. The prospect of a historic victory for the Left might otherwise be sabotaged as, thus far, Corbyn’s supporters, whether it be from fear, calculation, or political correctness, dare not speak the name of the evil that is afoot.
The degree of anti-Semitism infecting British society has been the subject of numerous polls over a sustained period of time. These surveys have uniformly, consistently, and unambiguously concluded that anti-Semitism (1) has long been a marginal phenomenon in British society, infecting under 10 percent of the population, (2) is far less salient than hostility to other British minorities, and (3) is less pronounced in the UK than almost anywhere else in Europe. One might suppose that settled matters. But in 2017 the British Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) published a study that purportedly refined conventional wisdom by measuring the “elasticity” of anti-Semitism: that is, not just the percentage of confirmed anti-Semites, but also the prevalence of stereotypes that stigmatize Jews.[1] It found that, whereas a mere 2-5 percent of the British population can be reckoned anti-Semites, fully 30 percent harbor at least one anti-Semitic stereotype.
Before parsing the study’s data, a couple of truisms warrant recalling. First, a generalization is something that is held to be generally true; it evidently allows for exceptions. Although Engels the mill-owner generously subsidized his impecunious comrade, it didn’t prevent Marx from generalizing about capitalist “vampires.” Were it not for the heuristic value of broad generalizations, the discipline of sociology would have to close up shop. Its mandate is to map and predict the behavior, on the whole and in the main, of the multitudinous groups and subgroups crosscutting society. Second, every national/ethnic group is subject to generalizations: “The French are,” “The Italians are,” “The Germans are,” . . . These generalizations range from more to less flattering to downright vicious, from more to less valid to outright false. It also ought to be obvious that if most positive generalizations raise no hackles, then neither should most negative ones. The fact that stereotypes of Jews run the full gamut is scarcely cause for alarm; it would be surprising were it otherwise.
In fact, the JPR does not sound an alarm. Whereas some anti-Semitism-mongers have latched onto its findings, the researchers themselves sought to answer a different question: “Why [do] the levels of anxiety found within the UK Jewish population about the scale of contemporary antisemitism appear to be so far out of sync with the low levels of antisemitic sentiment observed among the general UK population?”[2] The study posits that, if British Jews express deep anxiety even as anti-Semites are going the way of the dodo, then it springs from the wider “diffusion” in British society of anti-Semitic stereotypes: “This [diffusion] goes a considerable way towards explaining contemporary Jewish concerns about antisemitism.”[3] But isn’t that a hasty inference? If residents of Salem, Massachusetts, experienced deep anxiety about witches; if Americans experienced deep anxiety about Communists; if White southerners experienced deep anxiety about Black rapists; if Germans experienced deep anxiety about a “Judeo-Bolshevik” conspiracy; and if, for that matter, Christians experienced deep anxiety about Jewish ritual child-murderers—if an anxiety is widespread, surely it doesn’t necessarily, or even probably, follow that it is a rational fear. It could just as plausibly have been induced by powerful social forces standing to benefit from a deliberately contrived paranoia. Or, in the case at hand, it could spring from Jewish hypersensitivity—in light of historical experience wholly understandable—to a phantom anti-Semitism (see Woody Allen’s Annie Hall).
The JPR study compiles a seven-item roster of stereotypes. If they are designated anti-Semitic, according to the researchers, that’s because Jews find them hurtful: “Some ideas are known to resonate with Jews as antisemitic, and this study adopts a Jewish perspective on what constitutes antisemitism as its starting point.”[4] But a generalization can plainly be both hurtful and true, as in truth is often a bitter pill to swallow. If the hurtful generalization is true, then—inasmuch as the epithet anti-Semitic signals an irrational animus—it cannot be anti-Semitic. Some 20 years ago, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen wrote a book purporting that the Nazi holocaust originated in an ingrained German predisposition to murder Jews. Were it true, his thesis could not fairly be labeled anti-Teutonic: “There are no prima facie grounds for dismissing Goldhagen’s thesis,” this writer observed at the time. “It is not intrinsically racist or otherwise illegitimate. There is no obvious reason why a culture can’t be fanatically consumed by hatred.”[5] Even as Germans might recoil at this depiction of them, indeed, find it singularly offensive, if the facts vindicated it, then it couldn’t be said to be rooted in irrational malice. As it happened, the evidence adduced by Goldhagen didn’t support his thesis, but that’s a separate matter.
Consider now several of the stereotypes assembled in the JPR study to gauge the prevalence of British anti-Semitism:
Jews think they are better than other people. Between their secular success, on the one hand, and their theological “chosenness,” on the other, Jews themselves believe in their group superiority. Isn’t that why they kvell over the Jewish pedigree of the seminal figures of modernity—Marx, Einstein, and Freud—as well as 20 percent of Nobel laureates? What a Jewish child inherits is “no body of law, no body of learning, and no language, and finally, no Lord,” eminent Jewish novelist Philip Roth once observed, “but a kind of psychology: and the psychology can be translated in three words—‘Jews are better.’” A prominent Jewish-American scholar shamelessly gushed: “Jews would have been less than human had they eschewed any notion of superiority altogether,” and “it is extraordinarily difficult for American Jews to expunge the sense of superiority altogether, however much they may try to suppress it.”[6] A popular American publication, in an article under the headline “Are Jews Smarter?,” pondered the genetic evidence.[7] Lest this be pigeonholed as a peculiarly American-Jewish conceit, prominent Anglo-Jewish author Howard Jacobson speculates that at the heart of anti-Semitism lies Gentile ressentiment of Jewish smarts: “Freud argues that Jews . . . over-evolved their mental and intellectual side. . . . We all have our arrogances and that is a Jewish arrogance. But the idea of the Jew as over-evolved mentally is one of the reasons humanity is in a constant argument with us. We gave the world ethics, morals, the mental life, for which the physical world will never forgive us.”[8] If it’s anti-Semitism to believe that “Jews think they are better than other people,” then most Jews would appear to be infected by this virus.
Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes. Voluble Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban is supposed to have quipped “There’s no business like Shoah business.” But when this writer published a little book in 2000 entitled The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering,[9] it evoked a torrent of ad hominem attacks. “It is perhaps too easy to write off a critic like Finkelstein as a self-hating Jew,” Jonathan Freedland opined in the Guardian, but that didn’t deter him from traversing this squalid path: “Finkelstein does the anti-Semites’ work for them,” indeed, is “closer to the people who created the Holocaust than to those who suffered in it.”[10] Unsurprisingly, Freedland is now among those leading the charge against Corbyn’s alleged anti-Semitism. Be that as it may, nearly two decades have elapsed since the book’s hostile reception, and by now its argument no longer even raises eyebrows as it has passed into a cliché. Whether it be to justify another war of aggression or another massacre of civilians, whether it be to market another schlock Holocaust film or another schlock Holocaust novel, Jews have not hesitated—on the contrary—to wrap themselves in the sacred mantle of Jewish martyrdom. A book by former speaker of the Israeli parliament Avraham Burg decrying Israel’s fixation on the Holocaust casually refers to “the Shoah industry.” It “converts piercing pain into hollowness and kitsch,” Burg observes, and extenuates Israeli crimes: “American Jews, like Israelis, are . . . raising the Shoah banner high to the sky and exploiting it politically . . . . All is compared to the Shoah, dwarfed by the Shoah, and therefore all is allowed—be it fences, sieges . . . food and water deprivation. . . . All is permitted because we have been through the Shoah and you will not tell us how to behave.”[11] Is Burg guilty of anti-Semitism?
Jews have too much power in Britain. The three richest Brits are Jewish.[12] Jews comprise only .5 percent of the population but fully 20 percent of the 100 richest Brits.[13] Relative both to the general population and to other ethno-religious groups, British Jews are in the aggregate disproportionately wealthy, educated, and professionally successful.[14] These data track closely with the picture elsewhere. Jews comprise only 2 percent of the US population but fully 30 percent of the 100 richest Americans, while Jews enjoy the highest household income among religious groups.[15] Jews comprise less than .2 percent of the world’s population but, of the world’s 200 richest people, fully 20 percent are Jewish.[16] Jews are incomparably organized as they have created a plethora of interlocking, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing communal and defense organizations that operate in both the domestic and international arenas. In many countries, not least the US and the UK, Jews occupy strategic positions in the entertainment industry, the arts, publishing, journals of opinion, the academy, the legal profession, and government.
“Jews are represented in Britain in numbers that are many times their proportion of the population,” British-Israeli journalist Anshel Pfeffer notes, “in both Houses of Parliament, on the Sunday Times Rich List, in media, academia, professions, and just about every walk of public life.”[17] The wonder would be if these raw data didn’t translate into outsized Jewish political power. The Israel-based Jewish People Policy Planning Institute rhapsodizes that “The Jewish People today is at a historical zenith of wealth creation” and “has never been as powerful as now.”[18] It is certainly legitimate to query the amplitude of this political power and whether it has been exaggerated,[19] but it cannot be right to deny (or suppress) critical socioeconomic facts. When virtually every member of the US Congress acts like a broken Jack-in-the-Box, as they give an Israeli head of state, who has barged into the Capitol in brazen and obnoxious defiance of the sitting US president, one standing ovation after another, surely it is fair to ask: What the hell is going on here?[20] Were it not for the outsized power of British Jews, it’s hard to conceive that British society would be interminably chasing after a hobgoblin. True, although fighting anti-Semitism is the rallying cry, a broad array of powerful entrenched social forces, acting on not-so-hidden agendas of their own, have coalesced around this putative cause.
It cannot be gainsaid, however, that Jewish organizations form the poisoned tip of this spear. It might still be asked, But is this “too much” power? Consider these facts. Jeremy Corbyn is the democratically elected head of the Labour Party. His ascendancy vastly expanded and galvanized the party’s ranks. Corbyn has devoted a lifetime to fighting racism; like eponymous labor organizer Joe Hill, where workers strike and organize, it’s there you’ll find Jeremy Corbyn. By British and even global leadership standards, he cuts a saintly figure. On the opposite side, mostly unelected Jewish bodies[21] have dragged Corbyn’s name through the mud, slandering and defaming him. They have refused to meet with Corbyn, even as he has repeatedly extended olive branches and offered substantive compromises.[22] Instead they issue take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums. As it happens, Jews overwhelmingly do not support Labour, even when the head of the party list is Jewish (Ed Miliband in 2015). Nonetheless, these pious-cum-pompous communal leaders do not find it unseemly or even amiss to dictate from afar and from above internal Labour policy. This writer’s late mother used to muse, “It’s no accident that Jews invented the word chutzpah.” The transparent motive behind this cynical campaign is to demonize Corbyn, not because he’s a “----ing anti-Semite,” but because he’s a principled champion of Palestinian rights.
However, Corbyn’s candidacy is not just about Palestine or even the British laboring classes. It’s a beacon for the homeless, the hungry, and the hopeless, the despised, the downtrodden, and the destitute everywhere. If Corbyn’s traducers succeed, the glimmer of possibility he has held out will be snuffed out by a gang of moral blackmailers and extortionists. Is it anti-Semitism to believe that “Jews have too much power in Britain”—or is it just plain common sense? (It is, to be sure, a question apart and not one amenable to simple solution how to rectify this power inequity while not impinging on anyone’s democratic rights.) Still, isn’t it anti-Semitic to generalize that “Jews” have abused their power? But even granting that a portion have been manipulated or duped, it certainly appears as if British Jews in general support the anti-Corbyn juggernaut. If this indeed is a misapprehension, whose fault is it? The tacit message of the unprecedented joint editorial on the front page of the major Jewish periodicals was: British Jews are united—Corbyn must go! Is it anti-Semitic to take these Jewish organizations at their word?
The upshot is, the JPR study does not prove the “elasticity” of anti-Semitism in British society. A couple of the incendiary propositions it tests do arguably indicate anti-Semitism—“The Holocaust is a myth,” “The Holocaust has been exaggerated”—but only an infinitesimal portion of Brits (2 and 4 percent, respectively) subscribe to them. Anti-Semitism of course exists in British society but the JPR has stretched the evidence beyond the snapping point. There’s no ground to doubt the conventional polling data that put its incidence at under 10 percent of British society.
Even if the JPR study withstood scrutiny, it still wouldn’t prove that anti-Semitism threatens British Jews. Amidst the nauseating nonstop spectacle of solipsistic, narcissistic, self-pitying navel-gazing, a reality check is in order. Were popular stereotypes plotted along a spectrum from benign to malignant, most anti-Semitic ones would fall near the benign end whereas those of truly oppressed minorities would cluster at the opposite end. Yes, Jews must endure the reputation of being stingy, pushy, and clannish—but Muslims are profiled as terrorists and misogynists, Blacks are despised as chronically lazy and genetically stupid, and Roma/Sinti are loathed as dirty beggars and thieves. Nor do Jews suffer the losses attending actual victimhood. How many Jews qua Jews have been refused a job or flat? How many Jews have been shot dead by police or railroaded into jail? Whereas being Black or Muslim closes doors, being Jewish opens them.
If whites occupying seats of power discriminate in favor of other whites, and men occupying seats of power discriminate in favor of other men, it would be surprising if largely successful Jews didn’t discriminate in favor of other Jews. Not only is it no longer a social liability to be Jewish, it even carries social cachet. Whereas it once was a step up for a Jew to marry into a ruling elite family, it now appears to be a step up for the ruling elite to marry into a Jewish family. Isn’t it a straw in the wind that both President Bill Clinton’s pride and joy Chelsea and President Donald Trump’s pride and joy Ivanka married Jews? Making the rounds of the British talk show circuit, self-anointed authority Barnaby Raine grimaces that “there’s a very, very serious problem of antisemitism across British society.” (Except for the fact that he is a “proud British Jew” and was once called a “kike,” it’s hard to make out the basis for his confident pronunciamentos.) Bertrand Russell once wrote of Trotsky, “He is very good-looking, with admirable wavy hair; one feels he would be irresistible to women.” Something similar can be said, more or less, of Barnaby the Bolshevik—or, at any rate, of the ideal to which he aspires. The question then comes down to this: Would he prefer to be ugly and bald or to be Jewish in Britain today? It’s not a trivial or tongue-in-cheek query.
The fact is, personally as well as professionally, these physical stigmata are ten thousand times heavier a cross to bear than to be born a Jew. If the nonproblem of anti-Semitism ranks a “very, very serious problem” in the UK, then the British people are most fortunate. In fact, the Corbyn candidacy would be redundant as they will already have reached the Promised Land.
“Those who cannot remember the past,” George Santayana famously warned, “are condemned to repeat it.” In light of the catastrophe that befell them during World War II, shouldn’t Jews assume and prepare for the worst and can they really be faulted for hypervigilance? Even if the indicators are for the moment faint, still it can’t be denied that it might happen here. If the availability of resources, time, and energy were infinite, such an argument could carry conviction. But they aren’t. “Economy of time,” Marx observed in the Grundrisse, “to this all economy ultimately reduces itself.” Whatever time is expended in one direction means less time expended in other directions.
Can it seriously be contended that, in the face of the multiple domestic and global crises wracking British society—from homelessness, healthcare, and unemployment to Brexit, nuclear proliferation and climate change—anti-Semitism looms large on the list of urgent matters demanding immediate attention; that the finite resources at Britain’s disposal to fight here-and-now matters of life and death should instead be rechanneled to combating nebulous apocalyptic future scenarios? But the truth is, Jewish elites do not for a moment believe that anti-Semitism is a burning issue. If they truly feared that it posed a clear and present danger now or in the foreseeable future, they wouldn’t be shouting from the rooftops that Corbyn was a “----ing anti-Semite.”
For, if the UK was awash with closet anti-Semites, then, logically, broadcasting this accusation would hand Corbyn free publicity as it would be dulcet tones to the ears of potential voters. Far from damaging him, its diffusion could only facilitate Corbyn’s victory and pave the way for a second Holocaust. On the contrary, Jewish organizations know full well that vilifying Corbyn as an anti-Semite would drastically reduce his appeal, as anti-Semitism resonates only among assorted antediluvians, troglodytes, and fruitcakes. In other words, the irrefutable proof that Corbyn’s pursuers don’t believe a word they’re saying is that by labeling him an anti-Semite they hope and expect to isolate him. However, as the accusation is manifestly a red herring, it’s also possible that the current hysteria will pass most people by entirely, not because they are unconcerned by anti-Semitism but because it hardly occurs to them as an issue at all. If the controversy has an effect it will be restricted to exacerbating divisions in the Labour leadership and perhaps also adding to a more general perception that the stories promoted by mainstream media are fake news.
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/08/17/finkelstein-on-corbyn-mania/
سيف الله
08-18-2018, 08:05 PM
Salaam
Another update, background history
Blurb
Norman Finkelstein joins Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird to discuss the Origins of the Arab Israeli Conflict (and Jared Kushner) on Episode 97 of the Scottish Liberty Podcast.
ReplyAnother update, background history
Blurb
Norman Finkelstein joins Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird to discuss the Origins of the Arab Israeli Conflict (and Jared Kushner) on Episode 97 of the Scottish Liberty Podcast.
سيف الله
08-21-2018, 09:06 PM
Salaam
Another update
Israel’s Intention to Annex the West Bank Revealed
Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, warned on Monday that the Israeli government’s response to the petition, filed to the Israeli Supreme Court, signals Israel’s intention to proceed with annexation of the occupied West Bank.
The Israeli government submitted legal materials to the Israeli Supreme Court declaring that “the Knesset (Israeli parliament) is permitted to legislate laws everywhere in the world and it is authorized to violate the sovereignty of foreign countries via legislation that would be applied to events occurring in their territories.”
This statement was declared on August 7th in a written response, which the Israeli government had submitted to the Israeli Supreme Court, regarding to the petition against the Settlement Regularization Law filed by Adalah and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza on behalf of 17 local Palestinian authorities in the West Bank.
Adalah and fellow petitioners argued that the Israeli Knesset is not permitted to enact and impose laws on territory occupied by Israel. Hence, the Knesset cannot enact laws that annex the West Bank or that violate the rights of Palestinian residents of the West Bank.
The Israeli government’s lawyer, Arnon Harel, wrote in the legal materials submitted to that
“The Knesset is permitted to impose the powers of the military commander of the West Bank region as it sees fit. The Knesset is permitted to define the authorities of the military commander as it sees fit. The authority of the government of Israel to annex any territory or to enter into international conventions derives from its authority as determined by the Knesset.”
Harel concluded “the Knesset is allowed to ignore the directives of international law in any field it desires,” which is a direct violation of international law and international humanitarian law.
In response, Suhad Bishara and Myssana Morany, lawyers of Adalah, who filed the petition against the Settlement Regularization Law, said “the Israeli government’s extremist response has no parallel anywhere in the world. It stands in gross violation of international law and of the United Nations Charter which obligates member states to refrain from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity of other states – including occupied territories. The Israeli government’s extremist position is, in fact, a declaration of its intention to proceed with its annexation of the West Bank.”
The petition was submitted by 17 Palestinian municipalities and three human rights organizations from the West Bank, Israel, and Gaza Strip jointly petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court on February 8th 2017 to cancel the controversial Settlement Regularization Law under the pretext that it violates international humanitarian law and is labeled as unconstitutional.
The Settlement Regularization Law aims to “legalize,” under Israeli law, illegal Israeli settlement outposts, which have been built on private Palestinian land.
The law sets out a new process to legalize about half of Israel’s settlement outposts, as well as about 3,000 additional homes built illegally in settlements, which Israel recognizes as legal. Essentially, this law authorizes a further massive land theft of private Palestinian land by Israel.The European Union and the United Nations strongly condemned the law, and even Israel’s attorney general announced that he would not defend it in court.
The petitioners said “the law not only harms the private property of Palestinians, but is also intended to impinge upon their right to dignity by clarifying – without hesitation – that the interests of the settlements and the Israeli Jewish settlers in the West Bank take priority over the rights of Palestinians and therefore is permitted to dispossess Palestinians from their property.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-intention-to-annex-the-west-bank-revealed/5651305?platform=hootsuite
ReplyAnother update
Israel’s Intention to Annex the West Bank Revealed
Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, warned on Monday that the Israeli government’s response to the petition, filed to the Israeli Supreme Court, signals Israel’s intention to proceed with annexation of the occupied West Bank.
The Israeli government submitted legal materials to the Israeli Supreme Court declaring that “the Knesset (Israeli parliament) is permitted to legislate laws everywhere in the world and it is authorized to violate the sovereignty of foreign countries via legislation that would be applied to events occurring in their territories.”
This statement was declared on August 7th in a written response, which the Israeli government had submitted to the Israeli Supreme Court, regarding to the petition against the Settlement Regularization Law filed by Adalah and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza on behalf of 17 local Palestinian authorities in the West Bank.
Adalah and fellow petitioners argued that the Israeli Knesset is not permitted to enact and impose laws on territory occupied by Israel. Hence, the Knesset cannot enact laws that annex the West Bank or that violate the rights of Palestinian residents of the West Bank.
The Israeli government’s lawyer, Arnon Harel, wrote in the legal materials submitted to that
“The Knesset is permitted to impose the powers of the military commander of the West Bank region as it sees fit. The Knesset is permitted to define the authorities of the military commander as it sees fit. The authority of the government of Israel to annex any territory or to enter into international conventions derives from its authority as determined by the Knesset.”
Harel concluded “the Knesset is allowed to ignore the directives of international law in any field it desires,” which is a direct violation of international law and international humanitarian law.
In response, Suhad Bishara and Myssana Morany, lawyers of Adalah, who filed the petition against the Settlement Regularization Law, said “the Israeli government’s extremist response has no parallel anywhere in the world. It stands in gross violation of international law and of the United Nations Charter which obligates member states to refrain from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity of other states – including occupied territories. The Israeli government’s extremist position is, in fact, a declaration of its intention to proceed with its annexation of the West Bank.”
The petition was submitted by 17 Palestinian municipalities and three human rights organizations from the West Bank, Israel, and Gaza Strip jointly petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court on February 8th 2017 to cancel the controversial Settlement Regularization Law under the pretext that it violates international humanitarian law and is labeled as unconstitutional.
The Settlement Regularization Law aims to “legalize,” under Israeli law, illegal Israeli settlement outposts, which have been built on private Palestinian land.
The law sets out a new process to legalize about half of Israel’s settlement outposts, as well as about 3,000 additional homes built illegally in settlements, which Israel recognizes as legal. Essentially, this law authorizes a further massive land theft of private Palestinian land by Israel.The European Union and the United Nations strongly condemned the law, and even Israel’s attorney general announced that he would not defend it in court.
The petitioners said “the law not only harms the private property of Palestinians, but is also intended to impinge upon their right to dignity by clarifying – without hesitation – that the interests of the settlements and the Israeli Jewish settlers in the West Bank take priority over the rights of Palestinians and therefore is permitted to dispossess Palestinians from their property.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-intention-to-annex-the-west-bank-revealed/5651305?platform=hootsuite
سيف الله
08-22-2018, 05:36 PM
Salaam
Another update on the Corbyn saga.
Blurb
Professor Norman Finkelstein appeared on the Mother of All Talk Shows hosted by George Galloway, to talk about Jeremy Corbyn and the manufactured anti-semitism crisis in the UK Labour Party, Dame Margaret Hodge and Bernie Sanders.
Blurb
Palestinian scholar Ghada Karmi explains that in defending himself from accusations of anti-Semitism, both Jeremy Corbyn - the head of the British Labour Party - and the opposition to him are reneging on their responsibility towards Palestinians
ReplyAnother update on the Corbyn saga.
Blurb
Professor Norman Finkelstein appeared on the Mother of All Talk Shows hosted by George Galloway, to talk about Jeremy Corbyn and the manufactured anti-semitism crisis in the UK Labour Party, Dame Margaret Hodge and Bernie Sanders.
Blurb
Palestinian scholar Ghada Karmi explains that in defending himself from accusations of anti-Semitism, both Jeremy Corbyn - the head of the British Labour Party - and the opposition to him are reneging on their responsibility towards Palestinians
سيف الله
08-23-2018, 08:59 PM
Salaam
Another update
VIDEO: Saudi minister praises Israel for 'allowing' Muslims to attend Hajj
Abdullatif al-Sheikh's comments mark further normalising of relations as he makes veiled attack on Qatar
Saudi Minister of Religious Endowments Abdullatif al-Sheikh praised Israel for "allowing" its Muslim citizens to go on this year's Hajj pilgrimage, a video shared widely online on Tuesday has revealed.
The comments come at a time when Saudi Arabia is thought to be moving closer to Israel, aided by the two countries' increasing alarm over Iranian activity in the region.
Sheikh appears to make a dig at his country's rival, Qatar, too, whose nationals are unable to travel to Mecca and Medina for Islam's holiest pilgrimage because of tensions between the two Gulf states.
"What has caused some surprise is that the state of Israel, which we know a lot about, did not prevent Muslim pilgrims from coming to Saudi Arabia to perform the pilgrimage," Sheikh said in the video, which was quickly shared by the Israeli foreign ministry's Arabic Twitter account.
Translation: All praise to God, Israel has facilitated the journeys of more than 4,000 Muslim citizens of the country to the holy land to perform the Hajj pilgrimage.
The minister is also heard reprimanding a “certain country” for preventing their pilgrims from making the trip to Saudi Arabia.
While Sheikh did not specify the country, users took what he said to be aimed at Qatar, which has been the subject of a year-long siege by a Saudi-led quartet of states.
"I consider this a really great error on the part of whoever did this," Sheikh said.
"No one can be prevented from Hajj, and no one can be forbidden from worshipping God. And whoever has done this deserves punishment from God sooner rather than later."
Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia accused Qatar of blocking registration links for Qatari pilgrims to Mecca.
However, Qatar’s National Human Rights Committee claimed that the Gulf kingdom had shut down an electronic system used to obtain permits for pilgrims from Qatar.
"There is no chance this year for Qatari citizens and residents to travel for Hajj," Abdullah al-Kaabi, the head of the committee, told Reuters.
"Registration of pilgrims from the state of Qatar remains closed, and residents of Qatar cannot be granted visas as there are no diplomatic missions."
Saudi Arabia has maintained that Qatari pilgrims are welcome to travel to the kingdom to perform Hajj on the condition they arrive on any airline other than Qatar Airways. The land border between the two countries has remained closed for this year’s Hajj season, and Riyadh plans to dig a canal along it, effectively detaching Qatar from the Arabian Peninsula.
The 14-month Gulf crisis has pitted Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain against Qatar. The quartet broke off relations with Doha last June, accusing it of supporting Iran and backing terrorist groups - claims Qatar denies.
Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia said it would provide Hajj visas for Qatari nationals on arrival, according to UAE daily the National.
Qatari citizens will be able to obtain permits at the King Abdulaziz airport in Jeddah, in spite of the diplomatic dispute between Riyadh and Doha, the National said.
Saudi Arabia said the Qatari government is using the issue for political ends and it "rejects any effort to politicise the Hajj or drag political differences" into the pilgrimage, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
But three travel agencies in Doha told Reuters they had stopped trying to sell Hajj packages, which can cost as much as $33,000.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are involved in proxy wars, including in Yemen and Syria, and there have been tensions between the two over the Hajj in the past.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/v...hajj-502262187
More on normalisation
ReplyAnother update
VIDEO: Saudi minister praises Israel for 'allowing' Muslims to attend Hajj
Abdullatif al-Sheikh's comments mark further normalising of relations as he makes veiled attack on Qatar
Saudi Minister of Religious Endowments Abdullatif al-Sheikh praised Israel for "allowing" its Muslim citizens to go on this year's Hajj pilgrimage, a video shared widely online on Tuesday has revealed.
The comments come at a time when Saudi Arabia is thought to be moving closer to Israel, aided by the two countries' increasing alarm over Iranian activity in the region.
Sheikh appears to make a dig at his country's rival, Qatar, too, whose nationals are unable to travel to Mecca and Medina for Islam's holiest pilgrimage because of tensions between the two Gulf states.
"What has caused some surprise is that the state of Israel, which we know a lot about, did not prevent Muslim pilgrims from coming to Saudi Arabia to perform the pilgrimage," Sheikh said in the video, which was quickly shared by the Israeli foreign ministry's Arabic Twitter account.
Translation: All praise to God, Israel has facilitated the journeys of more than 4,000 Muslim citizens of the country to the holy land to perform the Hajj pilgrimage.
The minister is also heard reprimanding a “certain country” for preventing their pilgrims from making the trip to Saudi Arabia.
While Sheikh did not specify the country, users took what he said to be aimed at Qatar, which has been the subject of a year-long siege by a Saudi-led quartet of states.
"I consider this a really great error on the part of whoever did this," Sheikh said.
"No one can be prevented from Hajj, and no one can be forbidden from worshipping God. And whoever has done this deserves punishment from God sooner rather than later."
Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia accused Qatar of blocking registration links for Qatari pilgrims to Mecca.
However, Qatar’s National Human Rights Committee claimed that the Gulf kingdom had shut down an electronic system used to obtain permits for pilgrims from Qatar.
"There is no chance this year for Qatari citizens and residents to travel for Hajj," Abdullah al-Kaabi, the head of the committee, told Reuters.
"Registration of pilgrims from the state of Qatar remains closed, and residents of Qatar cannot be granted visas as there are no diplomatic missions."
Saudi Arabia has maintained that Qatari pilgrims are welcome to travel to the kingdom to perform Hajj on the condition they arrive on any airline other than Qatar Airways. The land border between the two countries has remained closed for this year’s Hajj season, and Riyadh plans to dig a canal along it, effectively detaching Qatar from the Arabian Peninsula.
The 14-month Gulf crisis has pitted Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain against Qatar. The quartet broke off relations with Doha last June, accusing it of supporting Iran and backing terrorist groups - claims Qatar denies.
Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia said it would provide Hajj visas for Qatari nationals on arrival, according to UAE daily the National.
Qatari citizens will be able to obtain permits at the King Abdulaziz airport in Jeddah, in spite of the diplomatic dispute between Riyadh and Doha, the National said.
Saudi Arabia said the Qatari government is using the issue for political ends and it "rejects any effort to politicise the Hajj or drag political differences" into the pilgrimage, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
But three travel agencies in Doha told Reuters they had stopped trying to sell Hajj packages, which can cost as much as $33,000.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are involved in proxy wars, including in Yemen and Syria, and there have been tensions between the two over the Hajj in the past.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/v...hajj-502262187
More on normalisation
سيف الله
08-26-2018, 06:13 PM
Salaam
What about it? Yeah I know its a 'taboo' topic, we have to be 'respectable' after all. As the video explains, its not so much where it come from or even if its all true or not. Its about whether it predicts what going to happen in the future. Some of it is true but others aspects not so much. I have mixed feeling about it (elites no matter how smart and powerful cant stop the train of history) but Im not going to dismiss it out of hand.
And no Im not saying 'Its all da joos fault!' History is much more complicated than that, but we have to get out of the 'Jew Taboo'.
*Puts JustTime off ignore list* Ah I see 'brother' JustTime has gone off the deep end again, I'm an Iranian agent now, cool! I know this is hard for you to comprehend, but its possible to against the negative policies of the countries in the region. Whether its Iran, Israel, Syria, Saudis etc.
Though it is interesting how the Sauds are flip flopping, they have failed in their proxy war in Syria, Yemen is another failure. The Americans are in the process of reducing their presence in the Middle East, so whos going to protect the Sauds, since they are incapbale of protecting themselves?
Thats right Israel, now they are going to simper and pander after them, they are going to be the Sauds new 'protectors'.
Before the Sauds bow down to the Israelis, take some advice from those who have had experience dealings with Israelis, so you can better prepare yourself for the future.
ReplyWhat about it? Yeah I know its a 'taboo' topic, we have to be 'respectable' after all. As the video explains, its not so much where it come from or even if its all true or not. Its about whether it predicts what going to happen in the future. Some of it is true but others aspects not so much. I have mixed feeling about it (elites no matter how smart and powerful cant stop the train of history) but Im not going to dismiss it out of hand.
And no Im not saying 'Its all da joos fault!' History is much more complicated than that, but we have to get out of the 'Jew Taboo'.
*Puts JustTime off ignore list* Ah I see 'brother' JustTime has gone off the deep end again, I'm an Iranian agent now, cool! I know this is hard for you to comprehend, but its possible to against the negative policies of the countries in the region. Whether its Iran, Israel, Syria, Saudis etc.
Though it is interesting how the Sauds are flip flopping, they have failed in their proxy war in Syria, Yemen is another failure. The Americans are in the process of reducing their presence in the Middle East, so whos going to protect the Sauds, since they are incapbale of protecting themselves?
Thats right Israel, now they are going to simper and pander after them, they are going to be the Sauds new 'protectors'.
Before the Sauds bow down to the Israelis, take some advice from those who have had experience dealings with Israelis, so you can better prepare yourself for the future.
anatolian
08-26-2018, 08:10 PM
Ofcourse he praises Israel for 'allowing' Muslims to attend Hajj..4,000 more hajis means some thousand more Dollars to build those abominations around Masjid al-Haram..How they connect with Israel that much in front of world Muslims is beyond me either..
Replyسيف الله
08-31-2018, 08:07 PM
Salaam
Another update, finally the mask is coming off.
The Weak are Slaughtered, the Strong Prevail: Netanyahu Says Israel Will Not Shy Away From Conflict
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a stark warning to the country’s Middle Eastern rivals yesterday, declaring that peace could only be achieved alongside a strong Israeli nation-state.
Speaking at an event to rename an Israeli nuclear research facility after former President and Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Netanyahu said the late statesman’s wish for peace was always built on the provision that Israel would “strongly grasp defensive weaponry,” The Times of Israel reported.
The prime minister said this approach was necessary to ensure the survival of the country. “In the Middle East, and in many parts of the world, there is a simple truth: There is no place for the weak. The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive,” Netanyahu said.
“The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong,” he added.
Israel’s strength, the prime minister said, was to thank for the “normalization” of relations with “leading countries in the Arab world” that have traditionally been enemies. It appears he was referring to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with whom Israel is now working closely on a range of issues.
In a thinly veiled message to Iran, Netanyahu warned that Israel remained a threat. “But our enemies know very well what Israel is capable of doing. They are familiar with our policy. Whoever tries to hurt us—we hurt them,” he said.
“I am not spouting slogans. I am describing a persistent, clear and determined policy…backed by appropriate deployment, equipment, preparedness and—in the hour of need—appropriate orders,” the prime minister continued.
The comments, later posted to the official prime ministerial Twitter account, were met with criticism on social media. Some compared Netanyahu’s rhetoric to fascist speeches from the 1930s, while Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Iran was being “threatened with atomic annihilation by a warmonger standing next to an actual nuclear weapons factory.”
Netanyahu was one of the most vocal critics of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 deal signed with Iran to curtail its nuclear weapons research in exchange for the lifting of crippling sanctions. The prime minister said his government would help the U.S. to “apply pressure on the dangerous, extremist regime” in Iran, and continue to pressure Tehran to withdraw its forces from neighboring Syria.
It is significant that Netanyahu made the fiery remarks at the country’s top-secret nuclear research facility. Israel is the only state in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, though its policy of “strategic ambiguity” makes it difficult to say how large its atomic armory is. Estimates reach as high as 400 nuclear warheads.
https://www.newsweek.com/weak-are-slaughtered-strong-prevail-netanyahu-says-israel-will-not-shy-away-1098567
ReplyAnother update, finally the mask is coming off.
The Weak are Slaughtered, the Strong Prevail: Netanyahu Says Israel Will Not Shy Away From Conflict
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a stark warning to the country’s Middle Eastern rivals yesterday, declaring that peace could only be achieved alongside a strong Israeli nation-state.
Speaking at an event to rename an Israeli nuclear research facility after former President and Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Netanyahu said the late statesman’s wish for peace was always built on the provision that Israel would “strongly grasp defensive weaponry,” The Times of Israel reported.
The prime minister said this approach was necessary to ensure the survival of the country. “In the Middle East, and in many parts of the world, there is a simple truth: There is no place for the weak. The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive,” Netanyahu said.
“The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong,” he added.
Israel’s strength, the prime minister said, was to thank for the “normalization” of relations with “leading countries in the Arab world” that have traditionally been enemies. It appears he was referring to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with whom Israel is now working closely on a range of issues.
In a thinly veiled message to Iran, Netanyahu warned that Israel remained a threat. “But our enemies know very well what Israel is capable of doing. They are familiar with our policy. Whoever tries to hurt us—we hurt them,” he said.
“I am not spouting slogans. I am describing a persistent, clear and determined policy…backed by appropriate deployment, equipment, preparedness and—in the hour of need—appropriate orders,” the prime minister continued.
The comments, later posted to the official prime ministerial Twitter account, were met with criticism on social media. Some compared Netanyahu’s rhetoric to fascist speeches from the 1930s, while Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Iran was being “threatened with atomic annihilation by a warmonger standing next to an actual nuclear weapons factory.”
Netanyahu was one of the most vocal critics of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 deal signed with Iran to curtail its nuclear weapons research in exchange for the lifting of crippling sanctions. The prime minister said his government would help the U.S. to “apply pressure on the dangerous, extremist regime” in Iran, and continue to pressure Tehran to withdraw its forces from neighboring Syria.
It is significant that Netanyahu made the fiery remarks at the country’s top-secret nuclear research facility. Israel is the only state in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, though its policy of “strategic ambiguity” makes it difficult to say how large its atomic armory is. Estimates reach as high as 400 nuclear warheads.
https://www.newsweek.com/weak-are-slaughtered-strong-prevail-netanyahu-says-israel-will-not-shy-away-1098567
Abz2000
08-31-2018, 11:51 PM
Allah prefers a strong believer to a weak believer - and whether or not physically or militarily weak or strong - a true believer prevails In acheiving Allah's mercy.
Does that mean that Muslims should remain physically and militarily weak of their own accord?
No - it was an important practice of Allah's messenger Muhammad :saws: to acheive spiritual and military strength in obedience and service to Allah :swt: and this is a front which Muslims need to advance on despite all the false and unjust mutterings, threats, and taunts by the pro-usury Godless anti-terror trolls.
Achieving military self sufficiency is a command by Allah :swt: in the Quran.
If Haabil was a follower of Muhammad :saws: - he would have probably fought for Allah's sake if he was viably able to.
Qaabil proves netanyahu's statement to an extent - but both Qaabil and Netanyahu are fools in that they are heedless of Allah's direct sudden judgement on earth, the mighty day of judgement, and the never ending aakhirah.
A weird conundrum - finding a just balance is by following Muhammad :saws:
ReplyDoes that mean that Muslims should remain physically and militarily weak of their own accord?
No - it was an important practice of Allah's messenger Muhammad :saws: to acheive spiritual and military strength in obedience and service to Allah :swt: and this is a front which Muslims need to advance on despite all the false and unjust mutterings, threats, and taunts by the pro-usury Godless anti-terror trolls.
Achieving military self sufficiency is a command by Allah :swt: in the Quran.
If Haabil was a follower of Muhammad :saws: - he would have probably fought for Allah's sake if he was viably able to.
Qaabil proves netanyahu's statement to an extent - but both Qaabil and Netanyahu are fools in that they are heedless of Allah's direct sudden judgement on earth, the mighty day of judgement, and the never ending aakhirah.
A weird conundrum - finding a just balance is by following Muhammad :saws:
سيف الله
09-04-2018, 12:07 PM
Salaam
Another perspective
Blurb
Everyday somebody in the YouTube Comments tells me that Israel controls the US government. It doesn't. This video lays out what's really going on with Israel and US Foreign Policy.
ReplyAnother perspective
Blurb
Everyday somebody in the YouTube Comments tells me that Israel controls the US government. It doesn't. This video lays out what's really going on with Israel and US Foreign Policy.
سيف الله
09-13-2018, 06:42 PM
Salaam
Another update
A 'gentleman's agreement': How Israel got what it wanted from Oslo
Twenty-five years on, analysts say Oslo didn't fail: it offered Israel a formula to block the emergence of a Palestinian state
There will be no anniversary celebrations this week to mark the signing of the Oslo Accords in Washington 25 years ago. It is a silver jubilee for which there will be no street parties, no commemorative mugs, no specially minted coins.
Palestinians have all but ignored the landmark anniversary, while Israel’s commemoration has amounted to little more than a handful of doleful articles in the Israeli press about what went wrong.
The most significant event has been a documentary, The Oslo Diaries, aired on Israeli TV and scheduled for broadcast in the US this week. It charts the events surrounding the creation of the peace accords, signed by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in Washington on 13 September 1993.
The euphoria generated by the Norwegian-initiated peace process a quarter of a century ago now seems wildly misplaced to most observers. The promised, phased withdrawals by Israel from the occupied Palestinian territories got stuck at an early stage.
And the powers of the Palestinian Authority, a Palestinian government-in-waiting that came out of Oslo, never rose above managing healthcare and collecting garbage in densely populated Palestinian areas, while coordinating with Israel on security matters.
All the current efforts to draw lessons from these developments have reached the same conclusion: that Oslo was a missed opportunity for peace, that the accords were never properly implemented, and that the negotiations were killed off by Palestinian and Israeli extremists.
Occupation reorganised
But analysts Middle East Eye has spoken to take a very different view.
“It is wrong to think of Oslo being derailed, or trying to identify the moment the Oslo process died,” says Diana Buttu, a Palestinian lawyer and former adviser to the Palestinian Authority. “Oslo never died. It is still doing today exactly what it was set up to do.”
Michel Warschawski, an Israeli peace activist who developed strong ties with Palestinian leaders in the Oslo years, concurred.
“I and pretty much everyone else I knew at that time was taken in by the hype that the occupation was about to end. But in reality, Oslo was about reorganising the occupation, not ending it. It created a new division of labour.
“Rabin didn’t care much about whether the Palestinians got some indicators of sovereignty – a flag and maybe even a seat at the United Nations.
“But Israel was determined to continue controlling the borders, the Palestinians’ resources, the Palestinian economy. Oslo changed the division of labour by sub-contracting the hard part of Israel’s security to the Palestinians themselves.”
The accords were signed in the immediate aftermath of several years of a Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories – the First Intifada – that had proved costly to Israel, both in terms of casualties and treasure.
Under Oslo, Palestinian security forces patrolled the streets of Palestinian cities, overseen by and in close coordination with the Israeli military. The tab, meanwhile, was picked up by Europe and Washington.
In an interview with the Haaretz newspaper last week, Joel Singer, the Israeli government lawyer who helped to draft the accords, conceded as much. Rabin, he said, “thought it would enhance [Israeli] security to have the Palestinians as the ones fighting Hamas”.
That way, as Rabin once observed, the occupation would no longer be accountable to the “bleeding hearts” of the Israeli supreme court and Israel’s active human rights community.
Less than statehood
The widespread assumption that Oslo would lead to a Palestinian state was also mistaken, Buttu says.
She notes that nowhere in the accords was there mention of the occupation, a Palestinian state, or freedom for the Palestinians. And no action was specified against Israel’s illegal settlements – the chief obstacle to Palestinian statehood.
Instead, the stated goal of the Oslo process was implementation of two outstanding United Nations resolutions – 242 and 338. The first concerned the withdrawal of the Israeli army from “territories” occupied in the 1967 war, while the second urged negotiations leading to a “just and durable peace”.
“I spoke to both Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas [his successor as Palestinian president] about this,” said Buttu. “Their view was that clearer language, on Palestinian statehood and independence, would never have got past Rabin’s coalition.
“So Arafat treated resolutions 242 and 338 as code words. The Palestinian leadership referred to Oslo as a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’. Their approach was beyond naïve; it was reckless. They behaved like amateurs.”
Asad Ghanem, a politics professor at Haifa University and expert on Palestinian nationalism, said the Palestinian leadership was aware from the outset that Israel was not offering real statehood.
“In his memoirs, Ahmed Qurei [one of the key architects of Oslo on the Palestinian side] admitted his shock when he started meetings with the Israeli team,” says Ghanem.
“Uri Savir [Israel’s chief negotiator] said outright that Israel did not favour a Palestinian state, and that something less was being offered. The Israelis’ attitude was ‘Take it or leave it’.”
Sympathy with settlers
All the analysts agreed that a lack of good faith on Israel’s part was starkly evident from the start, especially over the issue of the settlements.
Noticeably, rather than halt or reverse the expansion of the settlements during the supposed five-year transition period, Oslo allowed the settler population to grow at a dramatically accelerated rate.
The near-doubling of settler numbers in the West Bank and Gaza to 200,000 by the late 1990s was explained by Alan Baker, a legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry after 1996 and a settler himself, in an interview in 2003.
Most of the settlements were portrayed to the Israeli public as Israeli “blocs”, outside the control of the newly created PA. With the signing of the accords, Baker said, “we are no longer an occupying power, but we are instead present in the territories with their [the Palestinians’] consent and subject to the outcome of negotiations.”
Recent interviews with settler leaders by Haaretz hint too at the ideological sympathy between Rabin’s supposedly leftist government and the settler movement.
Israel Harel, who then headed the Yesha Council, the settlers’ governing body, described Rabin as “very accessible”. He pointed out that Zeev Hever, another settler leader, sat with Israeli military planners as they created an “Oslo map”, carving up the West Bank into various areas of control.
Referring to settlements that most had assumed would be dismantled under the accords, Harel noted: “When [Hever] was accused [by other settlers] of cooperating, he would say he saved us from disaster. They [the Israeli army] marked areas that could have isolated settlements and made them disappear.”
Israel’s Oslo lawyer, Joel Singer, confirmed the Israeli leadership’s reluctance to address the issue of the settlements.
“We fought with the Palestinians, on Rabin and [Shimon] Peres’ orders, against a [settlement] freeze,” he told Haaretz. “It was a serious mistake to permit the settlements to continue to race ahead.”
Rabin’s refusal to act
Neve Gordon, a politics professor at Ben Gurion University in Israel’s south, says the critical test of Rabin’s will to tackle the settlements came less than a year into the Oslo process. It was then that Baruch Goldstein, a settler, killed and wounded more than 150 Palestinians at worship in the Palestinian city of Hebron.
“That gave Rabin the chance to remove the 400 extremist settlers who were embedded in the centre of Hebron,” Gordon told MEE. “But he didn’t act. He let them stay.”
The lack of response from Israel fuelled a campaign of Hamas “revenge” suicide bombings that in turn were used by Israel to justify a refusal to withdraw from more of the occupied territories.
Warschawski says Rabin could have dismantled the settlements if he had acted quickly. “The settlers were in disarray in the early stages of Oslo, but he didn’t move against them.”
After Rabin’s assassination in late 1995, his successor Shimon Peres, also widely identified as an architect of the Oslo process, changed tactics, according to Warschawski. “Peres preferred to emphasise internal reconciliation [between Israelis], rather than reconciliation with the Palestinians. After that, the religious narrative of the extremist settlers came to dominate.”
That would lead a few months later to the electoral triumph of the right under Benjamin Netanyahu.
The demographic differential
Although Netanyahu campaigned vociferously against the Oslo Accords, they proved perfect for his kind of rejectionist politics, says Gordon.
Under cover of vague promises about Palestinian statehood, “Israel was able to bolster the settlement project,” in Gordon’s view. “The statistics show that, when there are negotiations, the demographic growth of the settler population in the West Bank increases. The settlements get rapidly bigger. And when there is an intifada, they slow down.
“So Oslo was ideal for Israel’s colonial project.”
It was not only that, under the pressure of Oslo, religious settlers ran to “grab the hilltops”, as a famous army general and later prime minister, Ariel Sharon, put it. Gordon pointed to a strategy by the government of recruiting a new type of settler during the initial Oslo years.
In the early 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Sharon and others had tried to locate Russian-speaking new immigrants in large settlements like Ariel, in the central West Bank. “The problem was that many of the Russians had only one child,” says Gordon.
So instead, Israel began moving the ultra-Orthodox into the occupied territories. These fundamentalist religious Jews, Israel’s poorest community, typically have seven or eight children. They were desperate for housing solutions, noted Gordon, and the government readily provided incentives to lure them into two new ultra-Orthodox settlements, Modiin Ilit and Beitar Illit.
“After that, Israel didn’t need to recruit lots of new settlers,” Gordon says. “It just needed to buy time with the Oslo process and the settler population would grow of its own accord.
“The ultra-Orthodox became Israel’s chief demographic weapon. In the West Bank, Jewish settlers have on average two more children than Palestinians – that demographic differential has an enormous impact over time.”
Palestinian dependency
Buttu pointed to another indicator of how Israel never intended the Oslo Accords to lead to a Palestinian state. Shortly before Oslo, from 1991 onwards, Israel introduced much more severe restrictions on movement, including an increasingly sophisticated permit system.
“Movement from Gaza to the West Bank became possible only in essential cases,” she says. “It stopped being a right.”
That process, Ghanem noted, has been entrenched over the past quarter century, and ultimately led to a complete physical and ideological separation between Gaza and the West Bank, now ruled respectively by Hamas and Abbas’s Fatah.
Gordon observed that Oslo’s economic arrangements, governed by the 1995 Paris Protocol, stripped the Palestinians of financial autonomy too.
“The Palestinians did not get their own currency, they had to use the Israeli shekel. And a customs union made the Palestinians a dependent market for Israeli goods and empowered Israel to collect import duties on behalf of the PA. Refusing to transfer that money was a stick Israel has regularly wielded against the Palestinians.”
According to the analysts, those Palestinian leaders like Arafat who were allowed by the Oslo process to return from exile in Tunisia – sometimes referred to as the “outsiders” – were completely ignorant of the situation on the ground.
Gordon, who was at that time head of Israel’s branch of Physicians for Human Rights, recalled meeting young Palestinian-Americans and Canadians in Cairo to discuss the coming health arrangements the PA would be responsible for.
“They were bright and well-educated, but they were clueless about what was happening on the ground. They had no idea what demands to make of Israel,” he says.
“Israel, on the other hand, had experts who knew the situation intimately.”
Warschawski has similar recollections. He took a senior Palestinian recently arrived from Tunis on a tour of the settlements. The official sat in his car in stunned silence for the whole journey.
“They knew the numbers but they had no idea how deeply entrenched the settlements were, how integrated they were into Israeli society,” he says. “It was then that they started to understand the logic of the settlements for the first time, and appreciate what Israel’s real intentions were.”
Lured into a trap
Warschawski noted that the only person in his circle who rejected the hype around the Oslo Accords from the very beginning was Matti Peled, a general turned peace activist who knew Rabin well.
“When we met for discussions about the Oslo Accords, Matti laughed at us. He said there would be no Oslo, there would be no process that would lead to peace.”
Ghanem says the Palestinian leadership eventually realised that they had been lured into a trap.
“They couldn’t move forward towards statehood, because Israel blocked their way,” he says. “But equally, they couldn’t back away from the peace process either. They didn’t dare dismantle the PA, and so Israel came to control Palestinian politics.
“If Abbas leaves, someone else will take over the PA and its role will continue.”
Why did the Palestinian leadership enter the Oslo process without taking greater precautions?
According to Buttu, Arafat had reasons to feel insecure about being outside Palestine, along with other PLO leaders living in exile in Tunisia, in ways that he hoped Oslo would solve.
“He wanted a foot back in Palestine,” she says. “He felt very threatened by the ‘inside’ leadership, even though they were loyal to him. The First Intifada had shown they could lead an uprising and mobilise the people without him.
“He also craved international recognition and legitimacy.”
Trench warfare
According to Gordon, Arafat believed he would eventually be able to win concessions from Israel.
“He viewed it as trench warfare. Once he was in historic Palestine, he would move forward trench by trench.”
Warschawski noted that Arafat and other Palestinian leaders had told him they believed they would have significant leverage over Israel.
“Their view was that Israel would end the occupation in exchange for normalisation with the Arab world. Arafat saw himself as the bridge that would provide the recognition Israel wanted. His attitude was that Rabin would have to kiss his hand in return for such an important achievement.
“He was wrong.”
Gordon pointed to the early Oslo discourse about an economic dividend, in which it was assumed that peace would open up trade for Israel with the Arab world while turning Gaza into the Singapore of the Middle East.
The “peace dividend”, however, was challenged by an equally appealing “war dividend”.
“Even before 9/11, Israel’s expertise in the realms of security and technology proved profitable. Israel realised there was lots of money to be made in fighting terror.”
In fact, Israel managed to take advantage of both the peace and war dividends.
Buttu noted that more than 30 countries, including Morocco and Oman, developed diplomatic or economic relations with Israel as a result of the Oslo Accords. The Arab states relented on their boycott and anti-normalisation policies, and major foreign corporations no longer feared being penalised by the Arab world for trading with Israel.
“Israel’s peace treaty with Jordan [in 1994] could never have happened without Oslo,” she says.
“Instead of clear denunciations of the occupation, the Palestinians were saddled with the language of negotiations and compromises for peace.
“The Palestinians became a charity case, seeking handouts from the Arab world so that the PA could help with the maintenance of the occupation rather than leading the resistance.
“Thanks to Oslo, Israel became normalised in the region, while paradoxically the Palestinians found themselves transformed into the foreign object.”
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/gentlemen-agreement-how-oslo-didnt-fail-israel-1444351752
ReplyAnother update
A 'gentleman's agreement': How Israel got what it wanted from Oslo
Twenty-five years on, analysts say Oslo didn't fail: it offered Israel a formula to block the emergence of a Palestinian state
There will be no anniversary celebrations this week to mark the signing of the Oslo Accords in Washington 25 years ago. It is a silver jubilee for which there will be no street parties, no commemorative mugs, no specially minted coins.
Palestinians have all but ignored the landmark anniversary, while Israel’s commemoration has amounted to little more than a handful of doleful articles in the Israeli press about what went wrong.
The most significant event has been a documentary, The Oslo Diaries, aired on Israeli TV and scheduled for broadcast in the US this week. It charts the events surrounding the creation of the peace accords, signed by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in Washington on 13 September 1993.
The euphoria generated by the Norwegian-initiated peace process a quarter of a century ago now seems wildly misplaced to most observers. The promised, phased withdrawals by Israel from the occupied Palestinian territories got stuck at an early stage.
And the powers of the Palestinian Authority, a Palestinian government-in-waiting that came out of Oslo, never rose above managing healthcare and collecting garbage in densely populated Palestinian areas, while coordinating with Israel on security matters.
All the current efforts to draw lessons from these developments have reached the same conclusion: that Oslo was a missed opportunity for peace, that the accords were never properly implemented, and that the negotiations were killed off by Palestinian and Israeli extremists.
Occupation reorganised
But analysts Middle East Eye has spoken to take a very different view.
“It is wrong to think of Oslo being derailed, or trying to identify the moment the Oslo process died,” says Diana Buttu, a Palestinian lawyer and former adviser to the Palestinian Authority. “Oslo never died. It is still doing today exactly what it was set up to do.”
Michel Warschawski, an Israeli peace activist who developed strong ties with Palestinian leaders in the Oslo years, concurred.
“I and pretty much everyone else I knew at that time was taken in by the hype that the occupation was about to end. But in reality, Oslo was about reorganising the occupation, not ending it. It created a new division of labour.
“Rabin didn’t care much about whether the Palestinians got some indicators of sovereignty – a flag and maybe even a seat at the United Nations.
“But Israel was determined to continue controlling the borders, the Palestinians’ resources, the Palestinian economy. Oslo changed the division of labour by sub-contracting the hard part of Israel’s security to the Palestinians themselves.”
The accords were signed in the immediate aftermath of several years of a Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories – the First Intifada – that had proved costly to Israel, both in terms of casualties and treasure.
Under Oslo, Palestinian security forces patrolled the streets of Palestinian cities, overseen by and in close coordination with the Israeli military. The tab, meanwhile, was picked up by Europe and Washington.
In an interview with the Haaretz newspaper last week, Joel Singer, the Israeli government lawyer who helped to draft the accords, conceded as much. Rabin, he said, “thought it would enhance [Israeli] security to have the Palestinians as the ones fighting Hamas”.
That way, as Rabin once observed, the occupation would no longer be accountable to the “bleeding hearts” of the Israeli supreme court and Israel’s active human rights community.
Less than statehood
The widespread assumption that Oslo would lead to a Palestinian state was also mistaken, Buttu says.
She notes that nowhere in the accords was there mention of the occupation, a Palestinian state, or freedom for the Palestinians. And no action was specified against Israel’s illegal settlements – the chief obstacle to Palestinian statehood.
Instead, the stated goal of the Oslo process was implementation of two outstanding United Nations resolutions – 242 and 338. The first concerned the withdrawal of the Israeli army from “territories” occupied in the 1967 war, while the second urged negotiations leading to a “just and durable peace”.
“I spoke to both Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas [his successor as Palestinian president] about this,” said Buttu. “Their view was that clearer language, on Palestinian statehood and independence, would never have got past Rabin’s coalition.
“So Arafat treated resolutions 242 and 338 as code words. The Palestinian leadership referred to Oslo as a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’. Their approach was beyond naïve; it was reckless. They behaved like amateurs.”
Asad Ghanem, a politics professor at Haifa University and expert on Palestinian nationalism, said the Palestinian leadership was aware from the outset that Israel was not offering real statehood.
“In his memoirs, Ahmed Qurei [one of the key architects of Oslo on the Palestinian side] admitted his shock when he started meetings with the Israeli team,” says Ghanem.
“Uri Savir [Israel’s chief negotiator] said outright that Israel did not favour a Palestinian state, and that something less was being offered. The Israelis’ attitude was ‘Take it or leave it’.”
Sympathy with settlers
All the analysts agreed that a lack of good faith on Israel’s part was starkly evident from the start, especially over the issue of the settlements.
Noticeably, rather than halt or reverse the expansion of the settlements during the supposed five-year transition period, Oslo allowed the settler population to grow at a dramatically accelerated rate.
The near-doubling of settler numbers in the West Bank and Gaza to 200,000 by the late 1990s was explained by Alan Baker, a legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry after 1996 and a settler himself, in an interview in 2003.
Most of the settlements were portrayed to the Israeli public as Israeli “blocs”, outside the control of the newly created PA. With the signing of the accords, Baker said, “we are no longer an occupying power, but we are instead present in the territories with their [the Palestinians’] consent and subject to the outcome of negotiations.”
Recent interviews with settler leaders by Haaretz hint too at the ideological sympathy between Rabin’s supposedly leftist government and the settler movement.
Israel Harel, who then headed the Yesha Council, the settlers’ governing body, described Rabin as “very accessible”. He pointed out that Zeev Hever, another settler leader, sat with Israeli military planners as they created an “Oslo map”, carving up the West Bank into various areas of control.
Referring to settlements that most had assumed would be dismantled under the accords, Harel noted: “When [Hever] was accused [by other settlers] of cooperating, he would say he saved us from disaster. They [the Israeli army] marked areas that could have isolated settlements and made them disappear.”
Israel’s Oslo lawyer, Joel Singer, confirmed the Israeli leadership’s reluctance to address the issue of the settlements.
“We fought with the Palestinians, on Rabin and [Shimon] Peres’ orders, against a [settlement] freeze,” he told Haaretz. “It was a serious mistake to permit the settlements to continue to race ahead.”
Rabin’s refusal to act
Neve Gordon, a politics professor at Ben Gurion University in Israel’s south, says the critical test of Rabin’s will to tackle the settlements came less than a year into the Oslo process. It was then that Baruch Goldstein, a settler, killed and wounded more than 150 Palestinians at worship in the Palestinian city of Hebron.
“That gave Rabin the chance to remove the 400 extremist settlers who were embedded in the centre of Hebron,” Gordon told MEE. “But he didn’t act. He let them stay.”
The lack of response from Israel fuelled a campaign of Hamas “revenge” suicide bombings that in turn were used by Israel to justify a refusal to withdraw from more of the occupied territories.
Warschawski says Rabin could have dismantled the settlements if he had acted quickly. “The settlers were in disarray in the early stages of Oslo, but he didn’t move against them.”
After Rabin’s assassination in late 1995, his successor Shimon Peres, also widely identified as an architect of the Oslo process, changed tactics, according to Warschawski. “Peres preferred to emphasise internal reconciliation [between Israelis], rather than reconciliation with the Palestinians. After that, the religious narrative of the extremist settlers came to dominate.”
That would lead a few months later to the electoral triumph of the right under Benjamin Netanyahu.
The demographic differential
Although Netanyahu campaigned vociferously against the Oslo Accords, they proved perfect for his kind of rejectionist politics, says Gordon.
Under cover of vague promises about Palestinian statehood, “Israel was able to bolster the settlement project,” in Gordon’s view. “The statistics show that, when there are negotiations, the demographic growth of the settler population in the West Bank increases. The settlements get rapidly bigger. And when there is an intifada, they slow down.
“So Oslo was ideal for Israel’s colonial project.”
It was not only that, under the pressure of Oslo, religious settlers ran to “grab the hilltops”, as a famous army general and later prime minister, Ariel Sharon, put it. Gordon pointed to a strategy by the government of recruiting a new type of settler during the initial Oslo years.
In the early 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Sharon and others had tried to locate Russian-speaking new immigrants in large settlements like Ariel, in the central West Bank. “The problem was that many of the Russians had only one child,” says Gordon.
So instead, Israel began moving the ultra-Orthodox into the occupied territories. These fundamentalist religious Jews, Israel’s poorest community, typically have seven or eight children. They were desperate for housing solutions, noted Gordon, and the government readily provided incentives to lure them into two new ultra-Orthodox settlements, Modiin Ilit and Beitar Illit.
“After that, Israel didn’t need to recruit lots of new settlers,” Gordon says. “It just needed to buy time with the Oslo process and the settler population would grow of its own accord.
“The ultra-Orthodox became Israel’s chief demographic weapon. In the West Bank, Jewish settlers have on average two more children than Palestinians – that demographic differential has an enormous impact over time.”
Palestinian dependency
Buttu pointed to another indicator of how Israel never intended the Oslo Accords to lead to a Palestinian state. Shortly before Oslo, from 1991 onwards, Israel introduced much more severe restrictions on movement, including an increasingly sophisticated permit system.
“Movement from Gaza to the West Bank became possible only in essential cases,” she says. “It stopped being a right.”
That process, Ghanem noted, has been entrenched over the past quarter century, and ultimately led to a complete physical and ideological separation between Gaza and the West Bank, now ruled respectively by Hamas and Abbas’s Fatah.
Gordon observed that Oslo’s economic arrangements, governed by the 1995 Paris Protocol, stripped the Palestinians of financial autonomy too.
“The Palestinians did not get their own currency, they had to use the Israeli shekel. And a customs union made the Palestinians a dependent market for Israeli goods and empowered Israel to collect import duties on behalf of the PA. Refusing to transfer that money was a stick Israel has regularly wielded against the Palestinians.”
According to the analysts, those Palestinian leaders like Arafat who were allowed by the Oslo process to return from exile in Tunisia – sometimes referred to as the “outsiders” – were completely ignorant of the situation on the ground.
Gordon, who was at that time head of Israel’s branch of Physicians for Human Rights, recalled meeting young Palestinian-Americans and Canadians in Cairo to discuss the coming health arrangements the PA would be responsible for.
“They were bright and well-educated, but they were clueless about what was happening on the ground. They had no idea what demands to make of Israel,” he says.
“Israel, on the other hand, had experts who knew the situation intimately.”
Warschawski has similar recollections. He took a senior Palestinian recently arrived from Tunis on a tour of the settlements. The official sat in his car in stunned silence for the whole journey.
“They knew the numbers but they had no idea how deeply entrenched the settlements were, how integrated they were into Israeli society,” he says. “It was then that they started to understand the logic of the settlements for the first time, and appreciate what Israel’s real intentions were.”
Lured into a trap
Warschawski noted that the only person in his circle who rejected the hype around the Oslo Accords from the very beginning was Matti Peled, a general turned peace activist who knew Rabin well.
“When we met for discussions about the Oslo Accords, Matti laughed at us. He said there would be no Oslo, there would be no process that would lead to peace.”
Ghanem says the Palestinian leadership eventually realised that they had been lured into a trap.
“They couldn’t move forward towards statehood, because Israel blocked their way,” he says. “But equally, they couldn’t back away from the peace process either. They didn’t dare dismantle the PA, and so Israel came to control Palestinian politics.
“If Abbas leaves, someone else will take over the PA and its role will continue.”
Why did the Palestinian leadership enter the Oslo process without taking greater precautions?
According to Buttu, Arafat had reasons to feel insecure about being outside Palestine, along with other PLO leaders living in exile in Tunisia, in ways that he hoped Oslo would solve.
“He wanted a foot back in Palestine,” she says. “He felt very threatened by the ‘inside’ leadership, even though they were loyal to him. The First Intifada had shown they could lead an uprising and mobilise the people without him.
“He also craved international recognition and legitimacy.”
Trench warfare
According to Gordon, Arafat believed he would eventually be able to win concessions from Israel.
“He viewed it as trench warfare. Once he was in historic Palestine, he would move forward trench by trench.”
Warschawski noted that Arafat and other Palestinian leaders had told him they believed they would have significant leverage over Israel.
“Their view was that Israel would end the occupation in exchange for normalisation with the Arab world. Arafat saw himself as the bridge that would provide the recognition Israel wanted. His attitude was that Rabin would have to kiss his hand in return for such an important achievement.
“He was wrong.”
Gordon pointed to the early Oslo discourse about an economic dividend, in which it was assumed that peace would open up trade for Israel with the Arab world while turning Gaza into the Singapore of the Middle East.
The “peace dividend”, however, was challenged by an equally appealing “war dividend”.
“Even before 9/11, Israel’s expertise in the realms of security and technology proved profitable. Israel realised there was lots of money to be made in fighting terror.”
In fact, Israel managed to take advantage of both the peace and war dividends.
Buttu noted that more than 30 countries, including Morocco and Oman, developed diplomatic or economic relations with Israel as a result of the Oslo Accords. The Arab states relented on their boycott and anti-normalisation policies, and major foreign corporations no longer feared being penalised by the Arab world for trading with Israel.
“Israel’s peace treaty with Jordan [in 1994] could never have happened without Oslo,” she says.
“Instead of clear denunciations of the occupation, the Palestinians were saddled with the language of negotiations and compromises for peace.
“The Palestinians became a charity case, seeking handouts from the Arab world so that the PA could help with the maintenance of the occupation rather than leading the resistance.
“Thanks to Oslo, Israel became normalised in the region, while paradoxically the Palestinians found themselves transformed into the foreign object.”
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/gentlemen-agreement-how-oslo-didnt-fail-israel-1444351752
سيف الله
09-14-2018, 09:27 PM
Salaam
Another update, on to the next phase, destruction of Al Aqsa to rebuild the Third Temple.
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Pictured With Controversial Image of Jerusalem Third Temple Replacing Muslim Mosque
Embassy: Image 'thrust in front' of David Friedman, U.S. supports status quo on Temple Mount
U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman was photographed Tuesday receiving an aerial image of Jerusalem bearing a simulation of the Third Temple instead of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock.
First reported on the ultra-Orthodox news site Kikar Hashabat, the photo of Friedman receiving the poster was taken during a tour of Bnei Brak held by the Achiya organization, which aids children who suffer from learning disabilities.
It was unclear at the time whether Friedman noticed that the image was doctored and whether he was endorsing it or not. A U.S. Embassy official told Haaretz they have demanded an apology from the organization "for allowing one of their staff to present this controversial image to the ambassador during the visit."
A statement issued by the embassy later said that Friedman "was not aware of the image thrust in front of him when the photo was taken. He was deeply disappointed that anyone would take advantage of his visit to Bnei Brak to create controversy."
"The U.S. policy is absolutely clear: we support the status quo on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount," the statement concluded.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/u-s-...ques-1.6112357
What I find relevant in this video is the Arab interview on Al Aqsa. Seems the 'Arab leadership' are preparing their populations for the inevitable.
ReplyAnother update, on to the next phase, destruction of Al Aqsa to rebuild the Third Temple.
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Pictured With Controversial Image of Jerusalem Third Temple Replacing Muslim Mosque
Embassy: Image 'thrust in front' of David Friedman, U.S. supports status quo on Temple Mount
U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman was photographed Tuesday receiving an aerial image of Jerusalem bearing a simulation of the Third Temple instead of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock.
First reported on the ultra-Orthodox news site Kikar Hashabat, the photo of Friedman receiving the poster was taken during a tour of Bnei Brak held by the Achiya organization, which aids children who suffer from learning disabilities.
It was unclear at the time whether Friedman noticed that the image was doctored and whether he was endorsing it or not. A U.S. Embassy official told Haaretz they have demanded an apology from the organization "for allowing one of their staff to present this controversial image to the ambassador during the visit."
A statement issued by the embassy later said that Friedman "was not aware of the image thrust in front of him when the photo was taken. He was deeply disappointed that anyone would take advantage of his visit to Bnei Brak to create controversy."
"The U.S. policy is absolutely clear: we support the status quo on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount," the statement concluded.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/u-s-...ques-1.6112357
What I find relevant in this video is the Arab interview on Al Aqsa. Seems the 'Arab leadership' are preparing their populations for the inevitable.
سيف الله
09-15-2018, 08:33 PM
Salaam
More comment, long and detailed, yep the Oslo process was a scam all along. Well not quite, Zios have benefited greatly from it.
With Oslo, Israel’s Intention Was Never Peace or Palestinian Statehood
The transformation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip into separate Bantustans was all part of the plan
The reality of the Palestinian Bantustans, reservations or enclaves — is a fact on the ground. Their creation is the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century. It is of course possible to say that its seeds were sown with the occupation in 1967 but the process accelerated, consolidated, matured and deepened paradoxically in parallel with the negotiation process between Israel and the Palestinians – first with the Madrid/Washington talks starting at the end of 1991 and then with the Oslo process.
Those who give credence to lofty verbal declarations about peace and a new Middle East will continue to believe that only chance, regrettable human errors, bad luck and technical hitches led to the formation of the Palestinian reservations buried in a contiguous Israeli space between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River – contrary to any logic of a fair settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis and negating the former’s right to self-determination. Others will continue to argue that it all happened only as a reaction to the attacks carried out by Palestinian opponents of the Oslo agreements and Palestinian opponents of Yasser Arafat.
However, I wish to give, have given and am giving credit to the planning skills of the Israeli security and diplomatic establishment and the calculated sophistication behind the ability to speak softly in words the world wants to hear (“peace”) and in actual fact to do the opposite (continuing the occupation through outsourcing while dropping the burden of economic and legal responsibility for the population that is under occupation).
The following were the warning signals that started flashing right at the moment of the signing of the Declaration of Principles and very early on taught me to cast doubt on Israel’s intentions vis a vis the negotiations:
(Read attachment)
Thus, the control of Area C, the retention of bans on building and access for the Palestinians, the construction of the settlements and the network of bypass roads – all of these have together led to the creation of numerous disconnected Palestinian enclaves that are swallowed up in the Israeli expanse, in a process that has replicated in the West Bank the same reality that characterizes the Gaza enclave. In the course of the Oslo process, much thought was invested – not toward advancing peace, but toward the establishment of Palestinian enclaves.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...hood-1.6469548
A few perceptive commentators were able to see that the whole Oslo peace process was a con. This book was released in early 2000s
Blurb
This insightful collection of essays is a commentary on the last six years of the Middle East peace process, in which Edward Said has been virtually a lone voice in the West supporting the rights of the Palestinian people. Said questions the efficacy of Arafat's leadership, which has done nothing to stop illegal land expropriation and house demolitions; and regards the Oslo Accords as a false "breakthrough" for the Palestinians, as they include no mention of self-determination or sovereignty, or of an end to the expansion of Jewish settlements. But the author is not without hope: taken together, these essays comprise an eloquent, powerful vision of how peaceful reconciliation between Palestinian and Israeli can be taken forward.
ReplyMore comment, long and detailed, yep the Oslo process was a scam all along. Well not quite, Zios have benefited greatly from it.
With Oslo, Israel’s Intention Was Never Peace or Palestinian Statehood
The transformation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip into separate Bantustans was all part of the plan
The reality of the Palestinian Bantustans, reservations or enclaves — is a fact on the ground. Their creation is the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century. It is of course possible to say that its seeds were sown with the occupation in 1967 but the process accelerated, consolidated, matured and deepened paradoxically in parallel with the negotiation process between Israel and the Palestinians – first with the Madrid/Washington talks starting at the end of 1991 and then with the Oslo process.
Those who give credence to lofty verbal declarations about peace and a new Middle East will continue to believe that only chance, regrettable human errors, bad luck and technical hitches led to the formation of the Palestinian reservations buried in a contiguous Israeli space between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River – contrary to any logic of a fair settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis and negating the former’s right to self-determination. Others will continue to argue that it all happened only as a reaction to the attacks carried out by Palestinian opponents of the Oslo agreements and Palestinian opponents of Yasser Arafat.
However, I wish to give, have given and am giving credit to the planning skills of the Israeli security and diplomatic establishment and the calculated sophistication behind the ability to speak softly in words the world wants to hear (“peace”) and in actual fact to do the opposite (continuing the occupation through outsourcing while dropping the burden of economic and legal responsibility for the population that is under occupation).
The following were the warning signals that started flashing right at the moment of the signing of the Declaration of Principles and very early on taught me to cast doubt on Israel’s intentions vis a vis the negotiations:
(Read attachment)
Thus, the control of Area C, the retention of bans on building and access for the Palestinians, the construction of the settlements and the network of bypass roads – all of these have together led to the creation of numerous disconnected Palestinian enclaves that are swallowed up in the Israeli expanse, in a process that has replicated in the West Bank the same reality that characterizes the Gaza enclave. In the course of the Oslo process, much thought was invested – not toward advancing peace, but toward the establishment of Palestinian enclaves.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...hood-1.6469548
A few perceptive commentators were able to see that the whole Oslo peace process was a con. This book was released in early 2000s
Blurb
This insightful collection of essays is a commentary on the last six years of the Middle East peace process, in which Edward Said has been virtually a lone voice in the West supporting the rights of the Palestinian people. Said questions the efficacy of Arafat's leadership, which has done nothing to stop illegal land expropriation and house demolitions; and regards the Oslo Accords as a false "breakthrough" for the Palestinians, as they include no mention of self-determination or sovereignty, or of an end to the expansion of Jewish settlements. But the author is not without hope: taken together, these essays comprise an eloquent, powerful vision of how peaceful reconciliation between Palestinian and Israeli can be taken forward.
سيف الله
09-16-2018, 04:53 PM
Salaam
Another update
Blurb
The dividing of Syria to create a Kurdish state is part of a long-term Zionist plan by David Ben Gurion and other Zionists to carve up the Middle East to reduce the power of the Arab world.
ReplyAnother update
Blurb
The dividing of Syria to create a Kurdish state is part of a long-term Zionist plan by David Ben Gurion and other Zionists to carve up the Middle East to reduce the power of the Arab world.
سيف الله
09-18-2018, 11:06 PM
Salaam
Old but relevant.
Blurb
Former President Jimmy Carter, author of a new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is interviewed from his home in Plains, Georgia. He responds to a caller who asks questions concerning pressure put on the US political system and the resulting support of Israel.
ReplyOld but relevant.
Blurb
Former President Jimmy Carter, author of a new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is interviewed from his home in Plains, Georgia. He responds to a caller who asks questions concerning pressure put on the US political system and the resulting support of Israel.
سيف الله
09-25-2018, 08:29 AM
Salaam
Another update
A Golden Age for the Mossad: More Targets, More Ops, More Money
Israel's Mossad, the second largest spy organization in the West, has grown richer and more sophisticated under Yossi Cohen. But is the director too close to Netanyahu?
On December 14, 2016, Mohammed Alzoari, an engineer living in Sfax, Tunisia, met with a Hungarian journalist of Tunisian origin. For years Alzoari, who, though not a Palestinian himself, was involved in Hamas’ efforts to develop and manufacture drones, had been very cautious about appearing in public and was not well known. But when a journalist asked him for an interview for a film about Palestinian figures – he swallowed the bait.
The interview turned out to be a death trap: From the moment it ended, Alzoari, 49, was apparently kept under surveillance. The next day, while he was driving home, a car drove after him and hit him. Two men emerged from the vehicle and shot him in the head from close range. Immediately after the assassination, Hamas announced: He is one of ours.
On the evening before Alzoari’s killing, it became publicly known that Israel’s Civil Service Commission was investigating whether Mossad chief Yossi Cohen had accepted gratuities from Australian billionaire James Packer. Cohen was apprehensive that his reputation would be sullied by involvement in the corruption cases in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was being investigated, and to which Packer was ostensibly connected. The Alzoari assassination filled him with satisfaction. “Ah, they say it was us?” said Cohen, beaming, in conversations with confidants. “Very good, let them think so.”
In Tunisia, the authorities moved quickly to investigate the incident. In short order they found vehicles and pistols with silencers that had been used by the assassins. The journalist didn’t manage to leave the country and was detained for questioning. The authorities hoped that her arrest would lead to exposure of the network she had worked for, but the more intensely they investigated, the further they got from the Mossad agents who were thought to be behind the killing.
The investigators hoped for a breakthrough when checking the footage of nearby security cameras, but discovered that they had documented nothing – neither the arrival of the car, the assassination, or the getaway.
“That’s not by chance,” a source knowledgeable about methods used by espionage agencies told Haaretz. “A great deal of operational and technological thought goes into dealing with security cameras. The results speak for themselves. Which of the assassinations attributed to the Mossad in recent years were documented by cameras?”
And indeed, in the eight years since the assassination of senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in a hotel in Dubai, there have been no reports of a hit attributed to the Mossad that was caught by security cameras.
New methods
Two-and-a-half years have passed since Yossi Cohen was tapped to be Mossad chief. Under him, the agency has undergone a series of changes: It is enjoying increased government budgets, is employing new methods and is engaging in more operations.
The Mossad currently employs about 7,000 people directly, making it the second-largest espionage agency in the West, after the CIA. Anyone passing by its compound at the Glilot interchange, just north of Tel Aviv, will be impressed by the construction going on there, which is barely keeping pace with the rise in the number of employees. Most of that increase is in technology- and cyber-related realms.
Technological developments are obliging espionage agencies to adopt diverse methods of operation: not only to dispatch agents to enemy countries and to recruit local sources for intelligence, but also to dupe people into serving as agents without their knowledge, to use mercenaries and to rely on new capabilities, such as cyberattacks. To avoid biometric identification, as well as to evade security cameras, espionage organizations are being compelled to make increasing use of unwitting local agents. In some cases, complex operations involving a large number of participants are carried out without the agency sending even one operative into enemy territory. North Korean espionage, for example, has apparently used such methods.
Cohen’s predecessor, Tamir Pardo, was extremely cautious. Sources who spoke with Haaretz attested that during his tenure, the Mossad tended to be less adventurous.
“Pardo approved fewer operations,” a former Mossad man says. “The impression in the operations branch was that he was always afraid that people would be exposed. There was a gloomy atmosphere. Pardo may have been right about caution being needed – all the more so because in the end the responsibility was on his shoulders. But the reality was that he barely approved operations.”
When Cohen took over, in early 2016, his goal was to breathe new life into the Mossad’s operational apparatus and to diversify its modes of operation. Although the new methods required more extensive preparation and more personnel, in the end they have borne fruit.
“Some people in the Mossad were skeptical about the ability to carry out such complex operations with the methods he’s been pushing,” says one source involved in intelligence work, “but Cohen imbued them with the confidence that it could be done.”
The assassination of Hamas engineer Fadi al-Batsh four months ago was attributed to the Mossad. The assassins caught up with him in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur on April 21, and killed him with a burst of gunfire at close range. Again, nothing was picked up by security cameras.
This was not the first time that Malaysia was connected with an assassination attributed to the Mossad. A year and a half earlier, the cover story used by the Hungarian journalist who interviewed Alzoari in Tunisia was the making of a film for a Malaysian production company. According to investigators in Tunisia, two Mossad agents who were allegedly operating out of Vienna posted a notice on the internet about needing staff to work on a series about Palestinian scientists and cultural figures in Tunisia. The announcement, which said the series would be broadcast on Malaysian television, drew a response from several Tunisian citizens. They leased cars and rented apartments for production personnel. The Hungarian journalist was tasked with making contact with the target. The assassination itself was carried out by Bosnian citizens. None of them knew the real identity of their employer.
A source involved in intelligence work says that if this was indeed an Israeli operation, it was an amazing one: “The authorities and the media have not claimed that there was even one Israeli on the ground, yet it looks as though the synchronization worked perfectly.”
One of the most publicized assassinations carried out by duped agents of an espionage organization in recent years took place in February 2017. Once again, Malaysia played a leading role. The target was Kim Jong-nam, the wayward half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, who was poisoned upon arrival at the Kuala Lumpur airport when a cloth apparently soaked with a nerve agent was pressed to his nose. Footage from security cameras led the police to two young women, who thought they had been auditioning for a TV show featuring practical jokes. As part of the audition, they were asked to press a cloth to the face of a man at the airport. By the time the police got to the women, however, their handlers had already left the country and the investigation ran into a dead end.
The 2010 Alzoari assassination was probably planned on the basis of lessons gleaned from the killing of Mabhouh. Mabhouh, a Hamas operative who left the Gaza Strip after being involved in the kidnapping and murder of Israel Defense Forces soldiers Avi Sasportas and Ilan Sa’adon in 1989, played a key role in the Islamist organization’s weapons-smuggling apparatus. He was found dead in his hotel room in Dubai; the postmortem showed that he’d been poisoned.
This was actually the second attempt to assassinate Mabhouh, and by the same method. The first time, the toxic substance was left in his room for him to inhale, but Mahbouh felt chest pains and managed to get to the hospital in time for treatment. The second time, the assassins took no chances: They injected him with the poison.
The investigation by the Dubai police traced everyone who was involved in the operation. At a press conference that made headlines around the world, the police exposed a chain of assassins – all of whom had fictional identities and bore false passports.
The Mossad didn’t do anything to dispel the fog surrounding the body responsible for the assassination in Dubai. In internal conversations Cohen simply likes to say that the organization that hit Mabhouh didn’t fail: “If the man was liquidated, and if no one was ever uncovered or arrested [Dubai authorities never claimed to have arrested any suspect], and if all the members of the organization returned home safely – then from the viewpoint of whoever executed the operation, it’s not a failure.”
But while the target had indeed been eliminated, the extensive investigation undertaken by the Dubai police caused diplomatic embarrassment among the countries whose passports had been forged, and exposed operational methods attributed to the Mossad. In addition, the publication of the photographs of the suspects ostensibly uncovered some of the agents who took part in the operation.
A free hand
Much water – and blood – has flowed since Mahbouh’s assassination. The Mossad under Cohen is a large body that uses a variety of means and is active in many countries. For his part, Prime Minister Netanyahu gives Cohen a free hand to do whatever he wishes. The organization’s budget has constantly grown during Cohen’s tenure; it seems that no request goes unfulfilled. In 2019, the budget of the secret services – i.e., the Mossad and the Shin Bet security service – will stand at 10 billion shekels (currently about $2.73 billion) – double what it was a decade ago, on the eve of Netanyahu’s return to power. It will also mark a sharp increase as compared with the 2018 budget of 8.67 billion shekels.
The state doesn’t divulge details about how much money is allocated to the two agencies, but a source familiar with funding procedures says that “the principal increase has been in the Mossad’s budget. At one time the Mossad was a small organization and the Shin Bet was a large body. The Mossad is catching up with the Shin Bet at a dizzying pace.”
Do the increase in budgets and in personnel, along with the apparent multiplicity of operations, necessarily attest to the strength of the Mossad and its success? There’s not always a correlation between the momentum of activity and the realization of goals. Following a series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, which were attributed to the Mossad, international experts thought the liquidations had proved ineffective and should be stopped. The secrecy surrounding such operations makes it difficult to conduct a public debate, whether with regard to the effectiveness of the Mossad and to the steep rise in the public outlay that underwrites its activity.
Cohen, for his part, believes that implementing an effective policy against carefully chosen targets leads to significant achievements. The more those individuals are capable of upgrading the abilities of terrorist organizations, the more Cohen favors chopping them off at the root.
Today, even Cohen’s few critics in the defense establishment point out that the agency’s operative capabilities have been upgraded. “There are many more operations today with greater daring,” says a security source who is knowledgeable about Israel’s clandestine activities. “The Mossad is active in Asia, in Africa. The Mossad’s message to the prime minister is that operations can be carried out in every country in the world, at any time. Yossi imbues people with confidence. He’s less authoritative, more buddy-buddy and a gentleman. He relies on people doing what they’re supposed to do. He’s not out to cover his ass.”
rest here
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-more-ops-more-secrets-more-money-mossad-s-supercharged-makeover-1.6410934
Related.
Blurb
The Talmud says: “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.” This instinct to take every measure, even the most aggressive, to defend the Jewish people is hardwired into Israel’s DNA. From the very beginning of its statehood in 1948, protecting the nation from harm has been the responsibility of its intelligence community and armed services, and there is one weapon in their vast arsenal that they have relied upon to thwart the most serious threats: Targeted assassinations have been used countless times, on enemies large and small, sometimes in response to attacks against the Israeli people and sometimes preemptively.
In this page-turning, eye-opening book, journalist and military analyst Ronen Bergman—praised by David Remnick as “arguably [Israel’s] best investigative reporter”—offers a riveting inside account of the targeted killing programs: their successes, their failures, and the moral and political price exacted on the men and women who approved and carried out the missions.
Bergman has gained the exceedingly rare cooperation of many current and former members of the Israeli government, including Prime Ministers Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as high-level figures in the country’s military and intelligence services: the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), the Mossad (the world’s most feared intelligence agency), Caesarea (a “Mossad within the Mossad” that carries out attacks on the highest-value targets), and the Shin Bet (an internal security service that implemented the largest targeted assassination campaign ever, in order to stop what had once appeared to be unstoppable: suicide terrorism).
Including never-before-reported, behind-the-curtain accounts of key operations, and based on hundreds of on-the-record interviews and thousands of files to which Bergman has gotten exclusive access over his decades of reporting, Rise and Kill First brings us deep into the heart of Israel’s most secret activities. Bergman traces, from statehood to the present, the gripping events and thorny ethical questions underlying Israel’s targeted killing campaign, which has shaped the Israeli nation, the Middle East, and the entire world.
ReplyAnother update
A Golden Age for the Mossad: More Targets, More Ops, More Money
Israel's Mossad, the second largest spy organization in the West, has grown richer and more sophisticated under Yossi Cohen. But is the director too close to Netanyahu?
On December 14, 2016, Mohammed Alzoari, an engineer living in Sfax, Tunisia, met with a Hungarian journalist of Tunisian origin. For years Alzoari, who, though not a Palestinian himself, was involved in Hamas’ efforts to develop and manufacture drones, had been very cautious about appearing in public and was not well known. But when a journalist asked him for an interview for a film about Palestinian figures – he swallowed the bait.
The interview turned out to be a death trap: From the moment it ended, Alzoari, 49, was apparently kept under surveillance. The next day, while he was driving home, a car drove after him and hit him. Two men emerged from the vehicle and shot him in the head from close range. Immediately after the assassination, Hamas announced: He is one of ours.
On the evening before Alzoari’s killing, it became publicly known that Israel’s Civil Service Commission was investigating whether Mossad chief Yossi Cohen had accepted gratuities from Australian billionaire James Packer. Cohen was apprehensive that his reputation would be sullied by involvement in the corruption cases in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was being investigated, and to which Packer was ostensibly connected. The Alzoari assassination filled him with satisfaction. “Ah, they say it was us?” said Cohen, beaming, in conversations with confidants. “Very good, let them think so.”
In Tunisia, the authorities moved quickly to investigate the incident. In short order they found vehicles and pistols with silencers that had been used by the assassins. The journalist didn’t manage to leave the country and was detained for questioning. The authorities hoped that her arrest would lead to exposure of the network she had worked for, but the more intensely they investigated, the further they got from the Mossad agents who were thought to be behind the killing.
The investigators hoped for a breakthrough when checking the footage of nearby security cameras, but discovered that they had documented nothing – neither the arrival of the car, the assassination, or the getaway.
“That’s not by chance,” a source knowledgeable about methods used by espionage agencies told Haaretz. “A great deal of operational and technological thought goes into dealing with security cameras. The results speak for themselves. Which of the assassinations attributed to the Mossad in recent years were documented by cameras?”
And indeed, in the eight years since the assassination of senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in a hotel in Dubai, there have been no reports of a hit attributed to the Mossad that was caught by security cameras.
New methods
Two-and-a-half years have passed since Yossi Cohen was tapped to be Mossad chief. Under him, the agency has undergone a series of changes: It is enjoying increased government budgets, is employing new methods and is engaging in more operations.
The Mossad currently employs about 7,000 people directly, making it the second-largest espionage agency in the West, after the CIA. Anyone passing by its compound at the Glilot interchange, just north of Tel Aviv, will be impressed by the construction going on there, which is barely keeping pace with the rise in the number of employees. Most of that increase is in technology- and cyber-related realms.
Technological developments are obliging espionage agencies to adopt diverse methods of operation: not only to dispatch agents to enemy countries and to recruit local sources for intelligence, but also to dupe people into serving as agents without their knowledge, to use mercenaries and to rely on new capabilities, such as cyberattacks. To avoid biometric identification, as well as to evade security cameras, espionage organizations are being compelled to make increasing use of unwitting local agents. In some cases, complex operations involving a large number of participants are carried out without the agency sending even one operative into enemy territory. North Korean espionage, for example, has apparently used such methods.
Cohen’s predecessor, Tamir Pardo, was extremely cautious. Sources who spoke with Haaretz attested that during his tenure, the Mossad tended to be less adventurous.
“Pardo approved fewer operations,” a former Mossad man says. “The impression in the operations branch was that he was always afraid that people would be exposed. There was a gloomy atmosphere. Pardo may have been right about caution being needed – all the more so because in the end the responsibility was on his shoulders. But the reality was that he barely approved operations.”
When Cohen took over, in early 2016, his goal was to breathe new life into the Mossad’s operational apparatus and to diversify its modes of operation. Although the new methods required more extensive preparation and more personnel, in the end they have borne fruit.
“Some people in the Mossad were skeptical about the ability to carry out such complex operations with the methods he’s been pushing,” says one source involved in intelligence work, “but Cohen imbued them with the confidence that it could be done.”
The assassination of Hamas engineer Fadi al-Batsh four months ago was attributed to the Mossad. The assassins caught up with him in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur on April 21, and killed him with a burst of gunfire at close range. Again, nothing was picked up by security cameras.
This was not the first time that Malaysia was connected with an assassination attributed to the Mossad. A year and a half earlier, the cover story used by the Hungarian journalist who interviewed Alzoari in Tunisia was the making of a film for a Malaysian production company. According to investigators in Tunisia, two Mossad agents who were allegedly operating out of Vienna posted a notice on the internet about needing staff to work on a series about Palestinian scientists and cultural figures in Tunisia. The announcement, which said the series would be broadcast on Malaysian television, drew a response from several Tunisian citizens. They leased cars and rented apartments for production personnel. The Hungarian journalist was tasked with making contact with the target. The assassination itself was carried out by Bosnian citizens. None of them knew the real identity of their employer.
A source involved in intelligence work says that if this was indeed an Israeli operation, it was an amazing one: “The authorities and the media have not claimed that there was even one Israeli on the ground, yet it looks as though the synchronization worked perfectly.”
One of the most publicized assassinations carried out by duped agents of an espionage organization in recent years took place in February 2017. Once again, Malaysia played a leading role. The target was Kim Jong-nam, the wayward half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, who was poisoned upon arrival at the Kuala Lumpur airport when a cloth apparently soaked with a nerve agent was pressed to his nose. Footage from security cameras led the police to two young women, who thought they had been auditioning for a TV show featuring practical jokes. As part of the audition, they were asked to press a cloth to the face of a man at the airport. By the time the police got to the women, however, their handlers had already left the country and the investigation ran into a dead end.
The 2010 Alzoari assassination was probably planned on the basis of lessons gleaned from the killing of Mabhouh. Mabhouh, a Hamas operative who left the Gaza Strip after being involved in the kidnapping and murder of Israel Defense Forces soldiers Avi Sasportas and Ilan Sa’adon in 1989, played a key role in the Islamist organization’s weapons-smuggling apparatus. He was found dead in his hotel room in Dubai; the postmortem showed that he’d been poisoned.
This was actually the second attempt to assassinate Mabhouh, and by the same method. The first time, the toxic substance was left in his room for him to inhale, but Mahbouh felt chest pains and managed to get to the hospital in time for treatment. The second time, the assassins took no chances: They injected him with the poison.
The investigation by the Dubai police traced everyone who was involved in the operation. At a press conference that made headlines around the world, the police exposed a chain of assassins – all of whom had fictional identities and bore false passports.
The Mossad didn’t do anything to dispel the fog surrounding the body responsible for the assassination in Dubai. In internal conversations Cohen simply likes to say that the organization that hit Mabhouh didn’t fail: “If the man was liquidated, and if no one was ever uncovered or arrested [Dubai authorities never claimed to have arrested any suspect], and if all the members of the organization returned home safely – then from the viewpoint of whoever executed the operation, it’s not a failure.”
But while the target had indeed been eliminated, the extensive investigation undertaken by the Dubai police caused diplomatic embarrassment among the countries whose passports had been forged, and exposed operational methods attributed to the Mossad. In addition, the publication of the photographs of the suspects ostensibly uncovered some of the agents who took part in the operation.
A free hand
Much water – and blood – has flowed since Mahbouh’s assassination. The Mossad under Cohen is a large body that uses a variety of means and is active in many countries. For his part, Prime Minister Netanyahu gives Cohen a free hand to do whatever he wishes. The organization’s budget has constantly grown during Cohen’s tenure; it seems that no request goes unfulfilled. In 2019, the budget of the secret services – i.e., the Mossad and the Shin Bet security service – will stand at 10 billion shekels (currently about $2.73 billion) – double what it was a decade ago, on the eve of Netanyahu’s return to power. It will also mark a sharp increase as compared with the 2018 budget of 8.67 billion shekels.
The state doesn’t divulge details about how much money is allocated to the two agencies, but a source familiar with funding procedures says that “the principal increase has been in the Mossad’s budget. At one time the Mossad was a small organization and the Shin Bet was a large body. The Mossad is catching up with the Shin Bet at a dizzying pace.”
Do the increase in budgets and in personnel, along with the apparent multiplicity of operations, necessarily attest to the strength of the Mossad and its success? There’s not always a correlation between the momentum of activity and the realization of goals. Following a series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, which were attributed to the Mossad, international experts thought the liquidations had proved ineffective and should be stopped. The secrecy surrounding such operations makes it difficult to conduct a public debate, whether with regard to the effectiveness of the Mossad and to the steep rise in the public outlay that underwrites its activity.
Cohen, for his part, believes that implementing an effective policy against carefully chosen targets leads to significant achievements. The more those individuals are capable of upgrading the abilities of terrorist organizations, the more Cohen favors chopping them off at the root.
Today, even Cohen’s few critics in the defense establishment point out that the agency’s operative capabilities have been upgraded. “There are many more operations today with greater daring,” says a security source who is knowledgeable about Israel’s clandestine activities. “The Mossad is active in Asia, in Africa. The Mossad’s message to the prime minister is that operations can be carried out in every country in the world, at any time. Yossi imbues people with confidence. He’s less authoritative, more buddy-buddy and a gentleman. He relies on people doing what they’re supposed to do. He’s not out to cover his ass.”
rest here
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-more-ops-more-secrets-more-money-mossad-s-supercharged-makeover-1.6410934
Related.
Blurb
The Talmud says: “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.” This instinct to take every measure, even the most aggressive, to defend the Jewish people is hardwired into Israel’s DNA. From the very beginning of its statehood in 1948, protecting the nation from harm has been the responsibility of its intelligence community and armed services, and there is one weapon in their vast arsenal that they have relied upon to thwart the most serious threats: Targeted assassinations have been used countless times, on enemies large and small, sometimes in response to attacks against the Israeli people and sometimes preemptively.
In this page-turning, eye-opening book, journalist and military analyst Ronen Bergman—praised by David Remnick as “arguably [Israel’s] best investigative reporter”—offers a riveting inside account of the targeted killing programs: their successes, their failures, and the moral and political price exacted on the men and women who approved and carried out the missions.
Bergman has gained the exceedingly rare cooperation of many current and former members of the Israeli government, including Prime Ministers Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as high-level figures in the country’s military and intelligence services: the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), the Mossad (the world’s most feared intelligence agency), Caesarea (a “Mossad within the Mossad” that carries out attacks on the highest-value targets), and the Shin Bet (an internal security service that implemented the largest targeted assassination campaign ever, in order to stop what had once appeared to be unstoppable: suicide terrorism).
Including never-before-reported, behind-the-curtain accounts of key operations, and based on hundreds of on-the-record interviews and thousands of files to which Bergman has gotten exclusive access over his decades of reporting, Rise and Kill First brings us deep into the heart of Israel’s most secret activities. Bergman traces, from statehood to the present, the gripping events and thorny ethical questions underlying Israel’s targeted killing campaign, which has shaped the Israeli nation, the Middle East, and the entire world.
fschmidt
09-27-2018, 05:49 AM
Israel has just committed suicide, so this thread is no longer relevant. Israel has picked the losing side, America, against Russia which will dominate the Middle East through Iran, Turkey, and Syria. This is a typical Talmudic mistake. The Talmud advocates making alliances with the leaders of corrupt nations. Why? Because they can be bought. America is completely corrupt and almost all of its politicians are for sale, so this fits perfectly with the Talmudic narrative. The problem is that such nations only decline in power. Russia is less corrupt than America and is a rising power. Now Russia will protect Syria and this will allow Iran to install weapons in Syria that can be used against Israel. I don't see how Israel can get out of this mess. Israel will lose the next war.
Abz2000
09-27-2018, 04:26 PM
US School Textbooks: Arab Rejection of Israel Cause of Conflict
Schools in the US state of Texas will be required to teach students that “Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict” in the Middle East.
The Texas Board of Education voted during a curriculum review last week to keep the controversial sentence in high school textbooks, which will be used by some 5.4 million public school children......
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/us...e-of-conflict/
ReplySchools in the US state of Texas will be required to teach students that “Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict” in the Middle East.
The Texas Board of Education voted during a curriculum review last week to keep the controversial sentence in high school textbooks, which will be used by some 5.4 million public school children......
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/us...e-of-conflict/
سيف الله
09-28-2018, 09:13 PM
Salaam
Another update.
The Real Reasons behind Washington’s War on UNRWA
The US government’s decision to slash funds provided to the United Nations agency that cares for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, is part of a new American-Israeli strategy aimed at redefining the rules of the game altogether.
As a result, UNRWA is experiencing its worst financial crisis. The gap in its budget is estimated at around $217 million, and is rapidly increasing. Aside from future catastrophic events that would result in discontinuing services and urgent humanitarian aid to five million refugees registered with UNRWA, the impact of the US callous decision is already reverberating in many refugee camps across the region. Currently, UNRWA has downgraded many of its services: laying off many teachers, reducing staff and working hours at various clinics.
Nearly 40 percent of all Palestinian refugees live in Jordan, a country that is already overwhelmed by a million Syrian refugees who sought shelter there because of the grinding and deadly war in their own country.
Aware of Jordan’s vulnerability, American emissaries attempted to barter with the country to heed the US demand of revoking the status of the two million Palestinian refugees. Instead of funding UNRWA, Washington offered to re-channel the funds directly to the Jordanian government. Thus, the US hopes that the Palestinian refugee status would no longer be applicable. Unsurprisingly, Jordan refused the American offer.
News of this failed barter resurfaced last August. It was reported that US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Jared Kushner, tried to sway the Jordanian government during his visit to Amman in June.
Washington and Israel are seeking to simply remove the ‘Right of Return’ for Palestinian refugees, as enshrined in international law, from the political agenda altogether.
Coupled with Washington’s strategy to “remove Jerusalem from the table,” the American strategy is neither random nor impulsive.
“It is important to have an honest and sincere effort to disrupt UNRWA,” Kushner wrote to the US Middle East envoy, Jason Greenblatt, in an email last January. The email, among others, was later leaked to Foreign Policy magazine. “This (agency) perpetuates a status quo,” he also wrote, referring to UNRWA as “corrupt, inefficient and doesn’t help peace.”
This notion that UNRWA sustains the status quo – meaning the political rights of Palestinians refugees – is the main reason behind the American war on the Organization, a fact that is confirmed through statements made by top Israeli officials, too.
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, echoed the American sentiment. UNRWA “has proven itself an impediment to resolving the conflict by keeping the Palestinians in perpetual refugee status,” he said.
Certainly, the US cutting of funds to UNRWA coincides with the defunding of all programs that provide any kind of aid to the Palestinian people. But the targeting of UNRWA is mostly concerned with the status of Palestinian refugees, a status that has irked Tel Aviv for 70 years.
Why does Israel want to place Palestinian refugees in a status-less category?
The refugee status is already a precarious one. To be a Palestinian refugee means living perpetually in limbo – unable to reclaim what has been lost, and unable to fashion an alternative future and a life of freedom and dignity.
How are Palestinians to reconstruct their identity that has been shattered by decades of exile, when Israel has constantly hinged its own existence as a ‘Jewish state’ on opposing the return and repatriation of Palestinian refugees? Per Israel’s logic, the mere Palestinian demand for the implementation of the internationally-sanctioned Right of Return is equivalent to a call for “genocide”. According to that same faulty logic, the fact that the Palestinian people live and multiply is a “demographic threat” to Israel.
Much can be said about the circumstances behind the creation of UNRWA by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1949 – its operations, efficiency and the effectiveness of its work. But for most Palestinians, UNRWA is not a relief organization, per se – being registered as a refugee with UNRWA provides Palestinians with a temporary identity, the same identity that allowed four generations of refugees to navigate decades of exile.
UNRWA’s stamp of “refugee” on every certificate that millions of Palestinians possess – birth, death and everything else in between – has served as a compass, pointing back to the places those refugees come from – not the refugee camps scattered in Palestine and across the region, but the 600 towns and villages that were destroyed during the Zionist assault on Palestine.
These villages may have been erased, as a whole new country was established upon their ruins, but the Palestinian refugee remained – subsisted, resisted and plotted her return home. The UNRWA refugee status is the international recognition of this inalienable right.
Therefore, the current US-Israeli war does not target UNRWA as a UN body, but as an organization that allows millions of Palestinians to maintain their identity as refugees with non-negotiable rights until their return to their ancestral homeland. Nearly 70 years after its founding, UNRWA remains essential and irreplaceable.
The founders of Israel envisioned a future where Palestinian refugees would eventually disappear into the larger population of the Middle East. Seventy years on, the Israelis still entertain that same illusion.
Now, with the help of the Trump administration, they are orchestrating yet more sinister campaigns to make Palestinian refugees vanish, wished away through the destruction of UNRWA and the redefining of the refugee status of millions of Palestinians.
The fate of Palestinian refugees seems to be of no relevance to Trump, Kushner and other US officials. The Americans are now hoping that their strategy will finally bring Palestinians to their knees so that they will ultimately submit to the Israeli government’s dictates.
The latest US-Israeli folly will prove futile. Successive US administrations have done everything in their power to support Israel and to punish the supposedly intransigent Palestinians. The Right of Return, however, remained the driving force behind Palestinian resistance, as the Gaza Great March of Return, ongoing since March, continues to demonstrate.
The truth is that all the money in Washington’s coffers will not reverse what is now a deeply embedded belief in the hearts and minds of millions of refugees throughout Palestine, the Middle East and the world.
– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’ (Pluto Press, London, 2018). He earned a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, UCSB.
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-real-reasons-behind-washingtons-war-on-unrwa/
ReplyAnother update.
The Real Reasons behind Washington’s War on UNRWA
The US government’s decision to slash funds provided to the United Nations agency that cares for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, is part of a new American-Israeli strategy aimed at redefining the rules of the game altogether.
As a result, UNRWA is experiencing its worst financial crisis. The gap in its budget is estimated at around $217 million, and is rapidly increasing. Aside from future catastrophic events that would result in discontinuing services and urgent humanitarian aid to five million refugees registered with UNRWA, the impact of the US callous decision is already reverberating in many refugee camps across the region. Currently, UNRWA has downgraded many of its services: laying off many teachers, reducing staff and working hours at various clinics.
Nearly 40 percent of all Palestinian refugees live in Jordan, a country that is already overwhelmed by a million Syrian refugees who sought shelter there because of the grinding and deadly war in their own country.
Aware of Jordan’s vulnerability, American emissaries attempted to barter with the country to heed the US demand of revoking the status of the two million Palestinian refugees. Instead of funding UNRWA, Washington offered to re-channel the funds directly to the Jordanian government. Thus, the US hopes that the Palestinian refugee status would no longer be applicable. Unsurprisingly, Jordan refused the American offer.
News of this failed barter resurfaced last August. It was reported that US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Jared Kushner, tried to sway the Jordanian government during his visit to Amman in June.
Washington and Israel are seeking to simply remove the ‘Right of Return’ for Palestinian refugees, as enshrined in international law, from the political agenda altogether.
Coupled with Washington’s strategy to “remove Jerusalem from the table,” the American strategy is neither random nor impulsive.
“It is important to have an honest and sincere effort to disrupt UNRWA,” Kushner wrote to the US Middle East envoy, Jason Greenblatt, in an email last January. The email, among others, was later leaked to Foreign Policy magazine. “This (agency) perpetuates a status quo,” he also wrote, referring to UNRWA as “corrupt, inefficient and doesn’t help peace.”
This notion that UNRWA sustains the status quo – meaning the political rights of Palestinians refugees – is the main reason behind the American war on the Organization, a fact that is confirmed through statements made by top Israeli officials, too.
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, echoed the American sentiment. UNRWA “has proven itself an impediment to resolving the conflict by keeping the Palestinians in perpetual refugee status,” he said.
Certainly, the US cutting of funds to UNRWA coincides with the defunding of all programs that provide any kind of aid to the Palestinian people. But the targeting of UNRWA is mostly concerned with the status of Palestinian refugees, a status that has irked Tel Aviv for 70 years.
Why does Israel want to place Palestinian refugees in a status-less category?
The refugee status is already a precarious one. To be a Palestinian refugee means living perpetually in limbo – unable to reclaim what has been lost, and unable to fashion an alternative future and a life of freedom and dignity.
How are Palestinians to reconstruct their identity that has been shattered by decades of exile, when Israel has constantly hinged its own existence as a ‘Jewish state’ on opposing the return and repatriation of Palestinian refugees? Per Israel’s logic, the mere Palestinian demand for the implementation of the internationally-sanctioned Right of Return is equivalent to a call for “genocide”. According to that same faulty logic, the fact that the Palestinian people live and multiply is a “demographic threat” to Israel.
Much can be said about the circumstances behind the creation of UNRWA by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1949 – its operations, efficiency and the effectiveness of its work. But for most Palestinians, UNRWA is not a relief organization, per se – being registered as a refugee with UNRWA provides Palestinians with a temporary identity, the same identity that allowed four generations of refugees to navigate decades of exile.
UNRWA’s stamp of “refugee” on every certificate that millions of Palestinians possess – birth, death and everything else in between – has served as a compass, pointing back to the places those refugees come from – not the refugee camps scattered in Palestine and across the region, but the 600 towns and villages that were destroyed during the Zionist assault on Palestine.
These villages may have been erased, as a whole new country was established upon their ruins, but the Palestinian refugee remained – subsisted, resisted and plotted her return home. The UNRWA refugee status is the international recognition of this inalienable right.
Therefore, the current US-Israeli war does not target UNRWA as a UN body, but as an organization that allows millions of Palestinians to maintain their identity as refugees with non-negotiable rights until their return to their ancestral homeland. Nearly 70 years after its founding, UNRWA remains essential and irreplaceable.
The founders of Israel envisioned a future where Palestinian refugees would eventually disappear into the larger population of the Middle East. Seventy years on, the Israelis still entertain that same illusion.
Now, with the help of the Trump administration, they are orchestrating yet more sinister campaigns to make Palestinian refugees vanish, wished away through the destruction of UNRWA and the redefining of the refugee status of millions of Palestinians.
The fate of Palestinian refugees seems to be of no relevance to Trump, Kushner and other US officials. The Americans are now hoping that their strategy will finally bring Palestinians to their knees so that they will ultimately submit to the Israeli government’s dictates.
The latest US-Israeli folly will prove futile. Successive US administrations have done everything in their power to support Israel and to punish the supposedly intransigent Palestinians. The Right of Return, however, remained the driving force behind Palestinian resistance, as the Gaza Great March of Return, ongoing since March, continues to demonstrate.
The truth is that all the money in Washington’s coffers will not reverse what is now a deeply embedded belief in the hearts and minds of millions of refugees throughout Palestine, the Middle East and the world.
– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’ (Pluto Press, London, 2018). He earned a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, UCSB.
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-real-reasons-behind-washingtons-war-on-unrwa/
سيف الله
09-30-2018, 02:34 AM
Salaam
Another update. A little old, but details the rise of the Israeli ultra nationalists.
Blurb
Bussed in from nearby settlements, Israel’s ultranationalist right were defiant at a rally for Jerusalem day this year. Hardline views have become more influential than ever in Israel – with both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the wider public. Inigo
Gilmore went to meet the settlers.
ReplyAnother update. A little old, but details the rise of the Israeli ultra nationalists.
Blurb
Bussed in from nearby settlements, Israel’s ultranationalist right were defiant at a rally for Jerusalem day this year. Hardline views have become more influential than ever in Israel – with both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the wider public. Inigo
Gilmore went to meet the settlers.
سيف الله
10-03-2018, 09:00 AM
Salaam
Hmmm they are pushing their luck. I thought Putin would let them off, but they responded robustly.
Edit
Perceptive on Russia wanting to be the new 'don' of the Middle East, with Turkey and Iran in tow, now that the USA is slowly withdrawing. Israelis, Saudis and Qataris have lost out.
And the people suffer.
Another Edit.
Sections of the American population are becoming more and more warier of the Israeli leadership.
Blurb
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a sordid history of lying to the American people to gain the use of the US military to topple Israel's enemies. This video will open your eyes to his scam.
ReplyHmmm they are pushing their luck. I thought Putin would let them off, but they responded robustly.
Edit
Perceptive on Russia wanting to be the new 'don' of the Middle East, with Turkey and Iran in tow, now that the USA is slowly withdrawing. Israelis, Saudis and Qataris have lost out.
And the people suffer.
Another Edit.
Sections of the American population are becoming more and more warier of the Israeli leadership.
Blurb
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a sordid history of lying to the American people to gain the use of the US military to topple Israel's enemies. This video will open your eyes to his scam.
سيف الله
10-10-2018, 12:35 AM
Salaam
Another provocative article from Gilad Atzmon.
Smear and Shekels
Haaretz reveals today that Canary Mission a Hasbara defamation outlet that was established to “spread fear among undergraduate activists, posting more than a thousand political dossiers on student supporters of Palestinian rights,” is funded by one of the largest Jewish charities in the U.S.
According to Haaretz; the Forward, an American Jewish outlet, “has definitively identified a major donor to Canary Mission. It is a foundation controlled by the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, a major Jewish charity with an annual budget of over $100 million.” We could have guessed the funding was from such an organisation. We somehow knew that it wasn’t the Iranian government or Hamas who sent shekels to the Zionist smear factory. Haaretz continues, “for three years, a website called Canary Mission has spread fear among undergraduate activists, posting more than a thousand political dossiers on student supporters of Palestinian rights. The dossiers are meant to harm students’ job prospects, and have been used in interrogations by Israeli security officials.”
Canary Mission is indeed a nasty operation and far from unique. We have seen similar efforts within the Jewish institutional universe for some time. It might be reasonable to opine that smear has become a new Jewish industry. Consistent with the rules of economics, many new Jewish bodies have entered the profitable business, and these outlets have competed mercilessly with each other for donations and funds.
This is precisely a variation on the battle we have seen in Britain in the last few years. Almost every British Jewish institution joined the ‘Corbyn defamation’ contest, competing over who could toss the most dirt on the Labour party and its leader. The outcome was magnificent. Last week at Labour’s annual conference, the party unanimously expressed its firm opposition to Israel and took the Palestinian’s side.
Badmouthing is not really a ‘Zionist symptom.’ Unfortunately, it is a Jewish political obsession. In between its fund raisers, it seems that Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) invests a lot of energy in smearing some of the more dedicated truth tellers. Mondoweiss, another Jewish outlet, practices this game as well.
I, myself, have been subjected to hundreds of such smear campaigns by so called ‘anti’ Zionist Jews who were desperate to stop the circulation of my work on Jewish ID politics. But these frantic efforts only served to support my thesis that the issues to do with Israel and Palestine extend far beyond the Zionist/anti debate. We had better dig into the meaning of Jewishness and its contemporary political implications.
Once again the question is, why do self-identified Jewish activists use these ugly tactics? Why do they insist upon smearing and terrorising instead of engaging in a proper scholarly and/or political debate?
Choseness is one possible answer. People who are convinced of their own exceptional nature often lack an understanding of the ‘other.’ This deficiency may well interfere with the ability to evolve a code of universal ethics.
The other answer may have something to do with the battle for funds. As we learned from Haaretz, the Canary Mission is funded by one of the richest Jewish American funds. Badmouthing has value. ‘You defame, we send money.’ Unfortunately this holds for Zionists and ‘anti’ alike.
Crucially, in this battle, Jews often oppose each other. Haaretz writes that the Canary Mission “has been controversial since it appeared in mid-2015, drawing comparisons to a McCarthyite blacklist.” And it seems that some Zionist Jews eventually gathered that the Canary smear factory gives Jews a bad name.
Tilly Shames, who runs the campus Hillel at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told the Forward that “the tactics of the organisation are troubling, both from a moral standpoint, but have also proven to be ineffective and counterproductive,”
Shames said that Canary Mission’s publication of dossiers on students on her campus had led to greater support for the targeted students and their beliefs, and had spread mistrust of pro-Israel students, who were suspected of spying for Canary Mission.
This dynamic can be explained. My study of Jewish controlled opposition postulates that self-identified Jewish activists always attempt to dominate both poles of any debate that is relevant to Jewish interests. Once it was accepted that Palestine was becoming a ‘Jewish problem,’ a number of Jewish bodies became increasingly involved in steering the Palestinian solidarity movement. We then saw that they diluted the call for the Palestinian Right of Return and replaced it with watery notions that, de facto, legitimise Israel.
When it was evident that the Neocon school was, in practice, a Ziocon war machine, we saw bodies on the Jewish Left steer the anti-war call. When some British Jews realised that the Jewish campaign against Corbyn might backfire, they were astonishingly quick to form Jews for Jeremy that rapidly evolved into Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL). The battle over the next British PM became an internal Jewish debate. The rule is simple: every public dispute that is somehow relevant to Jewish interests will quickly become an exclusive internal Jewish debate.
Hillel activists see that Canary Mission is starting to backfire. Together with Forward and Haaretz, they have quickly positioned themselves at the forefront of the opposition.
https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/10/4/smear-and-shekels
ReplyAnother provocative article from Gilad Atzmon.
Smear and Shekels
Haaretz reveals today that Canary Mission a Hasbara defamation outlet that was established to “spread fear among undergraduate activists, posting more than a thousand political dossiers on student supporters of Palestinian rights,” is funded by one of the largest Jewish charities in the U.S.
According to Haaretz; the Forward, an American Jewish outlet, “has definitively identified a major donor to Canary Mission. It is a foundation controlled by the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, a major Jewish charity with an annual budget of over $100 million.” We could have guessed the funding was from such an organisation. We somehow knew that it wasn’t the Iranian government or Hamas who sent shekels to the Zionist smear factory. Haaretz continues, “for three years, a website called Canary Mission has spread fear among undergraduate activists, posting more than a thousand political dossiers on student supporters of Palestinian rights. The dossiers are meant to harm students’ job prospects, and have been used in interrogations by Israeli security officials.”
Canary Mission is indeed a nasty operation and far from unique. We have seen similar efforts within the Jewish institutional universe for some time. It might be reasonable to opine that smear has become a new Jewish industry. Consistent with the rules of economics, many new Jewish bodies have entered the profitable business, and these outlets have competed mercilessly with each other for donations and funds.
This is precisely a variation on the battle we have seen in Britain in the last few years. Almost every British Jewish institution joined the ‘Corbyn defamation’ contest, competing over who could toss the most dirt on the Labour party and its leader. The outcome was magnificent. Last week at Labour’s annual conference, the party unanimously expressed its firm opposition to Israel and took the Palestinian’s side.
Badmouthing is not really a ‘Zionist symptom.’ Unfortunately, it is a Jewish political obsession. In between its fund raisers, it seems that Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) invests a lot of energy in smearing some of the more dedicated truth tellers. Mondoweiss, another Jewish outlet, practices this game as well.
I, myself, have been subjected to hundreds of such smear campaigns by so called ‘anti’ Zionist Jews who were desperate to stop the circulation of my work on Jewish ID politics. But these frantic efforts only served to support my thesis that the issues to do with Israel and Palestine extend far beyond the Zionist/anti debate. We had better dig into the meaning of Jewishness and its contemporary political implications.
Once again the question is, why do self-identified Jewish activists use these ugly tactics? Why do they insist upon smearing and terrorising instead of engaging in a proper scholarly and/or political debate?
Choseness is one possible answer. People who are convinced of their own exceptional nature often lack an understanding of the ‘other.’ This deficiency may well interfere with the ability to evolve a code of universal ethics.
The other answer may have something to do with the battle for funds. As we learned from Haaretz, the Canary Mission is funded by one of the richest Jewish American funds. Badmouthing has value. ‘You defame, we send money.’ Unfortunately this holds for Zionists and ‘anti’ alike.
Crucially, in this battle, Jews often oppose each other. Haaretz writes that the Canary Mission “has been controversial since it appeared in mid-2015, drawing comparisons to a McCarthyite blacklist.” And it seems that some Zionist Jews eventually gathered that the Canary smear factory gives Jews a bad name.
Tilly Shames, who runs the campus Hillel at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told the Forward that “the tactics of the organisation are troubling, both from a moral standpoint, but have also proven to be ineffective and counterproductive,”
Shames said that Canary Mission’s publication of dossiers on students on her campus had led to greater support for the targeted students and their beliefs, and had spread mistrust of pro-Israel students, who were suspected of spying for Canary Mission.
This dynamic can be explained. My study of Jewish controlled opposition postulates that self-identified Jewish activists always attempt to dominate both poles of any debate that is relevant to Jewish interests. Once it was accepted that Palestine was becoming a ‘Jewish problem,’ a number of Jewish bodies became increasingly involved in steering the Palestinian solidarity movement. We then saw that they diluted the call for the Palestinian Right of Return and replaced it with watery notions that, de facto, legitimise Israel.
When it was evident that the Neocon school was, in practice, a Ziocon war machine, we saw bodies on the Jewish Left steer the anti-war call. When some British Jews realised that the Jewish campaign against Corbyn might backfire, they were astonishingly quick to form Jews for Jeremy that rapidly evolved into Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL). The battle over the next British PM became an internal Jewish debate. The rule is simple: every public dispute that is somehow relevant to Jewish interests will quickly become an exclusive internal Jewish debate.
Hillel activists see that Canary Mission is starting to backfire. Together with Forward and Haaretz, they have quickly positioned themselves at the forefront of the opposition.
https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/10/4/smear-and-shekels
سيف الله
10-13-2018, 01:27 PM
Salaam
Hah! so this was the plan all along.
‘Entire Middle East’ should look like Israel – Pompeo
Israel is everything the US wishes the Middle East would be, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared in a speech, while bashing the Obama administration’s approach to Iran as resembling a “Disney movie.”
Speaking at the annual Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) dinner in Washington on Wednesday, Pompeo argued that Israel “is democratic and prosperous, it desires peace, it is a home to a free press and a thriving economy,” calling it “everything we want the entire Middle East to look like going forward.”
Israel’s enemy number one Iran, meanwhile, has “corrupt leaders” who “assault the human rights of their own people and finance terrorism in every corner of the Middle East,” according to Pompeo.
He went on to habitually bash the Obama administration for trying to solve problems with Iran peacefully.
“President Obama thought that if he made dangerous concessions, removed economic sanctions and flew a plane full of cash to Tehran, he could somehow hug Iran’s leaders into behaving well… but those leaders aren’t from a Disney movie,” Pompeo said, then himself went on to paint Iranian leaders as movie villains: “They’re real. They are murderers and funders of terrorism who lead chants today, still, of ‘Death to America’.”
After decades of US presidents at least maintaining the facade of honest brokers between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the Trump administration went all-out onto Israel’s side. The US embassy was moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s claim to the city in violation of UN resolutions and to the outrage of most of the Muslim world.
Washington has also cut funding to UN agencies charged with helping the displaced Palestinians, as well as direct aid to the Palestinian Authority and Gaza. Meanwhile, Israeli forces have killed almost 200 and injured over 20,000 Palestinians who have been protesting along the Gaza border fence since March.
In addition to its unapologetic support for Israel, the US under Trump switched gears into open hostility with Iran. In March, Trump left the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration – and praised as effective by all other signatories – and re-imposed a wide range of sanctions on Tehran. US diplomats have gone so far as to threaten other countries daring to do business with Iran that they would be punished for doing so.
https://www.rt.com/usa/441041-pompeo-middle-east-like-israel/
ReplyHah! so this was the plan all along.
‘Entire Middle East’ should look like Israel – Pompeo
Israel is everything the US wishes the Middle East would be, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared in a speech, while bashing the Obama administration’s approach to Iran as resembling a “Disney movie.”
Speaking at the annual Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) dinner in Washington on Wednesday, Pompeo argued that Israel “is democratic and prosperous, it desires peace, it is a home to a free press and a thriving economy,” calling it “everything we want the entire Middle East to look like going forward.”
Israel’s enemy number one Iran, meanwhile, has “corrupt leaders” who “assault the human rights of their own people and finance terrorism in every corner of the Middle East,” according to Pompeo.
He went on to habitually bash the Obama administration for trying to solve problems with Iran peacefully.
“President Obama thought that if he made dangerous concessions, removed economic sanctions and flew a plane full of cash to Tehran, he could somehow hug Iran’s leaders into behaving well… but those leaders aren’t from a Disney movie,” Pompeo said, then himself went on to paint Iranian leaders as movie villains: “They’re real. They are murderers and funders of terrorism who lead chants today, still, of ‘Death to America’.”
After decades of US presidents at least maintaining the facade of honest brokers between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the Trump administration went all-out onto Israel’s side. The US embassy was moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s claim to the city in violation of UN resolutions and to the outrage of most of the Muslim world.
Washington has also cut funding to UN agencies charged with helping the displaced Palestinians, as well as direct aid to the Palestinian Authority and Gaza. Meanwhile, Israeli forces have killed almost 200 and injured over 20,000 Palestinians who have been protesting along the Gaza border fence since March.
In addition to its unapologetic support for Israel, the US under Trump switched gears into open hostility with Iran. In March, Trump left the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration – and praised as effective by all other signatories – and re-imposed a wide range of sanctions on Tehran. US diplomats have gone so far as to threaten other countries daring to do business with Iran that they would be punished for doing so.
https://www.rt.com/usa/441041-pompeo-middle-east-like-israel/
سيف الله
10-17-2018, 04:04 AM
Salaam
To expand on previous post.
Blurb
Israel is everything the US wishes the Middle East would be, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared in a speech, while bashing the Obama administration’s approach to Iran as resembling a “Disney movie.”
Another update
Report: IDF Chief of Staff Eisenkot met with Saudi counterpart
Eisenkot was reported to have discussed Iran with Saudi Arabia’s Chief of Staff Gen. Fayyad.
IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot met with his counterparts from several Arab countries while in Washington for the Counter–Violent Extremist Organizations conference for military commanders, Israeli media reported Tuesday evening.
According to a report by Israel’s KAN public television, Eisenkot met with Saudi Arabia’s Chief of Staff Gen. Fayyad bin Hamed Al-Ruwaili on Tuesday on the sidelines of the conference about several regional issues, including Iran, which is a common foe to the two countries.
A statement released by the IDF had said that Eisenkot would meet with military officials from both the US and other foreign military officials, it did not specify which military leaders he would meet with.
While this seems to be the first publicized meeting between Eisenkot and al-Ruwaili, it is the second consecutive year that the two officers attended the Counter–Violent Extremist Organizations conference for military commanders, where the two are believed to have also spoken about Iran.
Last November following Eisenkot’s first participation in the conference he gave an unprecedented interview to the Saudi Elaph newspaper based in London and offered to share Israeli intelligence about Iran with Riyadh, telling the newspaper that what he heard from the Saudis about Iranian expansion was “identical” to Israeli concerns.
“We are ready to exchange experiences with Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab countries and exchange intelligence to confront Iran,” he said, adding that “there are many shared interests between us and Saudi Arabia.”
Calling for a new international alliance in the Middle East, Eisenkot stated that there needs to be “a large, comprehensive strategic plan to stop the Iranian threat. This is what should be prevented in the region,” he said, adding that “in this matter there is complete agreement between us and Saudi Arabia.”
In addition to the meeting with al-Ruwaili, Eisenkot was seen in a photo released by the Department of Defense of a dinner during the conference seated at the same table as the Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces Mohamed Farid, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Jordan Lt.-Gen.Mahmoud Abdul Halim Freihat, as well as the Chief of Staff of Bahrain, Lt.-Gen. Dhiab bin Saqr Al Nuaimi.
While Israel has no official ties with Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, the relationship with the Sunni Kingdom and other Gulf States has grown stronger in recent years, due in large part to the shared threat of Iran’s expansion across the region.
Relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia are at their worst in years with both accusing the other of subverting regional security. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman caused an uproar earlier this year when he recognized Israel's right to exist.
Last November a spokesperson for Yemeni rebels accused Israel of taking part in the Saudi Arabia led-coalition against Yemen and warned that Israeli military bases in Africa are within range of Houthi missiles.
The Houthis, which are armed by Iran, have also fired several ballistic missiles into Saudi Arabia, including one which targeted the Saudi capital Riyadh a day before US President Donald Trump visited the Kingdom last May.
In September the Emirati news website al-Khaleej reported that Saudi Arabia had purchased Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system to defend itself from Houthi missile attacks. The deal, which was reportedly mediated by the United States included further plans to reach an agreement on broad military cooperation between the two countries.
Israel’s Ministry of Defense and Rafael which manufactures the system, denied the report.
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Report-IDF-Chief-of-Staff-Eisenkot-met-with-Saudi-counterpart-569585
ReplyTo expand on previous post.
Blurb
Israel is everything the US wishes the Middle East would be, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared in a speech, while bashing the Obama administration’s approach to Iran as resembling a “Disney movie.”
Another update
Report: IDF Chief of Staff Eisenkot met with Saudi counterpart
Eisenkot was reported to have discussed Iran with Saudi Arabia’s Chief of Staff Gen. Fayyad.
IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot met with his counterparts from several Arab countries while in Washington for the Counter–Violent Extremist Organizations conference for military commanders, Israeli media reported Tuesday evening.
According to a report by Israel’s KAN public television, Eisenkot met with Saudi Arabia’s Chief of Staff Gen. Fayyad bin Hamed Al-Ruwaili on Tuesday on the sidelines of the conference about several regional issues, including Iran, which is a common foe to the two countries.
A statement released by the IDF had said that Eisenkot would meet with military officials from both the US and other foreign military officials, it did not specify which military leaders he would meet with.
While this seems to be the first publicized meeting between Eisenkot and al-Ruwaili, it is the second consecutive year that the two officers attended the Counter–Violent Extremist Organizations conference for military commanders, where the two are believed to have also spoken about Iran.
Last November following Eisenkot’s first participation in the conference he gave an unprecedented interview to the Saudi Elaph newspaper based in London and offered to share Israeli intelligence about Iran with Riyadh, telling the newspaper that what he heard from the Saudis about Iranian expansion was “identical” to Israeli concerns.
“We are ready to exchange experiences with Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab countries and exchange intelligence to confront Iran,” he said, adding that “there are many shared interests between us and Saudi Arabia.”
Calling for a new international alliance in the Middle East, Eisenkot stated that there needs to be “a large, comprehensive strategic plan to stop the Iranian threat. This is what should be prevented in the region,” he said, adding that “in this matter there is complete agreement between us and Saudi Arabia.”
In addition to the meeting with al-Ruwaili, Eisenkot was seen in a photo released by the Department of Defense of a dinner during the conference seated at the same table as the Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces Mohamed Farid, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Jordan Lt.-Gen.Mahmoud Abdul Halim Freihat, as well as the Chief of Staff of Bahrain, Lt.-Gen. Dhiab bin Saqr Al Nuaimi.
While Israel has no official ties with Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, the relationship with the Sunni Kingdom and other Gulf States has grown stronger in recent years, due in large part to the shared threat of Iran’s expansion across the region.
Relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia are at their worst in years with both accusing the other of subverting regional security. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman caused an uproar earlier this year when he recognized Israel's right to exist.
Last November a spokesperson for Yemeni rebels accused Israel of taking part in the Saudi Arabia led-coalition against Yemen and warned that Israeli military bases in Africa are within range of Houthi missiles.
The Houthis, which are armed by Iran, have also fired several ballistic missiles into Saudi Arabia, including one which targeted the Saudi capital Riyadh a day before US President Donald Trump visited the Kingdom last May.
In September the Emirati news website al-Khaleej reported that Saudi Arabia had purchased Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system to defend itself from Houthi missile attacks. The deal, which was reportedly mediated by the United States included further plans to reach an agreement on broad military cooperation between the two countries.
Israel’s Ministry of Defense and Rafael which manufactures the system, denied the report.
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Report-IDF-Chief-of-Staff-Eisenkot-met-with-Saudi-counterpart-569585
سيف الله
10-19-2018, 07:51 PM
Salaam
Another update
Blurb
A joint investigation by Four Corners and The Australian newspaper reveals evidence that shows the army is targeting Palestinian boys for arrest and detention. Reporter John Lyons travels to the West Bank to hear the story of children who claim they have been taken into custody, ruthlessly questioned and then allegedly forced to sign confessions before being taken to court for sentencing.
He meets Australian lawyer Gerard Horton, who's trying to help the boys who are arrested, and talks to senior Israeli officials to examine what's driving the army's strategy. The United Nations children's agency (UNICEF) has been investigating these claims and last year released a scathing report finding that "children have been threatened with death, physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault." As Four Corners discovered, though, Palestinian children have more to fear than the Israeli army. Reporter John Lyons shows clear evidence that Israeli settlers in the West Bank regularly attack Palestinian school children, knowing the authorities will not intervene.
Oh this is interesting.
ReplyAnother update
Blurb
A joint investigation by Four Corners and The Australian newspaper reveals evidence that shows the army is targeting Palestinian boys for arrest and detention. Reporter John Lyons travels to the West Bank to hear the story of children who claim they have been taken into custody, ruthlessly questioned and then allegedly forced to sign confessions before being taken to court for sentencing.
He meets Australian lawyer Gerard Horton, who's trying to help the boys who are arrested, and talks to senior Israeli officials to examine what's driving the army's strategy. The United Nations children's agency (UNICEF) has been investigating these claims and last year released a scathing report finding that "children have been threatened with death, physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault." As Four Corners discovered, though, Palestinian children have more to fear than the Israeli army. Reporter John Lyons shows clear evidence that Israeli settlers in the West Bank regularly attack Palestinian school children, knowing the authorities will not intervene.
Oh this is interesting.
سيف الله
10-23-2018, 10:36 PM
Salaam
Another update
Battling Corbyn, Israel’s main British enemy
Is there anything Israel’s allies can do to make it more difficult for a Corbyn-controlled Labour to rise to power?
British Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn is Israel’s most dangerous enemy in the Western European mainstream. He has a long record of anti-Israel incitement. Corbyn may well become British prime minister in the next parliamentary election. It is likely that he will surround himself with other extremist Israel-haters.
The major public discussion over the past two and a half years about antisemitism in the Labour Party has overshadowed Corbyn’s anti-Israel incitement as well as his expressions of sympathy for genocidal Arab terrorists. At Labour’s annual conference in September, dominated by Corbyn’s supporters, an anti-Israeli motion was adopted by an overwhelming majority. It condemned Israel for the Palestinian casualties at the Gaza border since April and called for an international investigation of the situation. The motion furthermore requested a halt of UK arms sales to Israel.
In his keynote speech at the conference, Corbyn condemned the continuing Israeli occupation as well as the Palestinian casualties at the Gaza border. He also repeated that if he becomes prime minister his government will immediately recognize a Palestinian state. Observers said that there were many Palestinian flags at the conference and no British ones.
Several of Corbyn’s most senior associates are also long time Israel inciters. The powerful Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, spoke in 2012 at a far-left rally where he said that Israel was attempting a genocide against the Palestinians. In 2008, McDonnell was a lead signatory of a parliamentary motion that welcomed the founding of the International Jewish anti-Zionist Network (IJAN).
Current polls indicate that a Corbyn-led government is a distinct possibility. The conservative government’s poor handling of the Brexit negotiations has probably helped Labour more than anything Corbyn and his colleagues have done. While the next parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2022, an early election due to the crisis around Brexit is a possibility.
The chances of the moderate Labourites demoting Corbyn and his supporters from the leadership of the party are minimal. Since he was elected as leader in 2015, Corbyn and Momentum, his main supporters’ extreme left movement, have increasingly strengthened their grip on the party. Iain McNicol, a moderate resigned as general secretary, the most senior employee of the party in February 2018. He was replaced by a Corbynite, Jennie Formby. Several other key staff positions are now held by Corbyn supporters.
Recently elections for the party’s governing body, the National Executive Council (NEC), were held. All nine members elected belonged to Momentum, and non-Momentum candidates got far less votes than those elected. Yasmin Dar, who received the most votes is seen in a 2017 film clip celebrating the Iranian Revolution at the Islamic center in Manchester.
It may take Corbyn more time to gain full control of the parliamentary party as the great majority of MPs are moderates. Joan Ryan, the Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, has been deselected by her local party. The same has happened to MPs Gavin Shuker and Chris Leslie.
Yet if too many moderates are deselected by their local parties some of them may run as independents or even as members of a new party. The latter might then collaborate with the third largest party, the Liberal Democrats. In the UK’s parliamentary system, there is only one election round. The candidate who receives the most votes in any one constituency is elected. If a deselected candidate runs against an official Labour pro-Corbynite candidate, the vote is likely to be split. As a result Labour may lose a number of its current seats.
Is there anything Israel’s allies can do to make it more difficult for a Corbyn-controlled Labour to rise to power?
So far, two possibilities have emerged. The first one derives from an opinion by the British law firm, WLegal. Under current US legislation, sanctions against Corbyn are possible as he is a supporter of a terror organization. Actions to achieve this would have to be taken now, as the US is unlikely to act against Corbyn if he becomes prime minister.
A second issue which can be promoted outside the UK is publicizing the fact that if Corbyn comes to power he will receive access to highly classified intelligence from the British Security Services. Furthermore, it is unlikely that all intelligence can be withheld from his extremist associates who hold key positions in his administration.
Would foreign governments be comfortable with such a situation? Would they want intelligence normally shared with allies to fall into the hands of the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell or Labour’s chief strategist, who is a supporter of the genocidal Hamas movement?
What about Corbyn’s senior policy adviser, an ex-communist from whom British parliamentary security has withheld access to the Commons for a year already, or Corbyn’s private secretary, who after nine months of vetting by security services has not yet received access to the parliament? The problem already exists; whatever foreign intelligence has been shared with the UK will be accessible to Corbyn if he becomes prime minister.
Once this information is spread outside the UK, British media are likely to pick up on this issue. That will inject additional pressure into the public debate over the risks to the country if a Corbyn-led Labour Party wins the next parliamentary election.
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Battli...h-enemy-569918
ReplyAnother update
Battling Corbyn, Israel’s main British enemy
Is there anything Israel’s allies can do to make it more difficult for a Corbyn-controlled Labour to rise to power?
British Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn is Israel’s most dangerous enemy in the Western European mainstream. He has a long record of anti-Israel incitement. Corbyn may well become British prime minister in the next parliamentary election. It is likely that he will surround himself with other extremist Israel-haters.
The major public discussion over the past two and a half years about antisemitism in the Labour Party has overshadowed Corbyn’s anti-Israel incitement as well as his expressions of sympathy for genocidal Arab terrorists. At Labour’s annual conference in September, dominated by Corbyn’s supporters, an anti-Israeli motion was adopted by an overwhelming majority. It condemned Israel for the Palestinian casualties at the Gaza border since April and called for an international investigation of the situation. The motion furthermore requested a halt of UK arms sales to Israel.
In his keynote speech at the conference, Corbyn condemned the continuing Israeli occupation as well as the Palestinian casualties at the Gaza border. He also repeated that if he becomes prime minister his government will immediately recognize a Palestinian state. Observers said that there were many Palestinian flags at the conference and no British ones.
Several of Corbyn’s most senior associates are also long time Israel inciters. The powerful Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, spoke in 2012 at a far-left rally where he said that Israel was attempting a genocide against the Palestinians. In 2008, McDonnell was a lead signatory of a parliamentary motion that welcomed the founding of the International Jewish anti-Zionist Network (IJAN).
Current polls indicate that a Corbyn-led government is a distinct possibility. The conservative government’s poor handling of the Brexit negotiations has probably helped Labour more than anything Corbyn and his colleagues have done. While the next parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2022, an early election due to the crisis around Brexit is a possibility.
The chances of the moderate Labourites demoting Corbyn and his supporters from the leadership of the party are minimal. Since he was elected as leader in 2015, Corbyn and Momentum, his main supporters’ extreme left movement, have increasingly strengthened their grip on the party. Iain McNicol, a moderate resigned as general secretary, the most senior employee of the party in February 2018. He was replaced by a Corbynite, Jennie Formby. Several other key staff positions are now held by Corbyn supporters.
Recently elections for the party’s governing body, the National Executive Council (NEC), were held. All nine members elected belonged to Momentum, and non-Momentum candidates got far less votes than those elected. Yasmin Dar, who received the most votes is seen in a 2017 film clip celebrating the Iranian Revolution at the Islamic center in Manchester.
It may take Corbyn more time to gain full control of the parliamentary party as the great majority of MPs are moderates. Joan Ryan, the Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, has been deselected by her local party. The same has happened to MPs Gavin Shuker and Chris Leslie.
Yet if too many moderates are deselected by their local parties some of them may run as independents or even as members of a new party. The latter might then collaborate with the third largest party, the Liberal Democrats. In the UK’s parliamentary system, there is only one election round. The candidate who receives the most votes in any one constituency is elected. If a deselected candidate runs against an official Labour pro-Corbynite candidate, the vote is likely to be split. As a result Labour may lose a number of its current seats.
Is there anything Israel’s allies can do to make it more difficult for a Corbyn-controlled Labour to rise to power?
So far, two possibilities have emerged. The first one derives from an opinion by the British law firm, WLegal. Under current US legislation, sanctions against Corbyn are possible as he is a supporter of a terror organization. Actions to achieve this would have to be taken now, as the US is unlikely to act against Corbyn if he becomes prime minister.
A second issue which can be promoted outside the UK is publicizing the fact that if Corbyn comes to power he will receive access to highly classified intelligence from the British Security Services. Furthermore, it is unlikely that all intelligence can be withheld from his extremist associates who hold key positions in his administration.
Would foreign governments be comfortable with such a situation? Would they want intelligence normally shared with allies to fall into the hands of the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell or Labour’s chief strategist, who is a supporter of the genocidal Hamas movement?
What about Corbyn’s senior policy adviser, an ex-communist from whom British parliamentary security has withheld access to the Commons for a year already, or Corbyn’s private secretary, who after nine months of vetting by security services has not yet received access to the parliament? The problem already exists; whatever foreign intelligence has been shared with the UK will be accessible to Corbyn if he becomes prime minister.
Once this information is spread outside the UK, British media are likely to pick up on this issue. That will inject additional pressure into the public debate over the risks to the country if a Corbyn-led Labour Party wins the next parliamentary election.
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Battli...h-enemy-569918
سيف الله
10-26-2018, 08:00 PM
Salaam
Another update
Netanyahu makes surprise trip to Oman and meets with Sultan Qaboos
Unpublicised trip marks major breakthrough in Israel's attempts to develop ties with Gulf Arab countries
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made an unpublicised trip this week to Oman, a Gulf Arab country that it has no diplomatic relations with, his office revealed on Friday.
The Israeli premier met with Oman’s Sultan Qaboos bin Said, and is his country’s first leader to visit the sultanate since Shimon Peres in 1996.
In recent years, Netanyahu has insisted that relations between Israel and Gulf Arab countries have been growing, without much official evidence.
None of the seven Gulf Arab countries officially recognise Israel.
Netanyahu’s office revealed the visit on his return, and images of the prime minister and Sultan Qaboos meeting and shaking hands have begun to circulate.
According to the Israeli premier’s office, Netanyahu travelled to Muscat at the invitation of the sultan after lengthy communications.
It called it a “significant step” towards implementing Netanyahu’s policy of strengthening ties with Gulf Arab countries.
A joint statement said the two sides "discussed ways to advance the Middle East peace process and discussed a number of issues of mutual interest to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East".
Israeli intelligence services chief Yossi Cohen, who has largely been responsible for clandestine talks with Gulf Arab governments, was seen in the travelling delegation.
The visit also followed that of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was in Oman earlier this week.
It also comes as Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev arrived in the United Arab Emirates on Friday for the Abu Dhabi Grand Slam Judo tournament in which the Israeli national team is competing.
The Israeli flag could fly in Qatar in the coming days if the country's athletes that are participating in the World Artistic Gymnastics Championship being held in Doha do well in the competition.
Qatar had assured organisers that it would allow Israeli national symbols at the event.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/n...boos-745171995
ReplyAnother update
Netanyahu makes surprise trip to Oman and meets with Sultan Qaboos
Unpublicised trip marks major breakthrough in Israel's attempts to develop ties with Gulf Arab countries
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made an unpublicised trip this week to Oman, a Gulf Arab country that it has no diplomatic relations with, his office revealed on Friday.
The Israeli premier met with Oman’s Sultan Qaboos bin Said, and is his country’s first leader to visit the sultanate since Shimon Peres in 1996.
In recent years, Netanyahu has insisted that relations between Israel and Gulf Arab countries have been growing, without much official evidence.
None of the seven Gulf Arab countries officially recognise Israel.
Netanyahu’s office revealed the visit on his return, and images of the prime minister and Sultan Qaboos meeting and shaking hands have begun to circulate.
According to the Israeli premier’s office, Netanyahu travelled to Muscat at the invitation of the sultan after lengthy communications.
It called it a “significant step” towards implementing Netanyahu’s policy of strengthening ties with Gulf Arab countries.
A joint statement said the two sides "discussed ways to advance the Middle East peace process and discussed a number of issues of mutual interest to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East".
Israeli intelligence services chief Yossi Cohen, who has largely been responsible for clandestine talks with Gulf Arab governments, was seen in the travelling delegation.
The visit also followed that of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was in Oman earlier this week.
It also comes as Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev arrived in the United Arab Emirates on Friday for the Abu Dhabi Grand Slam Judo tournament in which the Israeli national team is competing.
The Israeli flag could fly in Qatar in the coming days if the country's athletes that are participating in the World Artistic Gymnastics Championship being held in Doha do well in the competition.
Qatar had assured organisers that it would allow Israeli national symbols at the event.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/n...boos-745171995
سيف الله
11-01-2018, 08:28 AM
Salaam
Another update
Why are Arab states flaunting their ties with Israel?
Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan condemns Oman, Qatar and the UAE for opening the door to the normalisation of Israel in the Middle East.
Three painful normalisation blows were dealt in as many days to what remains of the Arab states’ self-respect. The first was the participation of an Israeli delegation at a sports tournament in Qatar. The second was the despatch of another sporting delegation to the emirate of Abu Dhabi led by Israel’s notoriously racist and Arab-hating minister of culture Miri Regev. But the biggest and most painful blow was the official visit by the Occupation’s Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to Oman, where he and the delegation accompanying him were accorded a warm welcome and a meeting with Sultan Qaboos.
This is a coordinated normalisation drive being carried out under pressure from the United States. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinian-Israeli peace, and everything to do with achieving cost-free peace between Israel and Arab governments. This is a prelude to imposing the remaining tenets of the “Deal of the Century,” which amounts to exploiting the collapse of the official Arab order to liquidate the Palestinian cause, end the Arab-Israeli conflict and recognise Israel as a sisterly Middle Eastern state.
It is the latest, and perhaps most important, episode in a planned process, which explains the reasons that led to the destruction of Iraq, then Syria, then Libya and later Yemen, and to the crippling of Egypt. Without the destruction of these countries, under a variety of false pretexts, this plan could not be put into effect, and we would never have seen its painful consequences in the form of normalisation steps.
Peace process
When Qatar and Oman consented to the opening of Israeli trade offices in their capitals in 1996, and received Israeli officials such as Yitzhak Rabin (in Muscat in 1994) and Shimon Peres (in Muscat and Doha in 1996), they said this was aimed at encouraging the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and creating a climate conducive to negotiations. After all, the PLO had already signed the Oslo accords (in September 1993) followed by Jordan concluding the Wadi Araba treaty.
Ironically, Oman took a bold stance when it ordered the closure of the Israeli trade office in October 2000, i.e. 18 years ago. A statement issued by the Omani foreign ministry at the time said the mission was closed down in line with Oman’s policy of “supporting the Palestinian cause… and upholding the firm and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.” The statement added that the country “remains committed to a just and lasting peace, but on criteria that champion the oppressed, safeguard the holy places, and restore the rights of those who are due them.” The question, therefore, is what has changed now?
Both Oman and Qatar shut down the trade offices in protest at Israel’s invasion the area that were supposed to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and at the brutal shedding of Palestinian blood by the Israeli security forces. The current Gulf normalisation drive comes at a time when the Israeli forces are engaged in the same kind of murderous behaviour. On the day that Netanyahu, his wife and the head of the Mossad arrived in Muscat, six defenceless Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip, where two million fellow Arabs and Muslims are besieged and face the spectre of mass hunger and disease.
There is no peace process that the three states – Oman the UAE and Qatar – can claim to be supporting by receiving Israeli delegations. And the Israeli government has shown no regard for the criteria which these three governments insisted that they uphold: in terms of championing the oppressed, safeguarding the holy places and restoring due rights. Israel has judaised Jerusalem, with US President Donald Trump recognising as eternal capital of all the world’s Jews, and Jason Greenblatt is expected in the region next week to unveil the Deal of the Century. He will bring with him the coffin of the Palestinian cause and dig a grave to bury it in Ramallah by legitimising colonization, enshrining “economic peace” (financial bribes), and annulling the right of return once and or all.
Omani Foreign Minister Yousef Bin-Alawi said candidly on Friday that Netanyahu’s visit, which was preceded by one from PA President Mahmoud Abbas, was made in a “bilateral context” at his request. “We are not mediators,” he added, “the US role is the principal one, and Israel is a state in the Middle East region.” This suggests more than just a one-off visit. We cannot rule out Netanyahu returning to Muscat soon to open an Israeli embassy there, nor more embassies being opened in Doha, Manama and Abu Dhabi and perhaps Riyadh too. For the talk is of normal “bilateral relations.”
Squandered respect
The Sultanate of Oman earned the admiration of millions of Arabs, ourselves included, by keeping out of many of the wars in and destructive schemes for the region, especially the wars in Yemen and Syria and prior to that Iraq. It also made sure to maintain a balanced relationship with Iran and refused to be extorted and dragged into American confrontation plans against Tehran. It is hard to understand what prompted Oman’s leadership to squander this huge asset of admiration and respect by hosting a war criminal like Netanyahu, and at a time when Palestine’s cause is being taken to the gallows and its people are facing siege and brutal murder.
We would have expected Netanyahu’s first visit to an Arab capita to be to Riyadh given the secret rapprochement between the two sides. But the shocking visit to Muscat is likely to be only a prelude to other, more open, visits, and to the opening of embassies, the exchanging of interests, and extensive security coordination – not least against the Palestinians and anyone who stands with them in the trench of resistance and upholds the values of justice and dignity. The process of normalisation is planned to start at the peripheries before moving into the heart of the region, hence the earlier focus on Mauritainia in the far west of the Arab world.
We unreservedly condemn and reject all these forms of normalisation. But before blaming the normalisers, we should blame the PA, which preceded them and opened the doors wide to them. It must be made clear that this Authority does not represent the Palestinian people. Its policies of recognising and cooperating with the occupation do not have any popular support or approval. The Palestinian people will never surrender, and they will never give up their rights, even if some of their Arab brethren do. And we are confident that the people of the Arab Gulf states will never accept this normalisation either and will resist it, as the people of Egypt did and do, along with those of all Arab countries.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/10/30/wh...s-with-israel/
ReplyAnother update
Why are Arab states flaunting their ties with Israel?
Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan condemns Oman, Qatar and the UAE for opening the door to the normalisation of Israel in the Middle East.
Three painful normalisation blows were dealt in as many days to what remains of the Arab states’ self-respect. The first was the participation of an Israeli delegation at a sports tournament in Qatar. The second was the despatch of another sporting delegation to the emirate of Abu Dhabi led by Israel’s notoriously racist and Arab-hating minister of culture Miri Regev. But the biggest and most painful blow was the official visit by the Occupation’s Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to Oman, where he and the delegation accompanying him were accorded a warm welcome and a meeting with Sultan Qaboos.
This is a coordinated normalisation drive being carried out under pressure from the United States. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinian-Israeli peace, and everything to do with achieving cost-free peace between Israel and Arab governments. This is a prelude to imposing the remaining tenets of the “Deal of the Century,” which amounts to exploiting the collapse of the official Arab order to liquidate the Palestinian cause, end the Arab-Israeli conflict and recognise Israel as a sisterly Middle Eastern state.
It is the latest, and perhaps most important, episode in a planned process, which explains the reasons that led to the destruction of Iraq, then Syria, then Libya and later Yemen, and to the crippling of Egypt. Without the destruction of these countries, under a variety of false pretexts, this plan could not be put into effect, and we would never have seen its painful consequences in the form of normalisation steps.
Peace process
When Qatar and Oman consented to the opening of Israeli trade offices in their capitals in 1996, and received Israeli officials such as Yitzhak Rabin (in Muscat in 1994) and Shimon Peres (in Muscat and Doha in 1996), they said this was aimed at encouraging the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and creating a climate conducive to negotiations. After all, the PLO had already signed the Oslo accords (in September 1993) followed by Jordan concluding the Wadi Araba treaty.
Ironically, Oman took a bold stance when it ordered the closure of the Israeli trade office in October 2000, i.e. 18 years ago. A statement issued by the Omani foreign ministry at the time said the mission was closed down in line with Oman’s policy of “supporting the Palestinian cause… and upholding the firm and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.” The statement added that the country “remains committed to a just and lasting peace, but on criteria that champion the oppressed, safeguard the holy places, and restore the rights of those who are due them.” The question, therefore, is what has changed now?
Both Oman and Qatar shut down the trade offices in protest at Israel’s invasion the area that were supposed to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and at the brutal shedding of Palestinian blood by the Israeli security forces. The current Gulf normalisation drive comes at a time when the Israeli forces are engaged in the same kind of murderous behaviour. On the day that Netanyahu, his wife and the head of the Mossad arrived in Muscat, six defenceless Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip, where two million fellow Arabs and Muslims are besieged and face the spectre of mass hunger and disease.
There is no peace process that the three states – Oman the UAE and Qatar – can claim to be supporting by receiving Israeli delegations. And the Israeli government has shown no regard for the criteria which these three governments insisted that they uphold: in terms of championing the oppressed, safeguarding the holy places and restoring due rights. Israel has judaised Jerusalem, with US President Donald Trump recognising as eternal capital of all the world’s Jews, and Jason Greenblatt is expected in the region next week to unveil the Deal of the Century. He will bring with him the coffin of the Palestinian cause and dig a grave to bury it in Ramallah by legitimising colonization, enshrining “economic peace” (financial bribes), and annulling the right of return once and or all.
Omani Foreign Minister Yousef Bin-Alawi said candidly on Friday that Netanyahu’s visit, which was preceded by one from PA President Mahmoud Abbas, was made in a “bilateral context” at his request. “We are not mediators,” he added, “the US role is the principal one, and Israel is a state in the Middle East region.” This suggests more than just a one-off visit. We cannot rule out Netanyahu returning to Muscat soon to open an Israeli embassy there, nor more embassies being opened in Doha, Manama and Abu Dhabi and perhaps Riyadh too. For the talk is of normal “bilateral relations.”
Squandered respect
The Sultanate of Oman earned the admiration of millions of Arabs, ourselves included, by keeping out of many of the wars in and destructive schemes for the region, especially the wars in Yemen and Syria and prior to that Iraq. It also made sure to maintain a balanced relationship with Iran and refused to be extorted and dragged into American confrontation plans against Tehran. It is hard to understand what prompted Oman’s leadership to squander this huge asset of admiration and respect by hosting a war criminal like Netanyahu, and at a time when Palestine’s cause is being taken to the gallows and its people are facing siege and brutal murder.
We would have expected Netanyahu’s first visit to an Arab capita to be to Riyadh given the secret rapprochement between the two sides. But the shocking visit to Muscat is likely to be only a prelude to other, more open, visits, and to the opening of embassies, the exchanging of interests, and extensive security coordination – not least against the Palestinians and anyone who stands with them in the trench of resistance and upholds the values of justice and dignity. The process of normalisation is planned to start at the peripheries before moving into the heart of the region, hence the earlier focus on Mauritainia in the far west of the Arab world.
We unreservedly condemn and reject all these forms of normalisation. But before blaming the normalisers, we should blame the PA, which preceded them and opened the doors wide to them. It must be made clear that this Authority does not represent the Palestinian people. Its policies of recognising and cooperating with the occupation do not have any popular support or approval. The Palestinian people will never surrender, and they will never give up their rights, even if some of their Arab brethren do. And we are confident that the people of the Arab Gulf states will never accept this normalisation either and will resist it, as the people of Egypt did and do, along with those of all Arab countries.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/10/30/wh...s-with-israel/
Israel’s notoriously racist and Arab-hating minister of culture Miri Regev.
سيف الله
11-01-2018, 11:36 PM
Salaam
A little different but relevant in help giving context.
Blurb
E. Michael Jones, author of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, joins Chuck Morse, author of Left-Wing anti-Semitism, in a debate about Catholic and Jewish views on questions of messiah-ship, revolution, and history.
ReplyA little different but relevant in help giving context.
Blurb
E. Michael Jones, author of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, joins Chuck Morse, author of Left-Wing anti-Semitism, in a debate about Catholic and Jewish views on questions of messiah-ship, revolution, and history.
سيف الله
11-05-2018, 11:16 PM
Salaam
More comment on Bibis recent trip.
Netanyahu in Oman hails a new era of Arab Zionism
Just two days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid a secret visit to the Gulf Sultanate of Oman to a warm royal welcome, Israeli fighter jets were again pounding the Gaza Strip. Many saw that the Sultanate’s alleged quest for “peace and stability in the Middle East”,[1] if not relevance, could not have been more undermined. But questions remain as to whether its silence towards the crimes of its Zionist ‘enemy’, turned newfound friend is closer to endorsement in an Arabian Gulf that is proclaiming its real allegiances to ‘Israel’ like never before.
On Sunday 28th of October, three Palestinian boys were decimated by a targeted Israeli airstrike in South-Eastern Gaza. The Israeli army rushed to claim that the boys were “involved in placing an improvised explosive device” near the security fence.[2] The families of the boys denied that they were linked to any ‘militant’ group, with the mother of 14-year-old Abdul Hameed stating he had “nothing to do with the resistance.”[3]
Despite the Israeli narrative initially asserting that they were “terrorists”, they continued to legitimise the killing by claiming they were behaving in a suspicious manner.[4] The three boys whose ages ranged between twelve and fourteen were identified as Khaled Bassam Mahmoud Abu Saeed, Abdul Hameed Mohammed Abdul Aziz Abu Zaher and Mohammed Ibrahim Al Sutari.[5]
Coinciding with Netanyahu’s visit, the “deluge of top Israeli officials is set to visit Gulf Arab countries that do not formally recognise Israel”,[6] saw the United Arab Emirates welcoming with open arms Israel’s Sports and Culture Minister, Miri Regev.
The right-wing Islamophobe who described the Muslim call to prayer as the “barking dogs of Muhammad”,[7] and who wore a picture of the Dome of the Rock during a film festival attended the Judo Grand competition in Abu Dhabi.[8] The minister was also given an honorary tour of the third largest Mosque in the world, the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi.
Regev later tweeted “we made history. The people of Israel live!”[9] The once unthinkable relationship, according to detractors, demonstrates the extent to which the Gulf nations are selling themselves to the Zionist regime and are becoming complicit partners of the occupation of Palestine, stimulated by the post-Trump new-era of Arab Zionism.
After Oman and other Gulf states, it is likely that Netanyahu will visit another Gulf nation in the future and one’s imagination does not need to run wild to guess which one.[10] The gradual normalisation of relations between Israel and the Arab world cements feelings in Palestine that their plight is being brushed under the carpet and that the reality is that their struggle against injustice will be carried out alone.
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/netanyahu-in-oman-hails-a-new-era-of-arab-zionism/
ReplyMore comment on Bibis recent trip.
Netanyahu in Oman hails a new era of Arab Zionism
Just two days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid a secret visit to the Gulf Sultanate of Oman to a warm royal welcome, Israeli fighter jets were again pounding the Gaza Strip. Many saw that the Sultanate’s alleged quest for “peace and stability in the Middle East”,[1] if not relevance, could not have been more undermined. But questions remain as to whether its silence towards the crimes of its Zionist ‘enemy’, turned newfound friend is closer to endorsement in an Arabian Gulf that is proclaiming its real allegiances to ‘Israel’ like never before.
On Sunday 28th of October, three Palestinian boys were decimated by a targeted Israeli airstrike in South-Eastern Gaza. The Israeli army rushed to claim that the boys were “involved in placing an improvised explosive device” near the security fence.[2] The families of the boys denied that they were linked to any ‘militant’ group, with the mother of 14-year-old Abdul Hameed stating he had “nothing to do with the resistance.”[3]
Despite the Israeli narrative initially asserting that they were “terrorists”, they continued to legitimise the killing by claiming they were behaving in a suspicious manner.[4] The three boys whose ages ranged between twelve and fourteen were identified as Khaled Bassam Mahmoud Abu Saeed, Abdul Hameed Mohammed Abdul Aziz Abu Zaher and Mohammed Ibrahim Al Sutari.[5]
Coinciding with Netanyahu’s visit, the “deluge of top Israeli officials is set to visit Gulf Arab countries that do not formally recognise Israel”,[6] saw the United Arab Emirates welcoming with open arms Israel’s Sports and Culture Minister, Miri Regev.
The right-wing Islamophobe who described the Muslim call to prayer as the “barking dogs of Muhammad”,[7] and who wore a picture of the Dome of the Rock during a film festival attended the Judo Grand competition in Abu Dhabi.[8] The minister was also given an honorary tour of the third largest Mosque in the world, the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi.
Regev later tweeted “we made history. The people of Israel live!”[9] The once unthinkable relationship, according to detractors, demonstrates the extent to which the Gulf nations are selling themselves to the Zionist regime and are becoming complicit partners of the occupation of Palestine, stimulated by the post-Trump new-era of Arab Zionism.
After Oman and other Gulf states, it is likely that Netanyahu will visit another Gulf nation in the future and one’s imagination does not need to run wild to guess which one.[10] The gradual normalisation of relations between Israel and the Arab world cements feelings in Palestine that their plight is being brushed under the carpet and that the reality is that their struggle against injustice will be carried out alone.
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/netanyahu-in-oman-hails-a-new-era-of-arab-zionism/
سيف الله
11-08-2018, 12:37 AM
Salaam
Old but relevant, like to share.
Blurb
Gaza's Human Shields (2001) - We meet a Palestinian family in Gaza who are not allowed to leave their house while Israeli soldiers fire from the roof. In a shocking interview, the Israeli army admits it is using civilians as human shields.
The vast majority of Gaza Strip civilians are Palestinians, yet occupying Israeli forces hold all the cards. One family come home to find their house has been destroyed; another finds Israeli soldiers using his roof as a lookout post, and under lock and key in their own home. Tensions seem unlikely to loosen in such a hostile environment.
ReplyOld but relevant, like to share.
Blurb
Gaza's Human Shields (2001) - We meet a Palestinian family in Gaza who are not allowed to leave their house while Israeli soldiers fire from the roof. In a shocking interview, the Israeli army admits it is using civilians as human shields.
The vast majority of Gaza Strip civilians are Palestinians, yet occupying Israeli forces hold all the cards. One family come home to find their house has been destroyed; another finds Israeli soldiers using his roof as a lookout post, and under lock and key in their own home. Tensions seem unlikely to loosen in such a hostile environment.
سيف الله
11-08-2018, 09:55 PM
Salaam
One of the favoured tactics particularly in the past to silence criticism of Israel was to play the Holocaust Card. Jews themselves got tired of this and responded.
Blurb
Dr Norman Finkelstein's appearance at the University of Waterloo was a combative one with lots of heckling and cheering throughout the speech. As we've come to expect, he delivered a blistering message on Israel that was the polar opposite of the mainstream media.
And when an audience member tried to guilt him with a show of tears because he used the "Nazi" word, Norman would have none of it and dismissed her emotional outburst as "crocodile tears'.
Analysis of the event.
This is related. How Jewish group exploited the Holocaust for political and monetary gain.
Blurb
In an iconoclastic and controversial study, Norman G. Finkelstein moves from an interrogation of the place the Holocaust has come to occupy in American culture to a disturbing examination of recent Holocaust compensation agreements. It was not until the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, when Israel's evident strength brought it into line with US foreign policy, that memory of the Holocaust began to acquire the exceptional prominence it enjoys today. Leaders of America's Jewish community were delighted that Israel was now deemed a major strategic asset and, Finkelstein contends, exploited the Holocaust to enhance this newfound status.
Their subsequent interpretations of the tragedy are often at variance with actual historical events and are employed to deflect any criticism of Israel and its supporters.
Recalling Holocaust fraudsters such as Jerzy Kosinski and Binjamin Wilkomirski, as well as the demagogic constructions of writers like Daniel Goldhagen, Finkelstein contends that the main danger posed to the memory of Nazism's victims comes not from the distortions of Holocaust deniers but from prominent, self-proclaimed guardians of Holocaust memory. Drawing on a wealth of untapped sources, he exposes the double shakedown of European countries as well as legitimate Jewish claimants, and concludes that the Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket. Thoroughly researched and closely argued,
The Holocaust Industry is all the more disturbing and powerful because the issues it deals with are so rarely discussed.
ReplyOne of the favoured tactics particularly in the past to silence criticism of Israel was to play the Holocaust Card. Jews themselves got tired of this and responded.
Blurb
Dr Norman Finkelstein's appearance at the University of Waterloo was a combative one with lots of heckling and cheering throughout the speech. As we've come to expect, he delivered a blistering message on Israel that was the polar opposite of the mainstream media.
And when an audience member tried to guilt him with a show of tears because he used the "Nazi" word, Norman would have none of it and dismissed her emotional outburst as "crocodile tears'.
Analysis of the event.
This is related. How Jewish group exploited the Holocaust for political and monetary gain.
Blurb
In an iconoclastic and controversial study, Norman G. Finkelstein moves from an interrogation of the place the Holocaust has come to occupy in American culture to a disturbing examination of recent Holocaust compensation agreements. It was not until the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, when Israel's evident strength brought it into line with US foreign policy, that memory of the Holocaust began to acquire the exceptional prominence it enjoys today. Leaders of America's Jewish community were delighted that Israel was now deemed a major strategic asset and, Finkelstein contends, exploited the Holocaust to enhance this newfound status.
Their subsequent interpretations of the tragedy are often at variance with actual historical events and are employed to deflect any criticism of Israel and its supporters.
Recalling Holocaust fraudsters such as Jerzy Kosinski and Binjamin Wilkomirski, as well as the demagogic constructions of writers like Daniel Goldhagen, Finkelstein contends that the main danger posed to the memory of Nazism's victims comes not from the distortions of Holocaust deniers but from prominent, self-proclaimed guardians of Holocaust memory. Drawing on a wealth of untapped sources, he exposes the double shakedown of European countries as well as legitimate Jewish claimants, and concludes that the Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket. Thoroughly researched and closely argued,
The Holocaust Industry is all the more disturbing and powerful because the issues it deals with are so rarely discussed.
سيف الله
11-08-2018, 11:48 PM
Salaam
No doubt the Bibi will be pleased.
Saudi Arabia targets Palestinians in Israel with latest Mecca ban
Saudi Arabia has banned Palestinians and Israeli Muslims from entering the country with temporary passports, ending their chance to make the pilgrimage to Islam’s holiest site, Mecca. Practicing Muslims are supposed to try to get to Mecca once in their lives, if possible, for the Hajj or Umrah pilgrimages. Given that Israel and Saudi Arabia don’t officially have diplomatic relations, Palestinians in Israel have to apply for temporary Jordanian passports to go to Mecca.
However, in the latest of a series of moves limiting Palestinians’ access to the Kingdom, these temporary passports will no longer be accepted.
Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon, as well as those living in Israel-occupied East Jerusalem, were recently banned from getting visas. The increased travel restrictions now affect almost 3 million Palestinians.
“The decision is affecting every Arab and Muslim who has the right to worship.” Jordanian MP Said Abu Mahfouz told Middle East Eye.
About 6,600 people from East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza went on the Hajj in 2017, and up to 70,000 make Umrah throughout each year.
Saudi-Israel agreement?
Haaretz reports that Jordanian officials and members of the Israeli Hajj committee have said the move could be a way for Saudi Arabia to begin allowing Muslim Israeli citizens to travel to Saudi Arabia, as part of a warming alliance between the two countries.
Meanwhile, a Jordanian diplomatic source confirmed to Middle East Eye that the move is part of an agreement with Israel to end the “Palestinian identity and the right of return for refugees.”
Palestinians in East Jerusalem have been told they could apply for a temporary passport from the Palestinian Authority, which runs the West Bank, to get a Saudi visa. However, this could affect their legal status.
After Israel annexed East Jerusalem in the 1967 war, residents were recognized as East Jerusalem residents – but should they obtain passports from the PA, this could be used to revoke their East Jerusalem residency and strengthen the Israeli hope of claiming all of the disputed city as its capital.
Saudi Arabia’s official line on diplomatic relations with Israel is that the latter must first withdraw from the territories it seized during the 1967 Six Day War: the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights.
https://www.rt.com/news/443455-saudi-ban-palestinians-mecca/
ReplyNo doubt the Bibi will be pleased.
Saudi Arabia targets Palestinians in Israel with latest Mecca ban
Saudi Arabia has banned Palestinians and Israeli Muslims from entering the country with temporary passports, ending their chance to make the pilgrimage to Islam’s holiest site, Mecca. Practicing Muslims are supposed to try to get to Mecca once in their lives, if possible, for the Hajj or Umrah pilgrimages. Given that Israel and Saudi Arabia don’t officially have diplomatic relations, Palestinians in Israel have to apply for temporary Jordanian passports to go to Mecca.
However, in the latest of a series of moves limiting Palestinians’ access to the Kingdom, these temporary passports will no longer be accepted.
Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon, as well as those living in Israel-occupied East Jerusalem, were recently banned from getting visas. The increased travel restrictions now affect almost 3 million Palestinians.
“The decision is affecting every Arab and Muslim who has the right to worship.” Jordanian MP Said Abu Mahfouz told Middle East Eye.
About 6,600 people from East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza went on the Hajj in 2017, and up to 70,000 make Umrah throughout each year.
Saudi-Israel agreement?
Haaretz reports that Jordanian officials and members of the Israeli Hajj committee have said the move could be a way for Saudi Arabia to begin allowing Muslim Israeli citizens to travel to Saudi Arabia, as part of a warming alliance between the two countries.
Meanwhile, a Jordanian diplomatic source confirmed to Middle East Eye that the move is part of an agreement with Israel to end the “Palestinian identity and the right of return for refugees.”
Palestinians in East Jerusalem have been told they could apply for a temporary passport from the Palestinian Authority, which runs the West Bank, to get a Saudi visa. However, this could affect their legal status.
After Israel annexed East Jerusalem in the 1967 war, residents were recognized as East Jerusalem residents – but should they obtain passports from the PA, this could be used to revoke their East Jerusalem residency and strengthen the Israeli hope of claiming all of the disputed city as its capital.
Saudi Arabia’s official line on diplomatic relations with Israel is that the latter must first withdraw from the territories it seized during the 1967 Six Day War: the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights.
https://www.rt.com/news/443455-saudi-ban-palestinians-mecca/
سيف الله
11-10-2018, 03:36 AM
Salaam
Another update.
Blurb
Israel sees that China's economic power is on the ascent while that of the United States is in decline. The parasitic philosophy of Zionism knows that its current host is going to die and is seeing new blood.
ReplyAnother update.
Blurb
Israel sees that China's economic power is on the ascent while that of the United States is in decline. The parasitic philosophy of Zionism knows that its current host is going to die and is seeing new blood.
سيف الله
11-13-2018, 11:13 PM
Salaam
A look at Israels economic expansionism into the surrounding region.
Israel looks to new Arab allies to export gas in volatile region
Netanyahu seizes on natural gas to turn Egypt and Jordan into economic partners
When Yuval Steinitz was doing his military service in the Israeli army, Egypt was an enemy and Israel lived in fear of having its oil supplies choked off by Arab rivals. But in recent years, as Israel’s energy minister, Mr Steinitz, 56, found himself in hush-hush meetings with Egyptian officials.
On the agenda: Israel’s gas conundrum. Since the late 1990s, it has discovered huge natural gas reserves off its coast. The initial finds allowed the tiny nation to wean itself off some energy imports, but additional discoveries — which could fuel Israel for 50 years, according to some estimates — have unlocked the potential for exports. “This was unthinkable just a decade or two ago,” Mr Steinitz told the Financial Times.
His problem is getting the gas out of an often hostile neighbourhood. Israel’s long-term goal is to fuel energy-hungry nations in Europe. But in the meantime Mr Steinitz has helped smooth a lucrative place holder agreement with Egypt — which has had a peace treaty with Israel since 1979.
The deal announced this year will allow Israel’s Delek Group to begin exporting as much as $15bn in natural gas to Egypt by early 2019, taking it from the Tamar and Leviathan fields that hold the vast majority of Israel’s proven reserves. “There will be significant exports,” Mr Steinitz said.
The agreement has become the centrepiece of Israel’s ambitious plans to turn itself into a Mediterranean energy player and has been bolstered more recently by follow-on deals.
In parallel, a separate export pipeline is being constructed to Jordan, which has had a peace treaty with Jerusalem since 1994. It is raising hopes that Egypt, Israel and Jordan will eventually become part of a single natural gas grid.
For Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, gas offers a chance to advance his foreign policy goal of turning former Arab foes into economic partners, while creating long-term relationships between ministers and executives.
He wants to be on better terms with Arab countries that share Jerusalem’s concerns about Iranian regional aggression, and says he need not wait for a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Last month, after unveiling a secret visit to Oman, the prime minister told reporters the Arab world was “hungry” for Israeli innovation and trade.
But his energy ambitions are stirring opposition in other sections of Israeli society and abroad.
Residents who live near rambling northern beaches inside nature reserves are demanding that the gas infrastructure be placed further out at sea.
Security hawks have demanded that Israel keep the gas for its own use, which would stretch the supplies for at least 50 years, if not more. In September, thousands of environmentalists protested near the Israeli parliament, but by January, a $3bn platform being built in Texas will arrive 10km off Israel’s coast to begin the first phase of extraction intended for exports.
Equally sensitive is the public reception in Arab nations to doing business with Israel. Mr Steinitz’s meetings with Egyptian officials were mostly kept quiet, if not exactly secret, because Israel is still viewed with great suspicion there, despite a 1979 peace treaty.
In Jordan protests have broken out at the pipeline’s construction site and elsewhere over the fact that the deal normalises relations with Israel. Just last month, Jordan refused to renew a small part of its peace treaty, reportedly over its disapproval of Israeli actions towards the Palestinians.
But Jordan remains less troublesome than other local options. An underwater pipeline running to Turkey past Lebanon and Syria would have been politically complicated and fraught with the risk of sabotage.
Israel’s regulatory framework for energy is also problematic. The country needed billions of dollars of foreign funding to develop its gasfields because local companies did not have the expertise, said Charles Ellinas, a non-resident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center. But volatile regulations make overseas investors wary. Mr Steinitz said a new gas framework finalised in 2017 was the final word, but investors remained wary. “You can never be assured that within Israel the gas regulation is stable,” said Mr Ellinas.
Mr Steinitz said there was no need to worry. The possibilities were underlined, he said, by a September deal in which Delek, along with Noble Energy of Houston and an Egyptian company, joined forces to spend $500m on a controlling stake in an idled pipeline between Egypt and Israel, which they will reverse to get gas flowing east.
The pipeline deal was announced after a two-hour meeting between Mr Netanyahu and Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in New York (Mr Steinitz said the two things were not related).
For Yossi Abu, Delek Drilling’s chief executive, the commercial promise of the pipeline deal is more important than its potential political benefits. “Some countries try to create ties by a political project that doesn’t have an economic basis — but that’s just a photo op. Here, the focus is just economics — that’s a win-win,” he said.
Despite Mr Steinitz’s optimism on Egypt, he is championing a more ambitious European plan: a $7bn deep-sea pipeline from Israel to Cyprus and then onwards to Italy. That’s a more natural, long-term fit for Israel — and less likely to be held hostage to regional politics, he said.
“Israel and Cyprus — we are two western-style democracies, members of the OECD, one of us is a member of the EU,” he added, arguing that the pipeline would help Europe reduce its reliance on British and Dutch gasfields. “We can become a reliable replacement for the northern stream, but only if we can build that pipeline.”
https://www.ft.com/content/cd5099ba-ddc5-11e8-8f50-cbae5495d92b
ReplyA look at Israels economic expansionism into the surrounding region.
Israel looks to new Arab allies to export gas in volatile region
Netanyahu seizes on natural gas to turn Egypt and Jordan into economic partners
When Yuval Steinitz was doing his military service in the Israeli army, Egypt was an enemy and Israel lived in fear of having its oil supplies choked off by Arab rivals. But in recent years, as Israel’s energy minister, Mr Steinitz, 56, found himself in hush-hush meetings with Egyptian officials.
On the agenda: Israel’s gas conundrum. Since the late 1990s, it has discovered huge natural gas reserves off its coast. The initial finds allowed the tiny nation to wean itself off some energy imports, but additional discoveries — which could fuel Israel for 50 years, according to some estimates — have unlocked the potential for exports. “This was unthinkable just a decade or two ago,” Mr Steinitz told the Financial Times.
His problem is getting the gas out of an often hostile neighbourhood. Israel’s long-term goal is to fuel energy-hungry nations in Europe. But in the meantime Mr Steinitz has helped smooth a lucrative place holder agreement with Egypt — which has had a peace treaty with Israel since 1979.
The deal announced this year will allow Israel’s Delek Group to begin exporting as much as $15bn in natural gas to Egypt by early 2019, taking it from the Tamar and Leviathan fields that hold the vast majority of Israel’s proven reserves. “There will be significant exports,” Mr Steinitz said.
The agreement has become the centrepiece of Israel’s ambitious plans to turn itself into a Mediterranean energy player and has been bolstered more recently by follow-on deals.
In parallel, a separate export pipeline is being constructed to Jordan, which has had a peace treaty with Jerusalem since 1994. It is raising hopes that Egypt, Israel and Jordan will eventually become part of a single natural gas grid.
For Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, gas offers a chance to advance his foreign policy goal of turning former Arab foes into economic partners, while creating long-term relationships between ministers and executives.
He wants to be on better terms with Arab countries that share Jerusalem’s concerns about Iranian regional aggression, and says he need not wait for a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Last month, after unveiling a secret visit to Oman, the prime minister told reporters the Arab world was “hungry” for Israeli innovation and trade.
But his energy ambitions are stirring opposition in other sections of Israeli society and abroad.
Residents who live near rambling northern beaches inside nature reserves are demanding that the gas infrastructure be placed further out at sea.
Security hawks have demanded that Israel keep the gas for its own use, which would stretch the supplies for at least 50 years, if not more. In September, thousands of environmentalists protested near the Israeli parliament, but by January, a $3bn platform being built in Texas will arrive 10km off Israel’s coast to begin the first phase of extraction intended for exports.
Equally sensitive is the public reception in Arab nations to doing business with Israel. Mr Steinitz’s meetings with Egyptian officials were mostly kept quiet, if not exactly secret, because Israel is still viewed with great suspicion there, despite a 1979 peace treaty.
In Jordan protests have broken out at the pipeline’s construction site and elsewhere over the fact that the deal normalises relations with Israel. Just last month, Jordan refused to renew a small part of its peace treaty, reportedly over its disapproval of Israeli actions towards the Palestinians.
But Jordan remains less troublesome than other local options. An underwater pipeline running to Turkey past Lebanon and Syria would have been politically complicated and fraught with the risk of sabotage.
Israel’s regulatory framework for energy is also problematic. The country needed billions of dollars of foreign funding to develop its gasfields because local companies did not have the expertise, said Charles Ellinas, a non-resident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center. But volatile regulations make overseas investors wary. Mr Steinitz said a new gas framework finalised in 2017 was the final word, but investors remained wary. “You can never be assured that within Israel the gas regulation is stable,” said Mr Ellinas.
Mr Steinitz said there was no need to worry. The possibilities were underlined, he said, by a September deal in which Delek, along with Noble Energy of Houston and an Egyptian company, joined forces to spend $500m on a controlling stake in an idled pipeline between Egypt and Israel, which they will reverse to get gas flowing east.
The pipeline deal was announced after a two-hour meeting between Mr Netanyahu and Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in New York (Mr Steinitz said the two things were not related).
For Yossi Abu, Delek Drilling’s chief executive, the commercial promise of the pipeline deal is more important than its potential political benefits. “Some countries try to create ties by a political project that doesn’t have an economic basis — but that’s just a photo op. Here, the focus is just economics — that’s a win-win,” he said.
Despite Mr Steinitz’s optimism on Egypt, he is championing a more ambitious European plan: a $7bn deep-sea pipeline from Israel to Cyprus and then onwards to Italy. That’s a more natural, long-term fit for Israel — and less likely to be held hostage to regional politics, he said.
“Israel and Cyprus — we are two western-style democracies, members of the OECD, one of us is a member of the EU,” he added, arguing that the pipeline would help Europe reduce its reliance on British and Dutch gasfields. “We can become a reliable replacement for the northern stream, but only if we can build that pipeline.”
https://www.ft.com/content/cd5099ba-ddc5-11e8-8f50-cbae5495d92b
سيف الله
11-14-2018, 11:01 PM
Salaam
Another update
Noam Chomsky Warns of the Rise of ‘Judeo-Nazi Tendencies’ in Israel
“Take Gaza. If you are going to place two million people in a concentration camp, which is in effect what it is, and put them under a vicious siege, you have to ask yourself; am I justified in doing this? People who try to oppose it are traitors, Arab lovers and so on. You have seen this phenomenon in European history, I don’t have to give you examples,” – Noam Chomsky
Prominent Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky has raised concerns over what he believes is the rise of “Judeo-Nazi tendencies” in Israel. Speaking to i24NEWS last week, the renowned political dissident, linguist and scholar repeated warnings given by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, an Israeli public intellectual, biochemist and polymath, concerning the dehumanizing effect of Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine on the victims and the oppressors.
Chomsky commented on remarks by Leibowitz who was nominated for the Israel Prize saying that “Leibowitz warned that if the occupation continues, Israeli Jews are going to turn into what he called, Judeo-Nazis”. Chomsky recognized the description was a “strong term” and that most people wouldn’t be able to get away with describing Israel in this manner but explained that Leibowitz’s status meant that he was able to speak about Israel without incurring fury.
Leibowitz who passed away in 1994 in Jerusalem, cautioned that the state of Israel and Zionism had become more sacred than Jewish humanist values and controversially went on to describe Israeli conduct in occupied Palestinian territories as “Judeo-Nazi” in nature.
Outraged by Israel’s killing of 60 villagers of Qibya in 1953, most of whom were women and children by the notorious Israeli commando Unit 101, known for its brutality and retribution campaigns, Leibowitz has been quoted as saying:
We have to ask ourselves where this youth of ours emerged from; young people who had no mental inhibitions about committing this atrocity? What inner motivation for such acts could have been at work here? This youth is not a mob but the product of Zionist, humanist social education.
Echoing Leibowitz, Echoing Leibowitz, Chomsky said: “If you have your jackboot on somebody’s neck, you have to find a way to justify it.” Repeating Leibowitz’s warning he added that “blaming the victim was a direct reflection of the continued occupation, the humiliation of people, the degradation, and the terrorist attacks by the Israeli government”.
The former MIT linguist said that being critical of the occupation in Israel today means being labeled a traitor, a phenomenon which has caused the left to virtually disappear from the political spectrum. He pointed to opposition to the situation in the Gaza Strip, which he likened to a concentration camp, as an example of the delegitimization of the left.
“Take Gaza. If you are going to place two million people in a concentration camp, which is in effect what it is, and put them under a vicious siege, you have to ask yourself; am I justified in doing this? People who try to oppose it are traitors, Arab lovers and so on. You have seen this phenomenon in European history, I don’t have to give you examples,” Chomsky said.
Speaking about a common myth in Israeli society that a military presence in the West Bank is necessary for security reasons, Chomsky dismissed that idea saying that the opposite is true; that “a military occupation” of the West Bank only endangers Israel’s security. “Ask any Israeli strategic analysts. They all understand that occupation of the West Bank is a threat to Israeli security.”
Chomsky went on to present a number of incidents where Arab leaders have offered Israel peace in return for withdrawal from the West Bank, all rejected by Israel. Israel, he told, i24NEWS is deliberately choosing expansion over security.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/noam-c...israel/251746/
Related
ReplyAnother update
Noam Chomsky Warns of the Rise of ‘Judeo-Nazi Tendencies’ in Israel
“Take Gaza. If you are going to place two million people in a concentration camp, which is in effect what it is, and put them under a vicious siege, you have to ask yourself; am I justified in doing this? People who try to oppose it are traitors, Arab lovers and so on. You have seen this phenomenon in European history, I don’t have to give you examples,” – Noam Chomsky
Prominent Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky has raised concerns over what he believes is the rise of “Judeo-Nazi tendencies” in Israel. Speaking to i24NEWS last week, the renowned political dissident, linguist and scholar repeated warnings given by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, an Israeli public intellectual, biochemist and polymath, concerning the dehumanizing effect of Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine on the victims and the oppressors.
Chomsky commented on remarks by Leibowitz who was nominated for the Israel Prize saying that “Leibowitz warned that if the occupation continues, Israeli Jews are going to turn into what he called, Judeo-Nazis”. Chomsky recognized the description was a “strong term” and that most people wouldn’t be able to get away with describing Israel in this manner but explained that Leibowitz’s status meant that he was able to speak about Israel without incurring fury.
Leibowitz who passed away in 1994 in Jerusalem, cautioned that the state of Israel and Zionism had become more sacred than Jewish humanist values and controversially went on to describe Israeli conduct in occupied Palestinian territories as “Judeo-Nazi” in nature.
Outraged by Israel’s killing of 60 villagers of Qibya in 1953, most of whom were women and children by the notorious Israeli commando Unit 101, known for its brutality and retribution campaigns, Leibowitz has been quoted as saying:
We have to ask ourselves where this youth of ours emerged from; young people who had no mental inhibitions about committing this atrocity? What inner motivation for such acts could have been at work here? This youth is not a mob but the product of Zionist, humanist social education.
Echoing Leibowitz, Echoing Leibowitz, Chomsky said: “If you have your jackboot on somebody’s neck, you have to find a way to justify it.” Repeating Leibowitz’s warning he added that “blaming the victim was a direct reflection of the continued occupation, the humiliation of people, the degradation, and the terrorist attacks by the Israeli government”.
The former MIT linguist said that being critical of the occupation in Israel today means being labeled a traitor, a phenomenon which has caused the left to virtually disappear from the political spectrum. He pointed to opposition to the situation in the Gaza Strip, which he likened to a concentration camp, as an example of the delegitimization of the left.
“Take Gaza. If you are going to place two million people in a concentration camp, which is in effect what it is, and put them under a vicious siege, you have to ask yourself; am I justified in doing this? People who try to oppose it are traitors, Arab lovers and so on. You have seen this phenomenon in European history, I don’t have to give you examples,” Chomsky said.
Speaking about a common myth in Israeli society that a military presence in the West Bank is necessary for security reasons, Chomsky dismissed that idea saying that the opposite is true; that “a military occupation” of the West Bank only endangers Israel’s security. “Ask any Israeli strategic analysts. They all understand that occupation of the West Bank is a threat to Israeli security.”
Chomsky went on to present a number of incidents where Arab leaders have offered Israel peace in return for withdrawal from the West Bank, all rejected by Israel. Israel, he told, i24NEWS is deliberately choosing expansion over security.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/noam-c...israel/251746/
Related
anatolian
11-15-2018, 12:08 AM
Once upon a time the Saudi didnt give visas to people who visited Israel. Now they dont give visas to Palestinians for hajj...Disgusting...
ReplyJustTime
11-15-2018, 04:13 PM
anatolian
11-15-2018, 04:54 PM
JustTime
11-15-2018, 06:03 PM
The Prophet (SAAWS) banned disbelievers from the Arabian Peninsula, Saudi authorities do neglect this commandment but at least respect and enforce this commandment in Hijaz around Mekkah and Medina with large signs saying 'No non-Muslims' and the Shias are Kuffar their disbelief is greater than that of Jews and Christians, the Shias are the biggest enemy of Islam on the face of the planet and worse of mankind, worse than the Khawarij or Quraysh of Mekkah, they are the worst and Ansar of the Dajjal whereas the tribe of Banu Tamim the ones who live in Nejd will be the harshest towards the Dajjal and I hope there will come a day Insha'Allah, soon, where no Shia will be allowed in Mekkah or Medina they can pray in Karbala like those Mushrik pigs like to do and cut themselves there.
"I have loved the people of the tribe of Banu Tamim, ever since I heard three things the Messenger of Allaah , sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said about them. I heard him saying, 'these people (of the tribe of Banu Tamim) would stand firm against the Dajjaal.' When the Saddaqat from that tribe came, the Messenger of Allaah , sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said, "these are the Saddaqat (charitable gifts) of our folk." Aa'ishah had a slave girl from that tribe, and the Prophet , sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said to Aa'ishah, 'manumit her as she is a descendant of Ismaa'eel, alayhis salaam.'"
ahadith 2543 and 4366 of al-Fath
The Dajjal would be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls. (Muslim 7034)
Reply"I have loved the people of the tribe of Banu Tamim, ever since I heard three things the Messenger of Allaah , sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said about them. I heard him saying, 'these people (of the tribe of Banu Tamim) would stand firm against the Dajjaal.' When the Saddaqat from that tribe came, the Messenger of Allaah , sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said, "these are the Saddaqat (charitable gifts) of our folk." Aa'ishah had a slave girl from that tribe, and the Prophet , sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said to Aa'ishah, 'manumit her as she is a descendant of Ismaa'eel, alayhis salaam.'"
ahadith 2543 and 4366 of al-Fath
The Dajjal would be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls. (Muslim 7034)
anatolian
11-15-2018, 06:46 PM
سيف الله
11-15-2018, 09:23 PM
Salaam
Like to share
Blurb
In late July 2015, an arson attack on a family home in the Palestinian village of Duma, in the West Bank, resulted in the killing of three members of the Dawabshe family, the youngest of whom, Ali, was only 18 months old.
The firebombing also caused seven-year-old Ahmed Dawabshe, Ali's brother, second and third-degree burns across his body, the scars of which he still bears today.
Ahmed, who now lives with his grandfather, remains in Duma, across the West Bank border from his attackers: members of the Hilltop Youth.
Residing on outposts often neighbouring areas populated heavily by Palestinians (not to be confused with Israeli settlements) the Hilltop Youth are known for their extreme religious nationalism. Mostly made up of young people between the ages of 16 and 25, the group are followers of Kahanism; an ideology based on the teachings of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.
ReplyLike to share
Blurb
In late July 2015, an arson attack on a family home in the Palestinian village of Duma, in the West Bank, resulted in the killing of three members of the Dawabshe family, the youngest of whom, Ali, was only 18 months old.
The firebombing also caused seven-year-old Ahmed Dawabshe, Ali's brother, second and third-degree burns across his body, the scars of which he still bears today.
Ahmed, who now lives with his grandfather, remains in Duma, across the West Bank border from his attackers: members of the Hilltop Youth.
Residing on outposts often neighbouring areas populated heavily by Palestinians (not to be confused with Israeli settlements) the Hilltop Youth are known for their extreme religious nationalism. Mostly made up of young people between the ages of 16 and 25, the group are followers of Kahanism; an ideology based on the teachings of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.
JustTime
11-16-2018, 01:55 AM
There is no Hadith about this the facts are facts if you live in KSA the environment is more Islamic than Iran ever will be, in KSA Islam is respected and upheld and something dear in Iran "Islam" doesn't go passed what the Mullahs say on TV look at KSA and Iran, in Iran people literally protest over enforcement of hijab in KSA these issues don't exist and everything there is done to make life for the believers easier such as the Hisbah and so on and this is why when the time comes the people of Saudi Arabia will hold out against the Dajjal and why in Iran with all idiot Shias they will welcome the dajjal.
Replyسيف الله
11-16-2018, 07:41 AM
Salaam
If the reports are confirmed then yes its vomit inducing. The only silver lining is that it further undermines what little credibility the Sauds have left in the eyes of the Muslim world. We need new authentic leadership.
ReplyIf the reports are confirmed then yes its vomit inducing. The only silver lining is that it further undermines what little credibility the Sauds have left in the eyes of the Muslim world. We need new authentic leadership.
anatolian
11-16-2018, 09:08 AM
Wa salam. You mean in Saudi Arabia? I would agree on that but Sauds have never been the leader in entire ummah. In Islam the state is a holy entity and Saudi arabia was far from this holiness since the day it was established. This state was established by a betrayal of the khalif and ummah.
We are leaderless and will go on to be untill Mahdi comes I think.
ReplyWe are leaderless and will go on to be untill Mahdi comes I think.
JustTime
11-21-2018, 09:28 AM
There are many flaws in this "anti-Saudi" current and the continuous condemnation of the country, one doesn't have to support the regime to oppose what they oppose or vice versa and support whom they support. No one has claimed the kingdom nor their rulers are perfect and I am sure their forefathers would be disappointed in the direction they are going but there are facts that as a Muslim you cannot ignore such as how they have protected the status of Islam in their country making it something respected and held dear and it is known that among the Saudi people you will find among the most religious and sincere from Saudi Arabia we see many great scholars, people who follow the deen properly and a general sense of joy and support for what Allah has ordained for humanity.
This doesn't come from nowhere it comes directly from the state's administration, Saudi Arabia is the only country I know of where schools will educate its students on the Takfeer made upon the Rafida for example, the country has also used the divide punishments of Allah regarding crimes such as murder, rape, and fornication while also maintaining a thriving economy and a state of comfort for its people. When most people think of Shariah their first thoughts are backwardness something caveman like but when we see Saudi Arabia we see the opposite we see a modern and beautiful country with a wealthy population that Allah has blessed with natural resources.
As for Saudi foreign policy while many can view it as "Pro-Israel" or "Pro-American" you must ask yourself what does the alternative represent? Pro-Russia and Pro-Shia the Saudis are the only ones to go out of their way to obstruct Iran's evil plans and ambitions and in the world of geopolitics this does include making questionable decisions that outside of circles educated in this matter could come across as wrong, evil or corrupt. Iran and their Neo-Safawi agenda are the single greatest threat to Islam that the history of our religion has ever known, Wallah, I am not exaggerating this, our very Deen is at a point with the Shias that we are facing almost certain destruction and we have witnessed this in Syria and of course with their genocide in Iraq, now that they have enjoyed victory they have set their sights towards Yemen and it is clear they intend to take Jerusalem.
Ask yourself next would the "liberation" of Jerusalem by Iran be worth it? You would be replacing one oppressor with another, and one that is much harsher at that. The Shias do not want to rescue Jerusalem for the sake of Allah or Islam they want it for prestige and to fulfill the narrative that only their Manhaj can protect Islam and that they are Taif al Mansura and the Ansar of Mehdi. In Palestine they have already initiated campaigns of convert people to their vile cult with a group called Harakat ul-Sabireen and they are giving their Dawah in Gaza, in Syria they are converting people from Ahlus Sunnah to the Rafida cult by telling tribesmen that they are related to their Imams such as the case with a vile group called Liwa al-Baqir, in Yemen the Zaydiyyah who are brothers of Ahlus Sunnah have been corrupted and abandoned their school for that of the Majoosi religion and have begun to make Takfeer on the Sahaba and promote shirk and lead people away Allah (SWT).
Wallahi this can never happen to our beloved Jerusalem, what the Jews have done to the Muslims pales in comparison to the Rafida have done and will do if given the chance, at least we can agree that they are not part of our deen and we can agree that they have no affection for Islam and that no sincere Muslim or anyone informed of the conflict would side with them, but with Safawi control we will be more divided now than ever as an Ummah half of us will praise them as heroes and models out of ignorance and naive thought while the rest of us whom are firm in Aqeedah and know better will condemn them and refute them until the final hour Insha'Allah not believing their lies. The situation in Jerusalem today is indeed preferable to whatever Iran may plot for we do not see the Jews doing what the filth in the "Popular" Mobilization Forces or Hezbulshaytan have done to our brothers in Iraq and Syria. Never can we allow the Rafida to do what they did to our blessed Sham to do in Jerusalem or God forbid Mecca or Medina these places belong to the Muslims and are free from their claims and is in better hands to Atheists than it would ever be in the hands of the Rafida no matter how evil they may seem the Rafida will always be the most evil.
ReplyThis doesn't come from nowhere it comes directly from the state's administration, Saudi Arabia is the only country I know of where schools will educate its students on the Takfeer made upon the Rafida for example, the country has also used the divide punishments of Allah regarding crimes such as murder, rape, and fornication while also maintaining a thriving economy and a state of comfort for its people. When most people think of Shariah their first thoughts are backwardness something caveman like but when we see Saudi Arabia we see the opposite we see a modern and beautiful country with a wealthy population that Allah has blessed with natural resources.
As for Saudi foreign policy while many can view it as "Pro-Israel" or "Pro-American" you must ask yourself what does the alternative represent? Pro-Russia and Pro-Shia the Saudis are the only ones to go out of their way to obstruct Iran's evil plans and ambitions and in the world of geopolitics this does include making questionable decisions that outside of circles educated in this matter could come across as wrong, evil or corrupt. Iran and their Neo-Safawi agenda are the single greatest threat to Islam that the history of our religion has ever known, Wallah, I am not exaggerating this, our very Deen is at a point with the Shias that we are facing almost certain destruction and we have witnessed this in Syria and of course with their genocide in Iraq, now that they have enjoyed victory they have set their sights towards Yemen and it is clear they intend to take Jerusalem.
Ask yourself next would the "liberation" of Jerusalem by Iran be worth it? You would be replacing one oppressor with another, and one that is much harsher at that. The Shias do not want to rescue Jerusalem for the sake of Allah or Islam they want it for prestige and to fulfill the narrative that only their Manhaj can protect Islam and that they are Taif al Mansura and the Ansar of Mehdi. In Palestine they have already initiated campaigns of convert people to their vile cult with a group called Harakat ul-Sabireen and they are giving their Dawah in Gaza, in Syria they are converting people from Ahlus Sunnah to the Rafida cult by telling tribesmen that they are related to their Imams such as the case with a vile group called Liwa al-Baqir, in Yemen the Zaydiyyah who are brothers of Ahlus Sunnah have been corrupted and abandoned their school for that of the Majoosi religion and have begun to make Takfeer on the Sahaba and promote shirk and lead people away Allah (SWT).
Wallahi this can never happen to our beloved Jerusalem, what the Jews have done to the Muslims pales in comparison to the Rafida have done and will do if given the chance, at least we can agree that they are not part of our deen and we can agree that they have no affection for Islam and that no sincere Muslim or anyone informed of the conflict would side with them, but with Safawi control we will be more divided now than ever as an Ummah half of us will praise them as heroes and models out of ignorance and naive thought while the rest of us whom are firm in Aqeedah and know better will condemn them and refute them until the final hour Insha'Allah not believing their lies. The situation in Jerusalem today is indeed preferable to whatever Iran may plot for we do not see the Jews doing what the filth in the "Popular" Mobilization Forces or Hezbulshaytan have done to our brothers in Iraq and Syria. Never can we allow the Rafida to do what they did to our blessed Sham to do in Jerusalem or God forbid Mecca or Medina these places belong to the Muslims and are free from their claims and is in better hands to Atheists than it would ever be in the hands of the Rafida no matter how evil they may seem the Rafida will always be the most evil.
anatolian
11-22-2018, 08:35 PM
Bro, being given wealth is not something indicating that you are beloved by Allah. Allah gives worldy things to test only as it is mentioned Quran. I wonder what position they would be in if there was no oil. The Prophet (aleyhissalam) says "he who sleeps satiated while his neighbour sleeps hungry is not from us". They are fighting with Yemen while Yemenite children are dying out of hunger each day. Is this Islamic? They produce hostile policies towards all their enviroment not only Iran. They isolate Qatar for the sake of money. They just bought billions of dollar weaponry from the US. Wonder what they are planning to do with it. This final MSB guy is just a Zionist and American pupet. He may do anything what his master tell him to. You dont have to be pro Russia or Iran inorder to be anti Zionist or anti American imperialist. I for example am none of these.
Shia is totally a different issue. You should not confuse the wrongness of Shia with the current Saudi and Iranian politics. Bahrain is also Shia and the Saudi is good with them as far I know.
ReplyShia is totally a different issue. You should not confuse the wrongness of Shia with the current Saudi and Iranian politics. Bahrain is also Shia and the Saudi is good with them as far I know.
Umm Malik
11-22-2018, 11:07 PM
may allah protect all the ummah and guide us
O allah protect our youth from the fitan
amin
ReplyO allah protect our youth from the fitan
amin
سيف الله
12-23-2018, 08:40 AM
Salaam
Another update.
UAE collaboration with Israel dates back to 1990s
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and officials from the United Arab Emirates secretly met in Cyprus to discuss the Iran nuclear agreement right before Donald Trump took office as US president, according to a report in The New Yorker.
The Barack Obama administration was not aware of the meeting. US intelligence agencies learned of it as well as of phone calls between senior UAE and Israeli leaders toward the end of Obama’s second term.
This meeting marked a strengthening of the covert relationship between Israel and some Gulf Arab states that is likely to come at the expense of Palestinians. Netanyahu hopes these Arab states will help press Palestinians to accept a peace deal tailor-made to Israel’s demands.
By 2015, according to the report, “Netanyahu no longer cared what Obama thought of him,” and with a new administration approaching, both Netanyahu and crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, set their “sights on persuading the new president to create an entirely new dynamic in the Middle East” that would isolate Iran, Adam Entous reported for The New Yorker.
Abu Dhabi is the most politically influential state in the United Arab Emirates.
Before the 2016 US presidential election, Netanyahu met Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and outlined a plan “calling for the Arab states to take steps toward recognizing Israel, in exchange for Israel improving the lives of the Palestinians.”
Entous added that “Clinton knew that the UAE and Saudi Arabia were already working together behind the scenes with Mossad [Israel’s spying agency] to counter Iranian influence.”
Netanyahu and Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer met candidate Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his then adviser Steve Bannon at the Trump penthouse in New York on 25 September 2016.
A former Trump adviser told Entous that “the germ of the idea” of a Gulf-Israel alliance against Iran “started in that room.”
Bin Zayed also met Kushner, Bannon and former US national security adviser Michael Flynn on 15 December 2016, months after Netanyahu and Dermer met with Trump, Kushner and Bannon to express the same interests. That meeting was also unknown to the Obama administration and was held at the Four Seasons Hotel instead of at Trump Tower in order to avoid attention.
According to Entous, Bannon later told Emirates ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba that the meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel “was one of the most eye-opening meetings I’ve ever had.”
Ron Dermer and Yousef Al Otaiba had “extraordinary access to the new president’s team,” Entous wrote.
Palestinian “bankruptcy”
For the UAE and for powerful Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Palestinian issue is a mere nuisance standing in the way of closer ties with Israel in order to confront Iran.
“Israel’s never attacked us,” and “we share a common enemy,” bin Salman reportedly told US officials in more than one meeting, according to Entous.
“We’re going to get the deal done,” bin Salman reportedly told an American visitor to Riyadh in 2017. “I’m going to deliver the Palestinians and he” – Trump – “is going to deliver the Israelis.”
Bin Salman was referring to Trump’s so-called deal of the century between Israel and the Palestinians.
According to Entous, Trump’s ambassador to Israel David Friedman, a former bankruptcy lawyer, has called the planned agreement a “bankruptcy-type deal” for the Palestinians – in other words a liquidation of their rights.
Entous’ article also confirms that some Trump officials are further to the right on the Palestinian issue than even the Israeli government.
When the newly appointed Friedman was being briefed by State Department officials on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the ambassador reportedly replied, “I just don’t understand. The people who live there are basically Egyptians. Why can’t Egypt take them back?”
Mutual enemy
The meeting between Netanyahu and senior Emirati leaders in Cyprus was one of numerous secret contacts between Emirati and Israel officials that Entous traces back to the 1990s, when bin Zayed wanted to buy fighter aircraft from the US, but feared Israeli objections to the sale.
Bin Zayed “believed that the Gulf states and Israel shared a common enemy: Iran,” and requested that Sandra Charles – a former official in the George H. W. Bush administration who was working for bin Zayed at the time – convey the message about a possible meeting between UAE and Israeli leaders.
As part of Charles’ work in the UAE, her firm provided assistance to Jamal S. Al-Suwaidi, an Emirati academic who was establishing the government-backed Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research in 1994. The think tank was established for academic research but later “became a conduit for contacts with Israel,” Entous wrote.
Charles later arranged a meeting between Al-Suwaidi and Israeli diplomat Jeremy Issacharoff. The meeting was off the record so that the Israelis and the Emiratis could deny it ever happened.
After that meeting, then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin raised no objections to the sale of the American fighter jets to the UAE.
That built a “sense of trust” between Israel and the UAE, former US officials told Entous. Those former officials considered it significant that bin Zayed “did not care” when he learned the fighter jets contained Israeli technology.
With bin Zayed’s blessing, “Suwaidi started bringing delegations of influential American Jews to Abu Dhabi to meet with Emirati officials.”
Notably, the same strategy that the Emirates used to gain Israeli approval in the 1990s is being implemented by Qatar today.
The Qatari government has been inviting right-wing Americans and key leaders of Israel’s Washington lobby for all-expenses-paid junkets to Doha.
They include the hawkish pro-Israel lawyer Alan Dershowitz and the head of the Zionist Organization of America Morton Klein.
Influential anti-Palestinian propagandists have returned to the US to sing Qatar’s praises.
Theft of Jerusalem
Entous also casts light on how American casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson was “critical” in securing Republican support for Trump.
Adelson poured tens of millions of dollars into Trump’s campaign after he received a commitment that Trump would move the US embassy to Jerusalem if elected.
“Adelson wanted to take the issue of dividing the capital ‘off the table,’ a Trump confidant said, ‘That was the sole issue for him. It was his dream.’”
Meanwhile, Sheikh Kamal al-Khatib, deputy head of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, warned in a Facebook post that a Palestinian businessman affiliated with Palestinian strongman Muhammad Dahlan is planning to buy real estate in Jerusalem on behalf of an Emirati businessman affiliated with bin Zayed.
Al-Khatib warned that these properties are likely to end up in Israel’s hands.
“This businessman offered a Jerusalem resident $5 million to buy a house adjacent to al-Aqsa mosque. When the offer was rejected, the businessman offered the owner $20 million for the same house,” al-Khatib wrote in his Facebook post. Al-Khatib urged Jerusalem residents not to sell their property no matter how much they are offered.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, al-Khatib claimed that during Israel’s 2014 assault on the Gaza Strip, property purchased by Emirati citizens in the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ein al-Hilweh and Silwan ended up under the control of Israeli settlers.
Dahlan denied the accusations. In a Facebook post, he threatened to sue al-Khatib and Al Jazeera “all over the world” for their lies, adding that those who manage and fund Al Jazeera “spend the happiest times in the hotels of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with the direct patronage and permission of Qatar’s ruler.”
Dahlan was a central figure in the US-backed plot funded by the United Arab Emirates to arm and train militias to overthrow Hamas after the Islamist resistance group soundly defeated Dahlan’s Fatah faction in Palestinian Authority elections in January 2006.
President George W. Bush, whose administration directly approved the scheme, referred to Dahlan as “our guy.” Plans went awry, however, when Hamas turned the tables on the plotters, expelling Dahlan and his militias from Gaza in June 2007.
Dahlan escaped to the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah. But he quickly fell out with PA leader and Fatah boss Mahmoud Abbas, and, facing charges of corruption and accusations of another coup plot, fled in 2010 to the United Arab Emirates.
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs...tes-back-1990s
What a surprise.
Oh and
ReplyAnother update.
UAE collaboration with Israel dates back to 1990s
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and officials from the United Arab Emirates secretly met in Cyprus to discuss the Iran nuclear agreement right before Donald Trump took office as US president, according to a report in The New Yorker.
The Barack Obama administration was not aware of the meeting. US intelligence agencies learned of it as well as of phone calls between senior UAE and Israeli leaders toward the end of Obama’s second term.
This meeting marked a strengthening of the covert relationship between Israel and some Gulf Arab states that is likely to come at the expense of Palestinians. Netanyahu hopes these Arab states will help press Palestinians to accept a peace deal tailor-made to Israel’s demands.
By 2015, according to the report, “Netanyahu no longer cared what Obama thought of him,” and with a new administration approaching, both Netanyahu and crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, set their “sights on persuading the new president to create an entirely new dynamic in the Middle East” that would isolate Iran, Adam Entous reported for The New Yorker.
Abu Dhabi is the most politically influential state in the United Arab Emirates.
Before the 2016 US presidential election, Netanyahu met Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and outlined a plan “calling for the Arab states to take steps toward recognizing Israel, in exchange for Israel improving the lives of the Palestinians.”
Entous added that “Clinton knew that the UAE and Saudi Arabia were already working together behind the scenes with Mossad [Israel’s spying agency] to counter Iranian influence.”
Netanyahu and Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer met candidate Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his then adviser Steve Bannon at the Trump penthouse in New York on 25 September 2016.
A former Trump adviser told Entous that “the germ of the idea” of a Gulf-Israel alliance against Iran “started in that room.”
Bin Zayed also met Kushner, Bannon and former US national security adviser Michael Flynn on 15 December 2016, months after Netanyahu and Dermer met with Trump, Kushner and Bannon to express the same interests. That meeting was also unknown to the Obama administration and was held at the Four Seasons Hotel instead of at Trump Tower in order to avoid attention.
According to Entous, Bannon later told Emirates ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba that the meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel “was one of the most eye-opening meetings I’ve ever had.”
Ron Dermer and Yousef Al Otaiba had “extraordinary access to the new president’s team,” Entous wrote.
Palestinian “bankruptcy”
For the UAE and for powerful Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Palestinian issue is a mere nuisance standing in the way of closer ties with Israel in order to confront Iran.
“Israel’s never attacked us,” and “we share a common enemy,” bin Salman reportedly told US officials in more than one meeting, according to Entous.
“We’re going to get the deal done,” bin Salman reportedly told an American visitor to Riyadh in 2017. “I’m going to deliver the Palestinians and he” – Trump – “is going to deliver the Israelis.”
Bin Salman was referring to Trump’s so-called deal of the century between Israel and the Palestinians.
According to Entous, Trump’s ambassador to Israel David Friedman, a former bankruptcy lawyer, has called the planned agreement a “bankruptcy-type deal” for the Palestinians – in other words a liquidation of their rights.
Entous’ article also confirms that some Trump officials are further to the right on the Palestinian issue than even the Israeli government.
When the newly appointed Friedman was being briefed by State Department officials on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the ambassador reportedly replied, “I just don’t understand. The people who live there are basically Egyptians. Why can’t Egypt take them back?”
Mutual enemy
The meeting between Netanyahu and senior Emirati leaders in Cyprus was one of numerous secret contacts between Emirati and Israel officials that Entous traces back to the 1990s, when bin Zayed wanted to buy fighter aircraft from the US, but feared Israeli objections to the sale.
Bin Zayed “believed that the Gulf states and Israel shared a common enemy: Iran,” and requested that Sandra Charles – a former official in the George H. W. Bush administration who was working for bin Zayed at the time – convey the message about a possible meeting between UAE and Israeli leaders.
As part of Charles’ work in the UAE, her firm provided assistance to Jamal S. Al-Suwaidi, an Emirati academic who was establishing the government-backed Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research in 1994. The think tank was established for academic research but later “became a conduit for contacts with Israel,” Entous wrote.
Charles later arranged a meeting between Al-Suwaidi and Israeli diplomat Jeremy Issacharoff. The meeting was off the record so that the Israelis and the Emiratis could deny it ever happened.
After that meeting, then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin raised no objections to the sale of the American fighter jets to the UAE.
That built a “sense of trust” between Israel and the UAE, former US officials told Entous. Those former officials considered it significant that bin Zayed “did not care” when he learned the fighter jets contained Israeli technology.
With bin Zayed’s blessing, “Suwaidi started bringing delegations of influential American Jews to Abu Dhabi to meet with Emirati officials.”
Notably, the same strategy that the Emirates used to gain Israeli approval in the 1990s is being implemented by Qatar today.
The Qatari government has been inviting right-wing Americans and key leaders of Israel’s Washington lobby for all-expenses-paid junkets to Doha.
They include the hawkish pro-Israel lawyer Alan Dershowitz and the head of the Zionist Organization of America Morton Klein.
Influential anti-Palestinian propagandists have returned to the US to sing Qatar’s praises.
Theft of Jerusalem
Entous also casts light on how American casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson was “critical” in securing Republican support for Trump.
Adelson poured tens of millions of dollars into Trump’s campaign after he received a commitment that Trump would move the US embassy to Jerusalem if elected.
“Adelson wanted to take the issue of dividing the capital ‘off the table,’ a Trump confidant said, ‘That was the sole issue for him. It was his dream.’”
Meanwhile, Sheikh Kamal al-Khatib, deputy head of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, warned in a Facebook post that a Palestinian businessman affiliated with Palestinian strongman Muhammad Dahlan is planning to buy real estate in Jerusalem on behalf of an Emirati businessman affiliated with bin Zayed.
Al-Khatib warned that these properties are likely to end up in Israel’s hands.
“This businessman offered a Jerusalem resident $5 million to buy a house adjacent to al-Aqsa mosque. When the offer was rejected, the businessman offered the owner $20 million for the same house,” al-Khatib wrote in his Facebook post. Al-Khatib urged Jerusalem residents not to sell their property no matter how much they are offered.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, al-Khatib claimed that during Israel’s 2014 assault on the Gaza Strip, property purchased by Emirati citizens in the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ein al-Hilweh and Silwan ended up under the control of Israeli settlers.
Dahlan denied the accusations. In a Facebook post, he threatened to sue al-Khatib and Al Jazeera “all over the world” for their lies, adding that those who manage and fund Al Jazeera “spend the happiest times in the hotels of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with the direct patronage and permission of Qatar’s ruler.”
Dahlan was a central figure in the US-backed plot funded by the United Arab Emirates to arm and train militias to overthrow Hamas after the Islamist resistance group soundly defeated Dahlan’s Fatah faction in Palestinian Authority elections in January 2006.
President George W. Bush, whose administration directly approved the scheme, referred to Dahlan as “our guy.” Plans went awry, however, when Hamas turned the tables on the plotters, expelling Dahlan and his militias from Gaza in June 2007.
Dahlan escaped to the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah. But he quickly fell out with PA leader and Fatah boss Mahmoud Abbas, and, facing charges of corruption and accusations of another coup plot, fled in 2010 to the United Arab Emirates.
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs...tes-back-1990s
What a surprise.
Oh and
سيف الله
12-26-2018, 10:36 PM
Salaam
Book Id like to recommend. Unusually for a 'far?' right author it is he doesnt automatically demonise Islam and makes an real effort to understand the Muslim perspective. I dont agree with all his arguments and conculsions but its well worth a read.
Blurb
Zionism, Islam and the West constitutes a broad overview of the last century and insightfully questions several popular shibboleths. Over 12 chapters Kerry Bolton rattles quite a few of the widely held misconceptions about Islam and Muslims, and the events of the past few decades in particular.
This is a deep and thought-provoking piece of scholarship and Bolton demonstrates a shrewd command of documentary material in order to elucidate the prevailing stereotypes, pejorative views and garrulous hyperbole about Islam, and convincingly exposes a deep comprehension of the complexity of 20th century politics.
Preface
In International realtions the clash of civilizations thesis seems to have replaced the ideological battle of the Cold War period. This thesis was orginally proposed in 1990. In 1993 an article appeared in the Foreign Affairs magazine which was developed as a book in 1996 to guide US foriegn policy makers advocating the hypothesis. then 9/11 attacks occured to support the hypothesis. Did the Zionists play any role in these devleopments? It is very diffcult to assert because, as Kerry Bolton rightly suggested, Zionists oten operate to push sundry agendas in the name of attractive thoughts. Sometimes these ideals include noble dreams such as democracy, human rights etc. With the rise of Muslim extremeism throughout the world it is very important that Muslims read this valuable work.
Some Zionist-Orientalits scholars, who are well versed in Muslim histroy and culture, know very well the weak points of 14 centuries of Muslim history. They are cabale of pressing the right button at a right time to provoke a strong reaction among Muslims. This is why Muslims must know Zionism and Orientalism very well and Kerry Bolton has made a valuable contribution in exposing Zionism. I strongly recommend this book to every student of contemporay Muslim cultural and politcal history.
Dr Abdullahil Ahsan,
Professor and Deputy Dean,
International Institue of Islamic Thought and Civilization,
International Islamic University Malyasia.
ReplyBook Id like to recommend. Unusually for a 'far?' right author it is he doesnt automatically demonise Islam and makes an real effort to understand the Muslim perspective. I dont agree with all his arguments and conculsions but its well worth a read.
Blurb
Zionism, Islam and the West constitutes a broad overview of the last century and insightfully questions several popular shibboleths. Over 12 chapters Kerry Bolton rattles quite a few of the widely held misconceptions about Islam and Muslims, and the events of the past few decades in particular.
This is a deep and thought-provoking piece of scholarship and Bolton demonstrates a shrewd command of documentary material in order to elucidate the prevailing stereotypes, pejorative views and garrulous hyperbole about Islam, and convincingly exposes a deep comprehension of the complexity of 20th century politics.
Preface
In International realtions the clash of civilizations thesis seems to have replaced the ideological battle of the Cold War period. This thesis was orginally proposed in 1990. In 1993 an article appeared in the Foreign Affairs magazine which was developed as a book in 1996 to guide US foriegn policy makers advocating the hypothesis. then 9/11 attacks occured to support the hypothesis. Did the Zionists play any role in these devleopments? It is very diffcult to assert because, as Kerry Bolton rightly suggested, Zionists oten operate to push sundry agendas in the name of attractive thoughts. Sometimes these ideals include noble dreams such as democracy, human rights etc. With the rise of Muslim extremeism throughout the world it is very important that Muslims read this valuable work.
Some Zionist-Orientalits scholars, who are well versed in Muslim histroy and culture, know very well the weak points of 14 centuries of Muslim history. They are cabale of pressing the right button at a right time to provoke a strong reaction among Muslims. This is why Muslims must know Zionism and Orientalism very well and Kerry Bolton has made a valuable contribution in exposing Zionism. I strongly recommend this book to every student of contemporay Muslim cultural and politcal history.
Dr Abdullahil Ahsan,
Professor and Deputy Dean,
International Institue of Islamic Thought and Civilization,
International Islamic University Malyasia.
سيف الله
01-01-2019, 01:38 AM
Salaam
A most interesting perspetive.
I actually agree with him on the leadership issue, Palestinians with a couple of exceptions have been poorly led.
ReplyA most interesting perspetive.
I actually agree with him on the leadership issue, Palestinians with a couple of exceptions have been poorly led.
سيف الله
01-09-2019, 07:54 PM
Salaam
Another update.
Blurb
A new Senate bill would allow state and local governments to boycott any U.S. companies which are engaged in a boycott against Israel. We speak with Congressmember Rashida Tlaib, who has come out out against the bill, tweeting, “They forgot what country they represent. This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away.”
ANTI-BDS BILL DEFEATED
Some may be happy to learn that the US Senate didn’t pass the ‘anti BDS bill’ on Tuesday. But a look at the vote reveals that America’s politicians are fully removed from the American ethos of freedom. Fifty six mostly Republican Senators, just 4 shy of the 60 needed to pass the bill, voted to enact a law contrary to the Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech as granted by the 1st amendment. The defeated bill included a provision to allow states and local governments to punish Americans who boycott Israel. This was an astonishing and nearly successful attempt to legislate crude government interference with freedom of speech in its most protected form: political speech. The fact that such a bill made it to the floor of the Senate confirms that the American political establishment is an occupied zone committed to silencing opposition to Israel and its lobby.
Democrats did not necessarily oppose the anti BDS bill on first amendment grounds. Instead, most Senate Democrats have vowed to block all legislation in the Senate until it votes to end the government shutdown. Trump has closed the Federal government until Congress accedes to his demand for $5.7 billion to begin to erect an Israeli style ghetto wall on the Mexican border.
If the president is so desperate to defend America’s southern border, perhaps he should consider not giving military aid to Israel, even if just for two years. This would free $8 billion and give Trump enough cash to build his wall and then maybe he could invest the remaining $2.3 billion where it’s really needed: to make America great again.
https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/201...-bill-defeated
ReplyAnother update.
Blurb
A new Senate bill would allow state and local governments to boycott any U.S. companies which are engaged in a boycott against Israel. We speak with Congressmember Rashida Tlaib, who has come out out against the bill, tweeting, “They forgot what country they represent. This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right & part of our historical fight for freedom & equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away.”
ANTI-BDS BILL DEFEATED
Some may be happy to learn that the US Senate didn’t pass the ‘anti BDS bill’ on Tuesday. But a look at the vote reveals that America’s politicians are fully removed from the American ethos of freedom. Fifty six mostly Republican Senators, just 4 shy of the 60 needed to pass the bill, voted to enact a law contrary to the Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech as granted by the 1st amendment. The defeated bill included a provision to allow states and local governments to punish Americans who boycott Israel. This was an astonishing and nearly successful attempt to legislate crude government interference with freedom of speech in its most protected form: political speech. The fact that such a bill made it to the floor of the Senate confirms that the American political establishment is an occupied zone committed to silencing opposition to Israel and its lobby.
Democrats did not necessarily oppose the anti BDS bill on first amendment grounds. Instead, most Senate Democrats have vowed to block all legislation in the Senate until it votes to end the government shutdown. Trump has closed the Federal government until Congress accedes to his demand for $5.7 billion to begin to erect an Israeli style ghetto wall on the Mexican border.
If the president is so desperate to defend America’s southern border, perhaps he should consider not giving military aid to Israel, even if just for two years. This would free $8 billion and give Trump enough cash to build his wall and then maybe he could invest the remaining $2.3 billion where it’s really needed: to make America great again.
https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/201...-bill-defeated
سيف الله
02-06-2019, 12:19 AM
Salaam
Like to share.
Blurb
The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
ReplyLike to share.
Blurb
The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
سيف الله
02-07-2019, 10:27 PM
Salaam
Another update
Israel, UK and Brexit
The following is a translation of the last segment of an article in Ynet yesterday on Brexit. The article explains that: the Jewish State has located itself as post Brexit Britain’s gateway to the world: “Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign separate trade agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.” And that: “Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally.” And, of course, “the British government totally disregard the boycott campaign against Israel. On a political level, they boycotted the boycott.”
A few years ago we learned that back in 1982 Oded Yinon devised an Israeli ‘plan for the Middle East.’ The following Ynet’s segment provides us with a glimpse into the current ‘Israel’s plan for Britain.’
If you have been puzzled by the insane institutional campaign against Corbyn (BOD, Jewish Chronicle, CAA, etc.) the Ynet article raises the possibility that the campaign has not actually been about ‘antisemitism.’ It is more likely about shekles: Corbyn in Number Ten could easily interfere with ‘Israel’s plans for Britain.’ The Ynet article may also help Brits to understand the bipartisan forces that operate intensively to push Britain to break away from the EU. For some reason some of the staunch Israel supporters within the Government and in the Parliament are also pushing hard for Brexit. Ask yourself, do they do it for Britain, Brits and British national interests or are they, once again, serving the interests of that dark and oppressive foreign state.
The Brexit Hurricane
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,73...456081,00.html
“…It turns out that on some fronts the British began to prepare in advance. When it decided to withdraw from the European Union, Britain was even more enthusiastic about reaching agreements to sign bilateral trade agreements, this time not through the EU, but with countries around the world. The Brits saw the signing of these trade agreements as evidence of Britain's steadfastness. Time and time again, British leaders, headed by Teresa May, said that "Britain can maximise its business and commercial potential beyond the EU as well." Israel was one of the first stations in that campaign. Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign such agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.
In recent years, Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally. Innovation, technological, intelligence and cyber capabilities have made Israel one of the most popular potential partners in Britain. The volume of trade between the two countries rose to a record $ 11 billion last year, of which $ 5 billion was Israeli exports to Britain, and the rest was British imports to Israel. After the United States, Britain is the largest exporter to Israel, and trade relations span a wide range of fields - energy, pharmaceuticals, food and technology - and the British government's total disregard of the boycott organizations against Israel. On the political level, they boycotted the boycott.
In the past year, teams of British and Israeli economic ministries have gathered to discuss bilateral trade agreements. They had to draft new agreements, since the current trade agreements between the two countries were within the framework of the European Union. Ohad Cohen, head of the Foreign Trade Department in the Ministry of Economics, who was in charge of the talks on the Israeli side, said that the British had entered talks with a simple task: to continue without unnecessary shocks, to repeat most of the clauses in the agreement that Israel signed with the EU in 1995.
"They came and said, 'Whatever was, will be,'" Cohen said. "In other words, they wanted Israel to continue to trade with Britain on the same terms, with full customs exemptions, and to make very small changes to existing agreements, especially in quantities. Britain has named Israel as one of the first countries with which it wants to sign a bilateral agreement, and it is important for the British government to ensure that the commercial ties between the two countries are not harmed."
According to Cohen, the negotiations were oblivious to the many changes that have stirred the British political system in the past year. The British did not arrive with any panic for the negotiations with Israel, not even when ministers resigned one by one and Theresa May's government was crushed under the wheels of Brexit. "The only difference is that they were required to set up a unit that deals with trade agreements, which they did not have before, because before everything went through the EU institutions in Brussels," says Cohen.
Thus, in the coming month a trade agreement between the two countries is supposed to be signed. After Israel, Britain expects to sign trade agreements with some 70 other countries, including its closest ally, the US. The agreement with the Americans is very important, because for a Brexit government this is a prestigious card and a proof that Britain can stand on its feet even outside the European Union…”
https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/201...-uk-and-brexit
ReplyAnother update
Israel, UK and Brexit
The following is a translation of the last segment of an article in Ynet yesterday on Brexit. The article explains that: the Jewish State has located itself as post Brexit Britain’s gateway to the world: “Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign separate trade agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.” And that: “Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally.” And, of course, “the British government totally disregard the boycott campaign against Israel. On a political level, they boycotted the boycott.”
A few years ago we learned that back in 1982 Oded Yinon devised an Israeli ‘plan for the Middle East.’ The following Ynet’s segment provides us with a glimpse into the current ‘Israel’s plan for Britain.’
If you have been puzzled by the insane institutional campaign against Corbyn (BOD, Jewish Chronicle, CAA, etc.) the Ynet article raises the possibility that the campaign has not actually been about ‘antisemitism.’ It is more likely about shekles: Corbyn in Number Ten could easily interfere with ‘Israel’s plans for Britain.’ The Ynet article may also help Brits to understand the bipartisan forces that operate intensively to push Britain to break away from the EU. For some reason some of the staunch Israel supporters within the Government and in the Parliament are also pushing hard for Brexit. Ask yourself, do they do it for Britain, Brits and British national interests or are they, once again, serving the interests of that dark and oppressive foreign state.
The Brexit Hurricane
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,73...456081,00.html
“…It turns out that on some fronts the British began to prepare in advance. When it decided to withdraw from the European Union, Britain was even more enthusiastic about reaching agreements to sign bilateral trade agreements, this time not through the EU, but with countries around the world. The Brits saw the signing of these trade agreements as evidence of Britain's steadfastness. Time and time again, British leaders, headed by Teresa May, said that "Britain can maximise its business and commercial potential beyond the EU as well." Israel was one of the first stations in that campaign. Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign such agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.
In recent years, Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally. Innovation, technological, intelligence and cyber capabilities have made Israel one of the most popular potential partners in Britain. The volume of trade between the two countries rose to a record $ 11 billion last year, of which $ 5 billion was Israeli exports to Britain, and the rest was British imports to Israel. After the United States, Britain is the largest exporter to Israel, and trade relations span a wide range of fields - energy, pharmaceuticals, food and technology - and the British government's total disregard of the boycott organizations against Israel. On the political level, they boycotted the boycott.
In the past year, teams of British and Israeli economic ministries have gathered to discuss bilateral trade agreements. They had to draft new agreements, since the current trade agreements between the two countries were within the framework of the European Union. Ohad Cohen, head of the Foreign Trade Department in the Ministry of Economics, who was in charge of the talks on the Israeli side, said that the British had entered talks with a simple task: to continue without unnecessary shocks, to repeat most of the clauses in the agreement that Israel signed with the EU in 1995.
"They came and said, 'Whatever was, will be,'" Cohen said. "In other words, they wanted Israel to continue to trade with Britain on the same terms, with full customs exemptions, and to make very small changes to existing agreements, especially in quantities. Britain has named Israel as one of the first countries with which it wants to sign a bilateral agreement, and it is important for the British government to ensure that the commercial ties between the two countries are not harmed."
According to Cohen, the negotiations were oblivious to the many changes that have stirred the British political system in the past year. The British did not arrive with any panic for the negotiations with Israel, not even when ministers resigned one by one and Theresa May's government was crushed under the wheels of Brexit. "The only difference is that they were required to set up a unit that deals with trade agreements, which they did not have before, because before everything went through the EU institutions in Brussels," says Cohen.
Thus, in the coming month a trade agreement between the two countries is supposed to be signed. After Israel, Britain expects to sign trade agreements with some 70 other countries, including its closest ally, the US. The agreement with the Americans is very important, because for a Brexit government this is a prestigious card and a proof that Britain can stand on its feet even outside the European Union…”
https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/201...-uk-and-brexit
سيف الله
02-16-2019, 01:05 AM
Salaam
Another update
Blurb
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leaked a video of Arab diplomats defending Israel's right to defend itself and bashing Iran. What do these remarks and actions mean about Israel's relations with the Arab states? Former Israeli diplomat Avi Pazner analyzes.
ReplyAnother update
Blurb
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leaked a video of Arab diplomats defending Israel's right to defend itself and bashing Iran. What do these remarks and actions mean about Israel's relations with the Arab states? Former Israeli diplomat Avi Pazner analyzes.
سيف الله
02-22-2019, 07:21 PM
Salaam
Like to share.
Blurb
India and Israel have been allies for much of recent history although the relations between these two countries have been low-profile and only started getting global attention in recent years. Besides having strong economic ties the two countries also share key strategic and military cooperation.
Related.
Why India’s Hindu nationalists worship Israel’s nation-state model
https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/02/17/wh...n-state-model/
ReplyLike to share.
Blurb
India and Israel have been allies for much of recent history although the relations between these two countries have been low-profile and only started getting global attention in recent years. Besides having strong economic ties the two countries also share key strategic and military cooperation.
Related.
Why India’s Hindu nationalists worship Israel’s nation-state model
https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/02/17/wh...n-state-model/
سيف الله
02-23-2019, 11:44 AM
Salaam
Another update
The Growing Anti-Semitism Scam
“An anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.”– Joe Sobran
In his novel 1984 George Orwell invented the expression “newspeak” to describe the ambiguous or deliberately misleading use of language to make political propaganda and narrow the “thought options” of those who are on the receiving end. In the context of today’s political discourse, or what passes for the same, it would be interesting to know what George would think of the saturation use of “anti-Semitism” as something like a tactical discussion stopper, employed to end all dispute while also condemning those accused of the crime as somehow outside the pale, monsters who are consigned forever to derision and obscurity.
The Israelis and, to be sure, many diaspora Jews know exactly how the expression has been weaponized. Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni explained how it is done “Anti-Semitic”…”its a trick, we always use it.”
If one were to read the U.S. mainstream media, reflective as it nearly always is of a certain institutional Jewish viewpoint, one would think that there has been a dramatic increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, but that claim is incorrect. What has been taking place is not hatred of Jews but rather a confluence of two factors. First is the undeniable fact that Israel has been behaving particularly badly, even by its admittedly low standards. Its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza has been unusually observable in spite of media attempts to avoid mentioning it, plus its support of terrorists in Syria and attacks on that country have also raised questions about the intentions of the kleptocratic regime in Tel Aviv, which is currently pushing for an attack on Iran. That all means that the perception of Israel, which boasts that it is the exclusively Jewish state, inevitably raises questions about the international Jewish community that provides much of its support. But the shift in perception is driven by Israeli behavior, not by Jews as an ethnicity or a religion.
Second, the alleged increase in anti-Semitic incidents is largely fueled by how those incidents are defined. Israel and its friends have worked hard to broaden the parameters of the discussion, making any criticism of Israel or its activities either a hate crime or ipso facto an anti-Semitic incident. The U.S. State Department’s working definition of anti-Semitism includes “…the targeting of the state of Israel” and it warns that anti-Semitism is a criminal offense. Recent legislation in Washington and also in Europe has criminalized hitherto legal and non-violent efforts to pressure Israel regarding its inhumanity vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Legitimate criticism of Israel thereby becomes both anti-Semitism and criminal, increasing the count of so-called anti-Semitic incidents. That means that the numbers inevitably go up, providing fodder to validate a repressive response.
One might add that Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia have contributed to the allegations regarding surging anti-Semitism, relentlessly unleashing a torrent of material rooting out alleged anti-Semites and so-called holocaust deniers, while simultaneously heaping praise on Israel and its achievements. Professor of Holocaust Studies Deborah Lipstadt has written a book Anti-Semitism: Here and Now about what she regards as the new anti-Semitism, supporting her belief that it is getting markedly worse in both Europe and the U.S. There is also a movie about her confrontation with holocaust critic David Irving called Denial. All of the media exposure of so-called anti-Semitism has a political objective, whether intended or not, which is to insulate Israel itself from any criticism and to create for all Jews the status of perpetual victimhood which permits many in the diaspora to unflinchingly support a foreign country against the interests of the nations where they were born, raised and made their fortunes. That is called dual loyalty and, in spite of frequent denials from Israel-apologists, it clearly exists for many American Jews who are passionate about the Jewish state, including members of the Trump Administration Jason Greenblatt, David Friedman and Jared Kushner.
In the past week, a newly elected member of congress has been derided, shunned and then forced to both recant and apologize for having said something that is manifestly true: that Jewish money corrupts the American political system to favor Israel. The controversy erupted after House minority leader Republican Kevin McCarthy said he would initiate investigations of two Muslim congresswomen, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, over their criticisms of Israel. McCarthy called for the two to be denounced by the Democratic Party as anti-Semites after Tlaib had said that the sponsors of recent legislation intended to benefit Israel by limiting free speech “…forgot what country they represent. This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right and part of our historical fight for freedom and equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away.”
Indeed, Tlaib had a point as the Congressional Israel boosters have long since forgotten that they are supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States while also promoting the interests of their constituents, not those of a country seven thousand miles away. Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept responded to the news of the McCarthy threat with a tweet “It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans.” Ilhan Omar then tweeted her own pithy rejoinder to Greenwald on Sunday February 10th: “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!” which was in reference to the Founder Benjamin Franklin’s portrait on hundred-dollar bills. Her comment was almost immediately interpreted as meaning that she was accusing McCarthy of being bought by Jews. She followed up on a question about who was doing the buying she tweeted “AIPAC,” an elaboration that unleashed something like an anti-Semitism ---- storm in her direction.
It was manufactured outrage, with political leaders from both parties latching on to a media frenzy to score points against each other. Even though it is perfectly legitimate for a Congresswoman on the Foreign Affairs Committee to challenge what AIPAC does and where its money comes from, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi complained that Omar’s “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters” was “deeply offensive.” Chelsea Clinton accused Omar of “trafficking in anti-Semitism.” President Donald Trump, who has admitted that his Mideast policy is intended to serve Israeli rather than U.S. interests, also jumped in, saying “I think she should either resign from congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”
Ilhan Omar quickly understood that she had touched a live wire, surrendered, and recanted. She apologized by Monday afternoon, 18 hours after her original tweet, saying “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.” But she also bravely wrote “At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”
Pelosi approved of the apology. Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota who is running for president in 2020, chimed in to make sure that everyone knew how much she loves Israel, saying “I’m glad she apologized. That was the right thing to do. There is just no room for those kinds of words. I think Israel is our beacon of democracy. I’ve been a strong supporter of Israel and that will never change.”
Two days later, a motion sponsored by Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York passed by a 424 to 0 vote. It was specifically intended to serve as a rebuke to Omar. It stated that “it is in the national security interest of the United States to combat anti-Semitism around the world because…there has been a significant amount of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred that must be most strongly condemned.”
Congressional votes professing love for Israel notwithstanding, the fact is that there is a massive, generously funded effort to corrupt America’s government in favor of Israel. It is euphemistically called the Israel Lobby even though it is overwhelmingly Jewish and it boasts fairly openly of its power when talking with its closest friends about how its money influences the decisions made on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Its combined budget exceeds one billion dollars per year and it includes lobbying powerhouses like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which alone had $229 million in income in 2017, supporting more than 200 employees. It exists only to promote Israeli interests on Capitol Hill and throughout the United States with an army of lobbyists and its activities include using questionably legal all expenses paid “orientation” trips to Israel for all new congressmen and spouses.
McCarthy and the other stooges in Congress deliberately sought to frame the argument in terms of Ilhan Omar having claimed that he personally was receiving money from pro-Israel sources and that money influenced his voting. Well, the fact is that such activity does take place and was documented three years ago by the respected Foreign Policy Journal, which published a piece entitled “The Best Congress AIPAC can Buy” as well as more recently in an al-Jazeera investigative expose using a concealed camera.
And Kevin McCarthy does indeed receive money from Israel PACs – $33,200 in 2018. The amount individual congressmen receive is dependent on their actual or potential value to Israel. Completely corrupt and enthusiastically pro-Israel Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey received $548,507 in 2018. In the House, Beto O’Rourke of Texas received $226,690. The numbers do not include individual contributions of under $200, which are encouraged by AIPAC and can be considerable. In general, congressmen currently receive over $23,000 on average from the major pro-Israel organizations while Senators get $77,000.
But, of course, direct donations of money are not the whole story. If a congressman is unfriendly to Israel, money moves in the other direction, towards funding an opponent when re-election is coming up. Former Rep. Brian Bard has observed that “Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and significant amounts against you if you’re not with them.” Lara Friedman, who has worked on the Hill for 15 years on Israel/Palestine, notes how congressmen and staffs of “both parties told me over and over that they agreed with me but didn’t dare say so publicly for fear of repercussions from AIPAC.”
A good example of how it all worked involves one honest congressman, Walter Jones of North Carolina, who recently passed away. In 2014, “Wall Street billionaires, financial industry lobbyists, and neoconservative hawks” tried to unseat Jones by bankrolling his primary opponent. The “dark money” intended to defeat him came from a PAC called “The Emergency Committee for Israel,” headed by leading neoconservative Bill Kristol. Jones’ war views, including avoiding a war with Iran, were clearly perceived as anti-Israel.
And one should also consider contributions directly to the political parties. Israeli/U.S. dual nationals Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are the largest single donors to the GOP and to the Democrats, having contributed $82 million and $8,780,000 respectively in the 2016 presidential campaign. Both have indicated openly that Israel is their top priority.
If they have demonstrated fealty to Israel while in office, many Congressmen also find that loyalty pays off after retirement from government with richly remunerated second careers in Jewish dominated industries, like financial services or the media. And there are hundreds of Jewish organizations that contribute to Israel as charities, even though the money frequently goes to fund illegal activity, including the settlements. Money also is used to buy newspapers and media outlets which then adhere to a pro-Israel line, or, where that does not work, to buy advertising that is conditional on being friendly to Israel. So the bottom line is indeed “the Benjamins” and the corruption that they buy.
Karen Pollock of the Holocaust Education Trust said in January that “One person questioning the truth of the Holocaust is one too many.” That is nonsense. Any, and all, historical events should be questioned regularly, a principle that is particular true regarding developments that carry a lot of emotional baggage. The Israel Lobby would have all Americans believe that any criticism of Israel is motivated by historic hatred of Jews and is therefore anti-Semitism. Don’t believe it. When the AIPAC crowd screams that linking Jews and money is a classic anti-Semitic trope respond by pointing out that Jews and money are very much in play in the corruption of congress and the media over Israel. Terrible things are being done in the Middle East in the name of Jews and of Israel and it all comes down to those Benjamins and the silence they buy by accusing all critics of anti-Semitism. Just recall what the Israeli minister admitted, “It’s a trick, we always use it.”
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-grow...semitism-scam/
ReplyAnother update
The Growing Anti-Semitism Scam
“An anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.”– Joe Sobran
In his novel 1984 George Orwell invented the expression “newspeak” to describe the ambiguous or deliberately misleading use of language to make political propaganda and narrow the “thought options” of those who are on the receiving end. In the context of today’s political discourse, or what passes for the same, it would be interesting to know what George would think of the saturation use of “anti-Semitism” as something like a tactical discussion stopper, employed to end all dispute while also condemning those accused of the crime as somehow outside the pale, monsters who are consigned forever to derision and obscurity.
The Israelis and, to be sure, many diaspora Jews know exactly how the expression has been weaponized. Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni explained how it is done “Anti-Semitic”…”its a trick, we always use it.”
If one were to read the U.S. mainstream media, reflective as it nearly always is of a certain institutional Jewish viewpoint, one would think that there has been a dramatic increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, but that claim is incorrect. What has been taking place is not hatred of Jews but rather a confluence of two factors. First is the undeniable fact that Israel has been behaving particularly badly, even by its admittedly low standards. Its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza has been unusually observable in spite of media attempts to avoid mentioning it, plus its support of terrorists in Syria and attacks on that country have also raised questions about the intentions of the kleptocratic regime in Tel Aviv, which is currently pushing for an attack on Iran. That all means that the perception of Israel, which boasts that it is the exclusively Jewish state, inevitably raises questions about the international Jewish community that provides much of its support. But the shift in perception is driven by Israeli behavior, not by Jews as an ethnicity or a religion.
Second, the alleged increase in anti-Semitic incidents is largely fueled by how those incidents are defined. Israel and its friends have worked hard to broaden the parameters of the discussion, making any criticism of Israel or its activities either a hate crime or ipso facto an anti-Semitic incident. The U.S. State Department’s working definition of anti-Semitism includes “…the targeting of the state of Israel” and it warns that anti-Semitism is a criminal offense. Recent legislation in Washington and also in Europe has criminalized hitherto legal and non-violent efforts to pressure Israel regarding its inhumanity vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Legitimate criticism of Israel thereby becomes both anti-Semitism and criminal, increasing the count of so-called anti-Semitic incidents. That means that the numbers inevitably go up, providing fodder to validate a repressive response.
One might add that Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia have contributed to the allegations regarding surging anti-Semitism, relentlessly unleashing a torrent of material rooting out alleged anti-Semites and so-called holocaust deniers, while simultaneously heaping praise on Israel and its achievements. Professor of Holocaust Studies Deborah Lipstadt has written a book Anti-Semitism: Here and Now about what she regards as the new anti-Semitism, supporting her belief that it is getting markedly worse in both Europe and the U.S. There is also a movie about her confrontation with holocaust critic David Irving called Denial. All of the media exposure of so-called anti-Semitism has a political objective, whether intended or not, which is to insulate Israel itself from any criticism and to create for all Jews the status of perpetual victimhood which permits many in the diaspora to unflinchingly support a foreign country against the interests of the nations where they were born, raised and made their fortunes. That is called dual loyalty and, in spite of frequent denials from Israel-apologists, it clearly exists for many American Jews who are passionate about the Jewish state, including members of the Trump Administration Jason Greenblatt, David Friedman and Jared Kushner.
In the past week, a newly elected member of congress has been derided, shunned and then forced to both recant and apologize for having said something that is manifestly true: that Jewish money corrupts the American political system to favor Israel. The controversy erupted after House minority leader Republican Kevin McCarthy said he would initiate investigations of two Muslim congresswomen, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, over their criticisms of Israel. McCarthy called for the two to be denounced by the Democratic Party as anti-Semites after Tlaib had said that the sponsors of recent legislation intended to benefit Israel by limiting free speech “…forgot what country they represent. This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right and part of our historical fight for freedom and equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away.”
Indeed, Tlaib had a point as the Congressional Israel boosters have long since forgotten that they are supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States while also promoting the interests of their constituents, not those of a country seven thousand miles away. Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept responded to the news of the McCarthy threat with a tweet “It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans.” Ilhan Omar then tweeted her own pithy rejoinder to Greenwald on Sunday February 10th: “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!” which was in reference to the Founder Benjamin Franklin’s portrait on hundred-dollar bills. Her comment was almost immediately interpreted as meaning that she was accusing McCarthy of being bought by Jews. She followed up on a question about who was doing the buying she tweeted “AIPAC,” an elaboration that unleashed something like an anti-Semitism ---- storm in her direction.
It was manufactured outrage, with political leaders from both parties latching on to a media frenzy to score points against each other. Even though it is perfectly legitimate for a Congresswoman on the Foreign Affairs Committee to challenge what AIPAC does and where its money comes from, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi complained that Omar’s “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters” was “deeply offensive.” Chelsea Clinton accused Omar of “trafficking in anti-Semitism.” President Donald Trump, who has admitted that his Mideast policy is intended to serve Israeli rather than U.S. interests, also jumped in, saying “I think she should either resign from congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”
Ilhan Omar quickly understood that she had touched a live wire, surrendered, and recanted. She apologized by Monday afternoon, 18 hours after her original tweet, saying “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.” But she also bravely wrote “At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”
Pelosi approved of the apology. Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota who is running for president in 2020, chimed in to make sure that everyone knew how much she loves Israel, saying “I’m glad she apologized. That was the right thing to do. There is just no room for those kinds of words. I think Israel is our beacon of democracy. I’ve been a strong supporter of Israel and that will never change.”
Two days later, a motion sponsored by Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York passed by a 424 to 0 vote. It was specifically intended to serve as a rebuke to Omar. It stated that “it is in the national security interest of the United States to combat anti-Semitism around the world because…there has been a significant amount of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred that must be most strongly condemned.”
Congressional votes professing love for Israel notwithstanding, the fact is that there is a massive, generously funded effort to corrupt America’s government in favor of Israel. It is euphemistically called the Israel Lobby even though it is overwhelmingly Jewish and it boasts fairly openly of its power when talking with its closest friends about how its money influences the decisions made on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Its combined budget exceeds one billion dollars per year and it includes lobbying powerhouses like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which alone had $229 million in income in 2017, supporting more than 200 employees. It exists only to promote Israeli interests on Capitol Hill and throughout the United States with an army of lobbyists and its activities include using questionably legal all expenses paid “orientation” trips to Israel for all new congressmen and spouses.
McCarthy and the other stooges in Congress deliberately sought to frame the argument in terms of Ilhan Omar having claimed that he personally was receiving money from pro-Israel sources and that money influenced his voting. Well, the fact is that such activity does take place and was documented three years ago by the respected Foreign Policy Journal, which published a piece entitled “The Best Congress AIPAC can Buy” as well as more recently in an al-Jazeera investigative expose using a concealed camera.
And Kevin McCarthy does indeed receive money from Israel PACs – $33,200 in 2018. The amount individual congressmen receive is dependent on their actual or potential value to Israel. Completely corrupt and enthusiastically pro-Israel Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey received $548,507 in 2018. In the House, Beto O’Rourke of Texas received $226,690. The numbers do not include individual contributions of under $200, which are encouraged by AIPAC and can be considerable. In general, congressmen currently receive over $23,000 on average from the major pro-Israel organizations while Senators get $77,000.
But, of course, direct donations of money are not the whole story. If a congressman is unfriendly to Israel, money moves in the other direction, towards funding an opponent when re-election is coming up. Former Rep. Brian Bard has observed that “Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and significant amounts against you if you’re not with them.” Lara Friedman, who has worked on the Hill for 15 years on Israel/Palestine, notes how congressmen and staffs of “both parties told me over and over that they agreed with me but didn’t dare say so publicly for fear of repercussions from AIPAC.”
A good example of how it all worked involves one honest congressman, Walter Jones of North Carolina, who recently passed away. In 2014, “Wall Street billionaires, financial industry lobbyists, and neoconservative hawks” tried to unseat Jones by bankrolling his primary opponent. The “dark money” intended to defeat him came from a PAC called “The Emergency Committee for Israel,” headed by leading neoconservative Bill Kristol. Jones’ war views, including avoiding a war with Iran, were clearly perceived as anti-Israel.
And one should also consider contributions directly to the political parties. Israeli/U.S. dual nationals Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are the largest single donors to the GOP and to the Democrats, having contributed $82 million and $8,780,000 respectively in the 2016 presidential campaign. Both have indicated openly that Israel is their top priority.
If they have demonstrated fealty to Israel while in office, many Congressmen also find that loyalty pays off after retirement from government with richly remunerated second careers in Jewish dominated industries, like financial services or the media. And there are hundreds of Jewish organizations that contribute to Israel as charities, even though the money frequently goes to fund illegal activity, including the settlements. Money also is used to buy newspapers and media outlets which then adhere to a pro-Israel line, or, where that does not work, to buy advertising that is conditional on being friendly to Israel. So the bottom line is indeed “the Benjamins” and the corruption that they buy.
Karen Pollock of the Holocaust Education Trust said in January that “One person questioning the truth of the Holocaust is one too many.” That is nonsense. Any, and all, historical events should be questioned regularly, a principle that is particular true regarding developments that carry a lot of emotional baggage. The Israel Lobby would have all Americans believe that any criticism of Israel is motivated by historic hatred of Jews and is therefore anti-Semitism. Don’t believe it. When the AIPAC crowd screams that linking Jews and money is a classic anti-Semitic trope respond by pointing out that Jews and money are very much in play in the corruption of congress and the media over Israel. Terrible things are being done in the Middle East in the name of Jews and of Israel and it all comes down to those Benjamins and the silence they buy by accusing all critics of anti-Semitism. Just recall what the Israeli minister admitted, “It’s a trick, we always use it.”
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-grow...semitism-scam/
سيف الله
02-24-2019, 01:15 PM
Salaam
Some book recommendations.
Blurb
‘Shahak has the courage to to say what most Israelis do not dare to say and definitely do not want to hear ... [He] is a knowledgeable insider who builds his argument carefully on the best information ... The lessons to be drawn from what Shahak tells us are self-evident ... Open Secrets and Jewish History, Jewish Religion are two remarkable, powerful and provocative studies offering a penetrating examination of Israeli strategic foreign policies and Jewish religion and history.’ London Review Of Books
‘As a critic of Zionism and as an opponent of Jewish exclusivity, Israel Shahak is special. He possesses in-depth knowledge of Israeli society, Jewish culture and the history of his people. His humanitarian concerns and commitments are extensive; his work as a human rights campaigner ... is enormous ... Shahak provides insights [in Open Secrets] that are often far more penetrating than what has been written by others ... Little of the information and few of the insights in Open Secrets can be found in other books that focus on Israel and the Middle East ... Open Secrets is an excellent book for required reading in History, political science and/or international affairs courses in which there is consideration of Israel in the Middle East.’ The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
'Outstanding ... A must not only for the Palestinians, but for anybody interested in Israeli politics' The Jerusalem Times
‘Offers readers an interesting insight into the mentality of the Zionists, based largely on Hebrew sources which non-Jews are unable to access.’ Crescent International
Blurb
An investigation of Jewish identity politics and contemporary Jewish ideology using both popular culture and scholarly texts. Jewish identity is tied up with some of the most difficult and contentious issues of today. The purpose in this book is to open up many of these issues for discussion. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, we should ask what the notions of Judaism, Jewishness, Jewish culture and Jewish ideology stand for.
Gilad examines the tribal aspects embedded in Jewish secular discourse, both Zionist and anti Zionist; the holocaust religion; the meaning of history and time within the Jewish political discourse; the anti-Gentile ideologies entangled within different forms of secular Jewish political discourse and even within the Jewish left. He questions what it is that leads Diaspora Jews to identify themselves with Israel and affiliate with its politics. The devastating state of our world affairs raises an immediate demand for a conceptual shift in our intellectual and philosophical attitude towards politics, identity politics and history.
ReplySome book recommendations.
Blurb
‘Shahak has the courage to to say what most Israelis do not dare to say and definitely do not want to hear ... [He] is a knowledgeable insider who builds his argument carefully on the best information ... The lessons to be drawn from what Shahak tells us are self-evident ... Open Secrets and Jewish History, Jewish Religion are two remarkable, powerful and provocative studies offering a penetrating examination of Israeli strategic foreign policies and Jewish religion and history.’ London Review Of Books
‘As a critic of Zionism and as an opponent of Jewish exclusivity, Israel Shahak is special. He possesses in-depth knowledge of Israeli society, Jewish culture and the history of his people. His humanitarian concerns and commitments are extensive; his work as a human rights campaigner ... is enormous ... Shahak provides insights [in Open Secrets] that are often far more penetrating than what has been written by others ... Little of the information and few of the insights in Open Secrets can be found in other books that focus on Israel and the Middle East ... Open Secrets is an excellent book for required reading in History, political science and/or international affairs courses in which there is consideration of Israel in the Middle East.’ The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
'Outstanding ... A must not only for the Palestinians, but for anybody interested in Israeli politics' The Jerusalem Times
‘Offers readers an interesting insight into the mentality of the Zionists, based largely on Hebrew sources which non-Jews are unable to access.’ Crescent International
Blurb
An investigation of Jewish identity politics and contemporary Jewish ideology using both popular culture and scholarly texts. Jewish identity is tied up with some of the most difficult and contentious issues of today. The purpose in this book is to open up many of these issues for discussion. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, we should ask what the notions of Judaism, Jewishness, Jewish culture and Jewish ideology stand for.
Gilad examines the tribal aspects embedded in Jewish secular discourse, both Zionist and anti Zionist; the holocaust religion; the meaning of history and time within the Jewish political discourse; the anti-Gentile ideologies entangled within different forms of secular Jewish political discourse and even within the Jewish left. He questions what it is that leads Diaspora Jews to identify themselves with Israel and affiliate with its politics. The devastating state of our world affairs raises an immediate demand for a conceptual shift in our intellectual and philosophical attitude towards politics, identity politics and history.
CuriousonTruth
02-24-2019, 05:01 PM
But are you or anyone surprised by this? UAE, KSA and Bahrain. Nothing incredible.
Just surprising there's no Egypt here. KSA-UAE-Bahrain-Egypt-Israel are a single bloc. Maybe Pakistan is now part of it.
ReplyJust surprising there's no Egypt here. KSA-UAE-Bahrain-Egypt-Israel are a single bloc. Maybe Pakistan is now part of it.
سيف الله
02-24-2019, 05:43 PM
Salaam
Pakistan ruling classes might want to 'bend the knee' to Israel.
but the people have very different viewpoint.
Muhammad Badr
12 hours ago
Not acceptable. Retired Mushrraf's mind also has been retired.
Jashn-e-Umeed
12 hours ago
Say No To Isreal . Hit Like
Zeeshan Tabasum
12 hours ago
Who is israel ? Pakistanis dont know
asif farooq
2 hours ago (edited)
Pakistan zindabad israel Mordabad Pak army zindabad we don't accept Israel
Khalil Gilani
13 hours ago
Bilkool nahi. Pakistan and Israel cannot have good relations because it is an oppressor for Palestine. We must make good relations with Iran in order to counter India.
Engr. Waleed Khan
18 hours ago
If Pakistan accept Isreal then what about Palestine?
Dissenting opinion
jameel faruqi
12 hours ago
Ex president Gen, Musharraf's stand to recognised Israel is a good Idea and think able, Israel and Pakistan has been formed through a idealogical theory, that's why they are having the similarity, moreover pakistan not having any dispute and conflict with Israel, only to pleasing some arab countries and to sycophancy to them pakistan has not devolop the relation with Israel for which they are paying the heavy price. Pakistan should recognised Israel and devolop the relation with them in their own interest, you will think about your national interest not think about the other countries concern.
ReplyPakistan ruling classes might want to 'bend the knee' to Israel.
but the people have very different viewpoint.
Muhammad Badr
12 hours ago
Not acceptable. Retired Mushrraf's mind also has been retired.
Jashn-e-Umeed
12 hours ago
Say No To Isreal . Hit Like
Zeeshan Tabasum
12 hours ago
Who is israel ? Pakistanis dont know
asif farooq
2 hours ago (edited)
Pakistan zindabad israel Mordabad Pak army zindabad we don't accept Israel
Khalil Gilani
13 hours ago
Bilkool nahi. Pakistan and Israel cannot have good relations because it is an oppressor for Palestine. We must make good relations with Iran in order to counter India.
Engr. Waleed Khan
18 hours ago
If Pakistan accept Isreal then what about Palestine?
Dissenting opinion
jameel faruqi
12 hours ago
Ex president Gen, Musharraf's stand to recognised Israel is a good Idea and think able, Israel and Pakistan has been formed through a idealogical theory, that's why they are having the similarity, moreover pakistan not having any dispute and conflict with Israel, only to pleasing some arab countries and to sycophancy to them pakistan has not devolop the relation with Israel for which they are paying the heavy price. Pakistan should recognised Israel and devolop the relation with them in their own interest, you will think about your national interest not think about the other countries concern.
CuriousonTruth
02-24-2019, 06:03 PM
Technically he is correct. Being friendly with Israel actually does have perks. I have heard Gen. Ziaul Haq who helped to islamize Pakistan had close relations with Israel.
Real question is will Pakistan lower it's self-esteem again? It's a real possibility. Also opinion of ordinary Pakistanis don't matter, they are secondary.
ReplyReal question is will Pakistan lower it's self-esteem again? It's a real possibility. Also opinion of ordinary Pakistanis don't matter, they are secondary.
سيف الله
02-24-2019, 06:24 PM
سيف الله
02-27-2019, 07:57 PM
Salaam
Another update. More antisemitism.
Blurb
Asa Winstanley discusses the coordinated incitement campaign against critical voices in the UK. On the same day that the Israeli lobby attacked Congresswoman Ilhan Omar in the U.S, British right-wing activists launched an attack on Human Rights Watch, and later on Jeremy Corbyn
ReplyAnother update. More antisemitism.
Blurb
Asa Winstanley discusses the coordinated incitement campaign against critical voices in the UK. On the same day that the Israeli lobby attacked Congresswoman Ilhan Omar in the U.S, British right-wing activists launched an attack on Human Rights Watch, and later on Jeremy Corbyn
سيف الله
02-28-2019, 05:49 AM
Salaam
Another update. A different opinion.
Opinion For Arab Regimes, Palestine Is Old News. Now, It's All About Iran
The Arab regimes' exploitation and betrayal of Palestine has a long history. Now, they're framing the Palestinian cause as a burden, and a dangerous distraction from Iran
"A wedding in Warsaw": That's how Qatar's former prime minster described the recent love-in between Arab leaders and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin at the Trump-administrated brokered Middle East "Peace Summit." Hamad Al-Thani went to note that it was a wedding announcement that succeeded a long engagement.
Arab regimes – who have long believed the way to the White House's heart goes through Jerusalem – are now acting on that recognition. Keen to gain leverage in the Trump administration, and eager for the impunity for their criminal conduct that Israel has long enjoyed, they're hastening to sit on Netanyahu’s lap.
And now, there's a perfect alibi to their previous facade of anti-normalization: the threat of Iran which, in the eyes of many Sunni regimes, necessitates even closer coordination with Israel.
However, Arab regimes’ exploitation and undermining of the Palestinian cause, and their secret cooperation with Israel and its interests, date back to when Israel was first created in 1948 - and even before.
After the Arab betrayal of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, Palestinians went to Emir Faisal ibn Hussein, who headed the Arab delegation to the Versailles peace conference, and asked him to refer to Palestine as "Southern Syria," to include it as part of the Syrian-Iraqi kingdom that Faisal demanded in return for his cooperation with the Allies.
Faisal was entirely uninterested in the request and instead opted to partner with the head of the British Zionist Federation, Chaim Weizmann, accepting the Balfour Declaration to gain stronger terms in his negotiations with the allies.
On the eve of Israel’s birth, the armies of Jordan and Egypt captured the West Bank and Gaza, trying at best to secure their own borders to prevent the expansion of the newborn state into their own territories.
Then, to prevent being dragged into further confrontations with Israel, Arab armies disarmed about 24,000 Palestinian rebels, dissolved both the Palestinian "High Arab Committee" and the "Sacred Jihad" resistance organization formed by the Palestinian leader, Amin al-Husseini, who was then put under house arrest in Egypt. Britain requested the arrest, no doubt influenced by the Mufti's cooperation with the Nazis in WWII, but it was a useful pretext for King Farouk to smother Palestinian nationalism.
Indeed, aborting the birth of Palestinian resistance was justified by the Arab world's long-standing slogan: that the liberation of Palestine was a pan-Arab responsibility, and not a Palestinian one. That rhetorical solidarity should be kept in mind today, when the Palestinian cause is suddenly being framed as a burden.
Such promise brought enormous profits to authoritarian Arab regimes, who for decades enjoyed unimaginable plunder and exercised brutality against their people, silencing popular demands for a better life by repeating the constant refrain that Palestine was their number one priority. This strategy of diversion earned its champions no small measure of loyalty and sympathy amongst their pro-Palestinian populations, who identified with the call for a "free Jerusalem."
However, aside from slogans, Palestinians – although warmly praised amongst Arab populations – were treated officially as something of less than human value by Arab regimes, who confined them to being "stateless refugees."
The Egyptian regime, after capturing Gaza in 1948, refused to annex it, but instead, fenced it off and installed an occupying military force to rule it under governor Mahmoud Riad, who then give up a third of its territory, around 200 square kilometers, to Israel in 1950.
Then in 1959, Egypt again disarmed Palestinian resistance groups in Gaza, and arrested hundreds of Gazan activists and unionists as part of its crackdown on communist factions. When the PLO was formed, shortly after in 1964, it was designed to contain Palestinian activism, and a Palestinian loyal to the Arab regimes, Ahmed Al-Shuqari, was installed as its chairman.
Meanwhile, another blow to the Palestinian cause came from Saudi Arabia, whose king, it is reported, sent an official letter to the U.S. in 1966, requesting the Lyndon Johnson administration to encourage Israel to occupy Gaza, Sinai, and the West Bank in order to weaken Egyptian troops fighting against Saudi interests in Yemen.
After the 1967 war, Arab regimes again gradually disarmed and expelledPalestinian resistance groups in Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The armed groups based themselves in Lebanon until 1982.
During and after the 1973 war, Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal did show an unusual spirit of pro-Palestinian Arab solidarity, by instigating the oil embargo and encouraging Egypt's Sadat to keep fighting to the end.
But for Sadat, the real purpose of the war wasn't the liberation of Palestine at all, but rather the restoration of Egypt's territory in Sinai. Sadat told Peres in 1978 that Israeli Prime Minister Begin had offered to return Gaza to Egypt, if Israel could annex the Israeli-established town of Yamit in the Sinai. Sadat laughed, and said: "You can keep that damned place for yourself."
If undermining the armed Palestinian resistance wasn’t enough, Arab regimes also worked to obstruct the Palestinian pursuit of peace with Israel.
For instance, in 1973, senior PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas secretly assigned PLO members; Said Hammami, Issam al-Sartawi and Naim Khadir, to open channels for dialogue, peace-talks and co-existence with Israel, known as the "Paris meetings." Arab regimes were strongly displeased by the move.
Abbas recalled recently how this initiative was widely denounced as "treason," when he attended the National Committee Summit in Egypt in 1977. Abbas told of droves of angry people who approached him to know "Who’s the traitor contacting the Zionists?" Hammami and Sartawi were both assassinated by Abu Nidal, the infamous terrorist, and salaried loyalist of Iraq and Syria, in 1978 and 1983.
The irony is that Sartawi had actually sat in the same room in a internationalist socialist conference as Shimon Peres the day he was killed; Abu Nidal’s men were instructed to "kill the Israeli collaborator," and not the Israeli.
When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, many Arab regimes, from the Gulf to Syria, denounced Yasser Arafat as a traitor, and pushed a media campaign that demonized his pursuit of peace with Israel.
This was unsurprising, since the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict benefited many Arab dictators.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein, for instance, during his occupation of Kuwait, bombed Tel Aviv and vouched to liberate Palestine. Hussein hoped that Israeli retaliation would ignite Arab solidarity with Iraq.
His talk of a jihad for Palestine misled many Palestinians into framing Hussein as the new liberating Saladdin. A significant proportion of the Palestinians who had participated in the First Intifada's mass non-violent demonstrations of the, and pivoted towards the violent "armed resistance" that gained ground in the 1990’s.
The 2011 Arab Spring was a wake-up call to younger Arabs, who became more aware of their regimes' exploitation of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli rhetoric and its function as an outlet for popular anger to distract from the internal crises of their authoritarian states.
Arab dictators long claimed to be the guardians of the Palestinian cause but paid little or no real attention to it, aside from consistently blaming all of their internal failures on "Israeli conspiracies." But that strategy now offers diminishing returns. Luckily, there's a new mobilizing cause. These days, the all-purpose scapegoat is Iran.
During the Warsaw summit, U.S. Mideast envoy Jason Greenblatt tweeted that "insisting" on the Palestinian cause as the "region’s sole and #1 priority" impedes the national interests of Arab regimes - namely, combating Iran.
But Arab states have never let the Palestinian cause dictate their national interests, and the idea that it was ever a cardinal regional issue was a rhetorical and mobilization strategy only. The long Arab exploitation, repression and undermining of the Palestinian cause has, though, contributed significantly to impeding the long-due realization of Palestinian statehood.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...iran-1.6978242
ReplyAnother update. A different opinion.
Opinion For Arab Regimes, Palestine Is Old News. Now, It's All About Iran
The Arab regimes' exploitation and betrayal of Palestine has a long history. Now, they're framing the Palestinian cause as a burden, and a dangerous distraction from Iran
"A wedding in Warsaw": That's how Qatar's former prime minster described the recent love-in between Arab leaders and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin at the Trump-administrated brokered Middle East "Peace Summit." Hamad Al-Thani went to note that it was a wedding announcement that succeeded a long engagement.
Arab regimes – who have long believed the way to the White House's heart goes through Jerusalem – are now acting on that recognition. Keen to gain leverage in the Trump administration, and eager for the impunity for their criminal conduct that Israel has long enjoyed, they're hastening to sit on Netanyahu’s lap.
And now, there's a perfect alibi to their previous facade of anti-normalization: the threat of Iran which, in the eyes of many Sunni regimes, necessitates even closer coordination with Israel.
However, Arab regimes’ exploitation and undermining of the Palestinian cause, and their secret cooperation with Israel and its interests, date back to when Israel was first created in 1948 - and even before.
After the Arab betrayal of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, Palestinians went to Emir Faisal ibn Hussein, who headed the Arab delegation to the Versailles peace conference, and asked him to refer to Palestine as "Southern Syria," to include it as part of the Syrian-Iraqi kingdom that Faisal demanded in return for his cooperation with the Allies.
Faisal was entirely uninterested in the request and instead opted to partner with the head of the British Zionist Federation, Chaim Weizmann, accepting the Balfour Declaration to gain stronger terms in his negotiations with the allies.
On the eve of Israel’s birth, the armies of Jordan and Egypt captured the West Bank and Gaza, trying at best to secure their own borders to prevent the expansion of the newborn state into their own territories.
Then, to prevent being dragged into further confrontations with Israel, Arab armies disarmed about 24,000 Palestinian rebels, dissolved both the Palestinian "High Arab Committee" and the "Sacred Jihad" resistance organization formed by the Palestinian leader, Amin al-Husseini, who was then put under house arrest in Egypt. Britain requested the arrest, no doubt influenced by the Mufti's cooperation with the Nazis in WWII, but it was a useful pretext for King Farouk to smother Palestinian nationalism.
Indeed, aborting the birth of Palestinian resistance was justified by the Arab world's long-standing slogan: that the liberation of Palestine was a pan-Arab responsibility, and not a Palestinian one. That rhetorical solidarity should be kept in mind today, when the Palestinian cause is suddenly being framed as a burden.
Such promise brought enormous profits to authoritarian Arab regimes, who for decades enjoyed unimaginable plunder and exercised brutality against their people, silencing popular demands for a better life by repeating the constant refrain that Palestine was their number one priority. This strategy of diversion earned its champions no small measure of loyalty and sympathy amongst their pro-Palestinian populations, who identified with the call for a "free Jerusalem."
However, aside from slogans, Palestinians – although warmly praised amongst Arab populations – were treated officially as something of less than human value by Arab regimes, who confined them to being "stateless refugees."
The Egyptian regime, after capturing Gaza in 1948, refused to annex it, but instead, fenced it off and installed an occupying military force to rule it under governor Mahmoud Riad, who then give up a third of its territory, around 200 square kilometers, to Israel in 1950.
Then in 1959, Egypt again disarmed Palestinian resistance groups in Gaza, and arrested hundreds of Gazan activists and unionists as part of its crackdown on communist factions. When the PLO was formed, shortly after in 1964, it was designed to contain Palestinian activism, and a Palestinian loyal to the Arab regimes, Ahmed Al-Shuqari, was installed as its chairman.
Meanwhile, another blow to the Palestinian cause came from Saudi Arabia, whose king, it is reported, sent an official letter to the U.S. in 1966, requesting the Lyndon Johnson administration to encourage Israel to occupy Gaza, Sinai, and the West Bank in order to weaken Egyptian troops fighting against Saudi interests in Yemen.
After the 1967 war, Arab regimes again gradually disarmed and expelledPalestinian resistance groups in Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The armed groups based themselves in Lebanon until 1982.
During and after the 1973 war, Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal did show an unusual spirit of pro-Palestinian Arab solidarity, by instigating the oil embargo and encouraging Egypt's Sadat to keep fighting to the end.
But for Sadat, the real purpose of the war wasn't the liberation of Palestine at all, but rather the restoration of Egypt's territory in Sinai. Sadat told Peres in 1978 that Israeli Prime Minister Begin had offered to return Gaza to Egypt, if Israel could annex the Israeli-established town of Yamit in the Sinai. Sadat laughed, and said: "You can keep that damned place for yourself."
If undermining the armed Palestinian resistance wasn’t enough, Arab regimes also worked to obstruct the Palestinian pursuit of peace with Israel.
For instance, in 1973, senior PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas secretly assigned PLO members; Said Hammami, Issam al-Sartawi and Naim Khadir, to open channels for dialogue, peace-talks and co-existence with Israel, known as the "Paris meetings." Arab regimes were strongly displeased by the move.
Abbas recalled recently how this initiative was widely denounced as "treason," when he attended the National Committee Summit in Egypt in 1977. Abbas told of droves of angry people who approached him to know "Who’s the traitor contacting the Zionists?" Hammami and Sartawi were both assassinated by Abu Nidal, the infamous terrorist, and salaried loyalist of Iraq and Syria, in 1978 and 1983.
The irony is that Sartawi had actually sat in the same room in a internationalist socialist conference as Shimon Peres the day he was killed; Abu Nidal’s men were instructed to "kill the Israeli collaborator," and not the Israeli.
When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, many Arab regimes, from the Gulf to Syria, denounced Yasser Arafat as a traitor, and pushed a media campaign that demonized his pursuit of peace with Israel.
This was unsurprising, since the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict benefited many Arab dictators.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein, for instance, during his occupation of Kuwait, bombed Tel Aviv and vouched to liberate Palestine. Hussein hoped that Israeli retaliation would ignite Arab solidarity with Iraq.
His talk of a jihad for Palestine misled many Palestinians into framing Hussein as the new liberating Saladdin. A significant proportion of the Palestinians who had participated in the First Intifada's mass non-violent demonstrations of the, and pivoted towards the violent "armed resistance" that gained ground in the 1990’s.
The 2011 Arab Spring was a wake-up call to younger Arabs, who became more aware of their regimes' exploitation of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli rhetoric and its function as an outlet for popular anger to distract from the internal crises of their authoritarian states.
Arab dictators long claimed to be the guardians of the Palestinian cause but paid little or no real attention to it, aside from consistently blaming all of their internal failures on "Israeli conspiracies." But that strategy now offers diminishing returns. Luckily, there's a new mobilizing cause. These days, the all-purpose scapegoat is Iran.
During the Warsaw summit, U.S. Mideast envoy Jason Greenblatt tweeted that "insisting" on the Palestinian cause as the "region’s sole and #1 priority" impedes the national interests of Arab regimes - namely, combating Iran.
But Arab states have never let the Palestinian cause dictate their national interests, and the idea that it was ever a cardinal regional issue was a rhetorical and mobilization strategy only. The long Arab exploitation, repression and undermining of the Palestinian cause has, though, contributed significantly to impeding the long-due realization of Palestinian statehood.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...iran-1.6978242
سيف الله
03-01-2019, 10:26 AM
Salaam
Another update.
Plans for an “Arab Nato” led by Saudi Arabia and Israel are still-born
Veteran Arab journalist Abdel Bari Atwan says U.S. plans to form an “Arab Nato” led by Saudi Arabia and Israel are failing in the face of fierce opposition in the Arab street.
We didn’t need The Wall Street Journal to tell us that the Trump Administration’s plan to create an “Arab Nato” — comprising the six Gulf states, Egypt and Jordan – is in intensive care. Nor that last’s week’s Warsaw Conference aimed at promoting Arab-Israeli normalisation and crowning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as leader of this alliance was a resounding failure.
The Warsaw gathering backfired against all the Arab foreign ministers who attended it, subjecting them to the anger of the public that overwhelmingly rejects normalisation. Their formidable media empires did not succeed in concealing this fact, nor in providing marketing cover for this shameful step.
The grave embarrassment this caused has been much in evidence:
First, Omani Foreign Minister Yousef Bin-Alawi’s began back-tracking from his government’s normalisation drive. During a subsequent visit to Moscow, he insisted that meetings with Netanyahu did not amount to normalisation and that there would be no normalisation before the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
But this explanation is insufficient, in our view. There should be an end to all public or secret meetings with Israeli officials, in line with the Arab Peace Initiative (which was a Saudi/Gulf creation after all) and an acknowledgment that Israel remains the Arab world’s most dangerous enemy.
Secondly, the way Yemeni Foreign Minister in exile Khaled al-Yamani has been squirming ever since the summit, when he was shown chatting and joking with Netanyahu. He blamed protocol for seating him next to the Israeli Prime Minister, but Yemenis and Arabs, in general, do not buy this excuse. His normalisation gestures were a wonderful gift to the Houthi Ansarallah movement.
Third, the bashfulness that overcame most of the Arab foreign ministers after three of them (those of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain) were shown at a closed-door session affirming that the Iranian threat takes priority over the Israeli threat. Some of them disappeared from the closing photo-opportunity and refused to talk to journalists and indeed ran away from them. Why do that if they were not ashamed of what they had done?
Fourth, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Yemenis took to the streets and squares of most of the country’s cities in protest against the conference, and against the way the foreign minister of the “legitimate” government sat next to Netanyahu and lent him his microphone so he could spew abuse against the Arabs and the Palestinians in particular. The Yemenis indeed deserve their reputation as the noblest of the Arab peoples.
Fifth, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi’s affirmation at the Munich conference that the key to peace and stability in the Middle East is a resolution to the Palestine Question. This was akin to an indirect apology for his foreign minister’s attendance at the Warsaw gathering, and a renunciation of the Gulf delegates’ insistence that the Iranian threat takes precedence over the Arab-Israeli conflict.
These retreats were imposed by the angry Arab public reaction to the normalisation drive, as well as the rise of the Resistance Axis, which has overturned all previous equations in the region.
It is shameful that while most of the EU’s foreign ministers stayed away from the Warsaw conference – along with their counterparts from China, Russia, India, and Turkey – twelve Arab ministers took part on orders from U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, architect of the so-called “Deal of the Century.”
Even more shameful is the fact that while Malaysia refuses to let Israeli representatives take part in a sporting tournament it is hosting, Israeli athletes flood into Gulf capitals accompanied by Mossad protection units.
Arab public opposition to normalisation is quickly gathering pace, and social media is now in control of the narrative. They have been resisting the normalising regimes, and have gained the upper hand over their multi-billion dollar media empires and their attempts to justify their rulers’ actions.
We must salute everyone in the Arab world who has been saying “no” to normalisation and the normalisers, especially in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf were they have formed societies for this purpose and some of whom have been detained and remain behind bars for refusing to renounce their honourable patriotic stands.
Those who are contemptuous of the Arab peoples, and of their commitment to their central cause, will live to regret it one day.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/02/24/pl...re-still-born/
ReplyAnother update.
Plans for an “Arab Nato” led by Saudi Arabia and Israel are still-born
Veteran Arab journalist Abdel Bari Atwan says U.S. plans to form an “Arab Nato” led by Saudi Arabia and Israel are failing in the face of fierce opposition in the Arab street.
We didn’t need The Wall Street Journal to tell us that the Trump Administration’s plan to create an “Arab Nato” — comprising the six Gulf states, Egypt and Jordan – is in intensive care. Nor that last’s week’s Warsaw Conference aimed at promoting Arab-Israeli normalisation and crowning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as leader of this alliance was a resounding failure.
The Warsaw gathering backfired against all the Arab foreign ministers who attended it, subjecting them to the anger of the public that overwhelmingly rejects normalisation. Their formidable media empires did not succeed in concealing this fact, nor in providing marketing cover for this shameful step.
The grave embarrassment this caused has been much in evidence:
First, Omani Foreign Minister Yousef Bin-Alawi’s began back-tracking from his government’s normalisation drive. During a subsequent visit to Moscow, he insisted that meetings with Netanyahu did not amount to normalisation and that there would be no normalisation before the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
But this explanation is insufficient, in our view. There should be an end to all public or secret meetings with Israeli officials, in line with the Arab Peace Initiative (which was a Saudi/Gulf creation after all) and an acknowledgment that Israel remains the Arab world’s most dangerous enemy.
Secondly, the way Yemeni Foreign Minister in exile Khaled al-Yamani has been squirming ever since the summit, when he was shown chatting and joking with Netanyahu. He blamed protocol for seating him next to the Israeli Prime Minister, but Yemenis and Arabs, in general, do not buy this excuse. His normalisation gestures were a wonderful gift to the Houthi Ansarallah movement.
Third, the bashfulness that overcame most of the Arab foreign ministers after three of them (those of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain) were shown at a closed-door session affirming that the Iranian threat takes priority over the Israeli threat. Some of them disappeared from the closing photo-opportunity and refused to talk to journalists and indeed ran away from them. Why do that if they were not ashamed of what they had done?
Fourth, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Yemenis took to the streets and squares of most of the country’s cities in protest against the conference, and against the way the foreign minister of the “legitimate” government sat next to Netanyahu and lent him his microphone so he could spew abuse against the Arabs and the Palestinians in particular. The Yemenis indeed deserve their reputation as the noblest of the Arab peoples.
Fifth, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi’s affirmation at the Munich conference that the key to peace and stability in the Middle East is a resolution to the Palestine Question. This was akin to an indirect apology for his foreign minister’s attendance at the Warsaw gathering, and a renunciation of the Gulf delegates’ insistence that the Iranian threat takes precedence over the Arab-Israeli conflict.
These retreats were imposed by the angry Arab public reaction to the normalisation drive, as well as the rise of the Resistance Axis, which has overturned all previous equations in the region.
It is shameful that while most of the EU’s foreign ministers stayed away from the Warsaw conference – along with their counterparts from China, Russia, India, and Turkey – twelve Arab ministers took part on orders from U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, architect of the so-called “Deal of the Century.”
Even more shameful is the fact that while Malaysia refuses to let Israeli representatives take part in a sporting tournament it is hosting, Israeli athletes flood into Gulf capitals accompanied by Mossad protection units.
Arab public opposition to normalisation is quickly gathering pace, and social media is now in control of the narrative. They have been resisting the normalising regimes, and have gained the upper hand over their multi-billion dollar media empires and their attempts to justify their rulers’ actions.
We must salute everyone in the Arab world who has been saying “no” to normalisation and the normalisers, especially in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf were they have formed societies for this purpose and some of whom have been detained and remain behind bars for refusing to renounce their honourable patriotic stands.
Those who are contemptuous of the Arab peoples, and of their commitment to their central cause, will live to regret it one day.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/02/24/pl...re-still-born/
HanjarSS
03-06-2019, 12:26 AM
"What we see here is clear evidence of a blatant intervention by George Soros and his institute in an attempt to break Arabs and Muslims and shape their culture. So, while the right-wing Jewish Lobby pushes the Arabs into ethnic sectarian wars, their tribal counterparts within George Soros’s OSI institute, do exactly the same - attempt to break the Arab and Muslims by means of marginal and identity politics."
Correct. One of my reasons for being here is to persuade Muslims, that it's better to distance themselves from the Linda Sarsour variation, which promotes and accepts homosexuality, feminism and other facets of cultural marxism. On the contrary, the authentic white nationalist movement, is solidly traditional in views on marriage and healthy gender roles. If you go to American Universities, Muslims seem to gravitate towards marxists. This doesn't make sense to me, come closer to us, not them.
On the contrary, the pro-white enclave, is increasingly aware of cultural practices & norms in the Muslim community, regarding gender, that are good. For example, the famous meme "White Sharia". Don't be quick to take offense to this, it's actually rooted in very thoughtful discussion. See Eli Harman's take on it. https://youtu.be/glRbKOahBrY
The biggest problem pro-whites tend to have with Islam, is rooted in racial and cultural aspects. These are no small problems, but pro-whites tend to differentiate themselves from Civic Nationalists or Trumpian types, in that we acknowledge Zionism as a prioritized threat. In other words, we know the zionists want us at war with one another, so maybe that's a reason we should'nt be.
ReplyCorrect. One of my reasons for being here is to persuade Muslims, that it's better to distance themselves from the Linda Sarsour variation, which promotes and accepts homosexuality, feminism and other facets of cultural marxism. On the contrary, the authentic white nationalist movement, is solidly traditional in views on marriage and healthy gender roles. If you go to American Universities, Muslims seem to gravitate towards marxists. This doesn't make sense to me, come closer to us, not them.
On the contrary, the pro-white enclave, is increasingly aware of cultural practices & norms in the Muslim community, regarding gender, that are good. For example, the famous meme "White Sharia". Don't be quick to take offense to this, it's actually rooted in very thoughtful discussion. See Eli Harman's take on it. https://youtu.be/glRbKOahBrY
The biggest problem pro-whites tend to have with Islam, is rooted in racial and cultural aspects. These are no small problems, but pro-whites tend to differentiate themselves from Civic Nationalists or Trumpian types, in that we acknowledge Zionism as a prioritized threat. In other words, we know the zionists want us at war with one another, so maybe that's a reason we should'nt be.
Altaqwa
03-06-2019, 02:37 AM
Things are getting very serious over in Israel, third temple and all.
I've also heard of several Rabbi's stating that their Jewish "Messiah" is imminent. (Christians are starting to get quite worried about it)
Their one world totalitarian government is coming along well for them, with their whole "antisemitism" sacred-cow.
I say, expect things to happen in the next few years, the Dajjal will be a very strong influence on this world once he rises to power.
ReplyI've also heard of several Rabbi's stating that their Jewish "Messiah" is imminent. (Christians are starting to get quite worried about it)
Their one world totalitarian government is coming along well for them, with their whole "antisemitism" sacred-cow.
I say, expect things to happen in the next few years, the Dajjal will be a very strong influence on this world once he rises to power.
سيف الله
03-07-2019, 09:17 PM
Salaam
Another update. More antisemitism.
Long article ill post the conclusion here.
The Fake News Nazi - Corbyn, Williamson And The Anti-Semitism Scandal
Conclusion
The claim that Corbyn is an anti-semite presiding over a surge in Labour Party anti-semitism is fake news; it is a scam of the utmost cynicism and brutality. It should be viewed as the latest in a long line of attempts to destroy Corbyn by all necessary means. He has been smeared for not bowing low enough, for not singing loudly enough, for hating women, for disrespecting gay people, for consorting with terrorists, for refusing to unleash a nuclear holocaust, for being a shambolic leader, for being a shambolic dresser, for leading Labour towards certain electoral disaster, for being a Putinite stooge, for aping Trump, and so on. Now, finally, someone widely admired for thirty years as a decent, socialist MP, has been transformed into an anti-semite; or as game show assistant and political commentator Rachel Riley implies, a 'Nazi'.
Anti-semitism does exist in the Labour Party, as it exists throughout UK society, and of course these delusions should be resisted and exposed. But the smear campaign against Corbyn is not rooted in concern for the welfare of Jewish people; it is not even about blocking a political leader who cares about Palestinian rights. It is about preventing Corbyn from undoing Tony Blair's great achievement of transforming the Labour Party into a second Tory Party, thus ensuring voters have no option challenging corporate domination, including the 'humanitarian interventions' for oil and other resources. The goal is to stop Corbyn letting democracy out of its box.
Stephen Law of Heythrop College, University of London, warns that cavalier accusations made 'on the basis of obviously flimsy or nonexistent evidence' are 'disrespecting the memory of the millions who were slaughtered by real antisemitism during the Holocaust'. But in fact, it is worse than that. State propagandists and their corporate media allies are exploiting the suffering of these millions as part of an attack on British democracy. This is obscene. But it is not particularly shocking after the campaigns of deceit which, as discussed, knowingly risked and then shattered the lives of millions of innocent human beings in US-UK wars of aggression.
One thing is certain, if Corbyn and his style of socialism can be made to disappear, we'll hear no more about anti-semitism in the Labour Party, just as we heard no more about Iraqi democracy after Saddam Hussein, or human rights in Libya after Gaddafi; just as we will hear no more about press freedom in Venezuela, if Maduro is overthrown.
As this alert was being written, news emerged that Corbyn had been subjected to a physical assault in London, to muted concern from almost all corporate media and journalists (compare 'mainstream' reaction to news that Conservative MP Anna Soubry had been called a 'Nazi'). Journalists claimed Corbyn had merely had an egg thrown at him. Labour MP Diane Abbott tweeted:
'I was there. He punched Jeremy very hard. He happened to have an egg in his palm. But it could have been a knife. Horrible'
Perhaps journalists couldn't bear to express concern for a person they have so completely reviled for almost four years. Or perhaps they knew their smears of a thoroughly decent, well-intentioned man would be thrown back at them. More likely, they just didn't care. And that, finally, is the truth of their 'ethical concern' – they don't care.
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/a...news-nazi.html
Related, anti semitism in the US.
ReplyAnother update. More antisemitism.
Long article ill post the conclusion here.
The Fake News Nazi - Corbyn, Williamson And The Anti-Semitism Scandal
Conclusion
The claim that Corbyn is an anti-semite presiding over a surge in Labour Party anti-semitism is fake news; it is a scam of the utmost cynicism and brutality. It should be viewed as the latest in a long line of attempts to destroy Corbyn by all necessary means. He has been smeared for not bowing low enough, for not singing loudly enough, for hating women, for disrespecting gay people, for consorting with terrorists, for refusing to unleash a nuclear holocaust, for being a shambolic leader, for being a shambolic dresser, for leading Labour towards certain electoral disaster, for being a Putinite stooge, for aping Trump, and so on. Now, finally, someone widely admired for thirty years as a decent, socialist MP, has been transformed into an anti-semite; or as game show assistant and political commentator Rachel Riley implies, a 'Nazi'.
Anti-semitism does exist in the Labour Party, as it exists throughout UK society, and of course these delusions should be resisted and exposed. But the smear campaign against Corbyn is not rooted in concern for the welfare of Jewish people; it is not even about blocking a political leader who cares about Palestinian rights. It is about preventing Corbyn from undoing Tony Blair's great achievement of transforming the Labour Party into a second Tory Party, thus ensuring voters have no option challenging corporate domination, including the 'humanitarian interventions' for oil and other resources. The goal is to stop Corbyn letting democracy out of its box.
Stephen Law of Heythrop College, University of London, warns that cavalier accusations made 'on the basis of obviously flimsy or nonexistent evidence' are 'disrespecting the memory of the millions who were slaughtered by real antisemitism during the Holocaust'. But in fact, it is worse than that. State propagandists and their corporate media allies are exploiting the suffering of these millions as part of an attack on British democracy. This is obscene. But it is not particularly shocking after the campaigns of deceit which, as discussed, knowingly risked and then shattered the lives of millions of innocent human beings in US-UK wars of aggression.
One thing is certain, if Corbyn and his style of socialism can be made to disappear, we'll hear no more about anti-semitism in the Labour Party, just as we heard no more about Iraqi democracy after Saddam Hussein, or human rights in Libya after Gaddafi; just as we will hear no more about press freedom in Venezuela, if Maduro is overthrown.
As this alert was being written, news emerged that Corbyn had been subjected to a physical assault in London, to muted concern from almost all corporate media and journalists (compare 'mainstream' reaction to news that Conservative MP Anna Soubry had been called a 'Nazi'). Journalists claimed Corbyn had merely had an egg thrown at him. Labour MP Diane Abbott tweeted:
'I was there. He punched Jeremy very hard. He happened to have an egg in his palm. But it could have been a knife. Horrible'
Perhaps journalists couldn't bear to express concern for a person they have so completely reviled for almost four years. Or perhaps they knew their smears of a thoroughly decent, well-intentioned man would be thrown back at them. More likely, they just didn't care. And that, finally, is the truth of their 'ethical concern' – they don't care.
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/a...news-nazi.html
Related, anti semitism in the US.
سيف الله
03-09-2019, 02:08 AM
Salaam
Another update
Dual Loyalty as Racism
GA: How reassuring is it that the only American who upholds the core values of liberty, patriotism and freedom is a black muslim and an immigrant…
By Eve Mykytyn
The US House of Representatives just passed a resolution that declared, “whether from the political right, center, or left, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, racism, and imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy and have no place in American political discourse.” The key words in this resolution are “dual loyalty” which make clear that this otherwise banal condemnation of racism was made in direct response to Representative Ilhan Omar’s controversial statement: "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country."
Apparently, the House resolution was a disappointment to some. The New York Times reports that this ‘all-inclusive’ approach was criticized for not “solely condemn[ing] anti-Semitism.” Representative Ted Deutch asked “Why are we unable to singularly condemn anti-Semitism? Why can’t we call it anti-Semitism and show we’ve learned the lessons of history?”
It is bizarre that Mr. Deutch seemingly objects to condemning racism per se. Would Mr. Deutch prefer that the House pass separate resolutions condemning prejudice against each of the ever growing list of identity groups? The House would be so busy debating these resolutions that they would accomplish nothing else, although admittedly, that might be a positive outcome.
Omar has not retracted her statements. In response to criticism from representative Nita Lowy, Omar tweeted, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”
Omar’s point has been substantiated by the reaction it has provoked. Omar claimed that accusations of anti-Semitism tend to be used to silence critics of Israel. In response, she was called a “Jew hater.”
Representative Juan Vargas tweeted, “It is disturbing that Rep. Omar continues to perpetuate hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes that misrepresent our Jewish community. Additionally, questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.”
Omar is condemned for criticizing dual loyalty by those who insist upon loyalty to Israel. As journalist Jordan Weisman noted, “If Israel’s most devoted U.S. backers are really so concerned over dual loyalty smears, maybe they should think more carefully about how they’re encouraging them. “
https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/201...-as-racismnbsp
Guest post by Jamie Stern-Weiner
Context for the non-Brits: Since Jeremy Corbyn’s election in 2015, the British Labour Party has faced a smear campaign alleging a crisis of antisemitism within its ranks. The accusations have not been empirically substantiated. But the leadership has failed to put the issue to rest while repeatedly conceding on points of principle, with the result that activist morale has been eroded and a great deal of energy diverted from the movement’s transformative project. This week saw the same tactics deployed in the US against Rep. Ilhan Omar; the successful push-back against them holds — so I claim in the twitter-thread reproduced below — important lessons for the Labour Party in the UK.
—-
It is worth noting: had Rep. Ilhan Omar been a member of the British Labour Party, she would have been suspended.
Those who rose to her defence — Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris among them — would have risked suspension as well.
One difference between the US context and the UK, is that British political culture is more backwards when it comes to freedom of speech.
Once it was accepted that the Labour Party bureaucracy ought to surveil and police its members’ thoughts, descent into a witch-hunt became very difficult to avoid.
The disciplinarian approach is not just politically self-defeating.
It is a betrayal of the best of the left-liberal tradition.
Whatever happened to full, frequent and fearless discussion?
Whatever happened to, the truth is revolutionary?
Our basic approach in the Labour Party, and on the left, needs a re-think.
It is not the business of a Party bureaucracy to police the thoughts and speech of its members.
Where prejudices are marginal, they can be ignored.
Where they are not marginal, they ought to be subject to full and frank debate.
But full, frequent, fearless discussion in the context of a collective struggle, bringing together people from all walks of life, in pursuit of a shared liberation.
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2019/03...ns-for-the-uk/
ReplyAnother update
Dual Loyalty as Racism
GA: How reassuring is it that the only American who upholds the core values of liberty, patriotism and freedom is a black muslim and an immigrant…
By Eve Mykytyn
The US House of Representatives just passed a resolution that declared, “whether from the political right, center, or left, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, racism, and imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy and have no place in American political discourse.” The key words in this resolution are “dual loyalty” which make clear that this otherwise banal condemnation of racism was made in direct response to Representative Ilhan Omar’s controversial statement: "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country."
Apparently, the House resolution was a disappointment to some. The New York Times reports that this ‘all-inclusive’ approach was criticized for not “solely condemn[ing] anti-Semitism.” Representative Ted Deutch asked “Why are we unable to singularly condemn anti-Semitism? Why can’t we call it anti-Semitism and show we’ve learned the lessons of history?”
It is bizarre that Mr. Deutch seemingly objects to condemning racism per se. Would Mr. Deutch prefer that the House pass separate resolutions condemning prejudice against each of the ever growing list of identity groups? The House would be so busy debating these resolutions that they would accomplish nothing else, although admittedly, that might be a positive outcome.
Omar has not retracted her statements. In response to criticism from representative Nita Lowy, Omar tweeted, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”
Omar’s point has been substantiated by the reaction it has provoked. Omar claimed that accusations of anti-Semitism tend to be used to silence critics of Israel. In response, she was called a “Jew hater.”
Representative Juan Vargas tweeted, “It is disturbing that Rep. Omar continues to perpetuate hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes that misrepresent our Jewish community. Additionally, questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.”
Omar is condemned for criticizing dual loyalty by those who insist upon loyalty to Israel. As journalist Jordan Weisman noted, “If Israel’s most devoted U.S. backers are really so concerned over dual loyalty smears, maybe they should think more carefully about how they’re encouraging them. “
https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/201...-as-racismnbsp
Guest post by Jamie Stern-Weiner
Context for the non-Brits: Since Jeremy Corbyn’s election in 2015, the British Labour Party has faced a smear campaign alleging a crisis of antisemitism within its ranks. The accusations have not been empirically substantiated. But the leadership has failed to put the issue to rest while repeatedly conceding on points of principle, with the result that activist morale has been eroded and a great deal of energy diverted from the movement’s transformative project. This week saw the same tactics deployed in the US against Rep. Ilhan Omar; the successful push-back against them holds — so I claim in the twitter-thread reproduced below — important lessons for the Labour Party in the UK.
—-
It is worth noting: had Rep. Ilhan Omar been a member of the British Labour Party, she would have been suspended.
Those who rose to her defence — Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris among them — would have risked suspension as well.
One difference between the US context and the UK, is that British political culture is more backwards when it comes to freedom of speech.
Once it was accepted that the Labour Party bureaucracy ought to surveil and police its members’ thoughts, descent into a witch-hunt became very difficult to avoid.
The disciplinarian approach is not just politically self-defeating.
It is a betrayal of the best of the left-liberal tradition.
Whatever happened to full, frequent and fearless discussion?
Whatever happened to, the truth is revolutionary?
Our basic approach in the Labour Party, and on the left, needs a re-think.
It is not the business of a Party bureaucracy to police the thoughts and speech of its members.
Where prejudices are marginal, they can be ignored.
Where they are not marginal, they ought to be subject to full and frank debate.
- No speech codes.
- No internal trials for causing offence.
- No bureaucratic trawling through Facebook posts.
But full, frequent, fearless discussion in the context of a collective struggle, bringing together people from all walks of life, in pursuit of a shared liberation.
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2019/03...ns-for-the-uk/
سيف الله
03-09-2019, 12:33 PM
Salaam
Well they gravitate towards the left for the reasons you describe above, the 'left' are one of the few groups who will show tolerance but as much as I admire many of their positions over the long term its counter productive because of fundamental differences in morals, values, worldview etc.
There are obviously going to be many differences with the Right (for want of a better term) that are going to be very difficult to overcome (if at all) but there are surprising areas of over lap (morals and values) so its not black and white.
I take it this is a fair representation of what you believe.
Section on Stalin is interesting, towards the end of his life he turned and became hostile (the infamous doctors plot).
A double standard?
ReplyWell they gravitate towards the left for the reasons you describe above, the 'left' are one of the few groups who will show tolerance but as much as I admire many of their positions over the long term its counter productive because of fundamental differences in morals, values, worldview etc.
There are obviously going to be many differences with the Right (for want of a better term) that are going to be very difficult to overcome (if at all) but there are surprising areas of over lap (morals and values) so its not black and white.
I take it this is a fair representation of what you believe.
Section on Stalin is interesting, towards the end of his life he turned and became hostile (the infamous doctors plot).
A double standard?
CuriousonTruth
03-09-2019, 01:34 PM
Dude just read a few comments in Red Ice TV(run by Swedish white nationalists) or the Squatting Slav Tv(run by a Polish white nationalists). This is not even counting the annoying noise from PragerU, PJW or Jordan Peterson. Muslims are many things, but we are not "close" to Europeans. Everything about Islam and Western culture is different, even at a philosophical level, Europeans are hardline libertarians, Muslims are (supposed to) be collectivists.
There is nothing more important to Western people than individual rights and freedom. In Islam, the well-being of the society is ahead of any whims of individuals.
ReplyThere is nothing more important to Western people than individual rights and freedom. In Islam, the well-being of the society is ahead of any whims of individuals.
سيف الله
03-10-2019, 07:07 PM
Salaam
Another update.
Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel is ‘not a state of all its citizens’
PM has been accused of demonising Israeli Arabs in lead-up to April election
Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel is “not a state of all its citizens”, in a reference to the country’s Arab population.
In comments on Instagram, the prime minister went on to say all citizens, including Arabs, had equal rights, but he referred to a deeply controversial law passed last year declaring Israel the nation state of the Jewish people.
“Israel is not a state of all its citizens,” he wrote in response to criticism from an Israeli actor, Rotem Sela. “According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and only it.
“As you wrote, there is no problem with the Arab citizens of Israel. They have equal rights like all of us and the Likud government has invested more in the Arab sector than any other government,” he said of his rightwing party.
As the comments caused waves in Israel, Netanyahu again spoke of the issue at the start of a cabinet meeting. He called Israel a “Jewish, democratic state” with equal rights, but “the nation state not of all its citizens but only of the Jewish people”.
Netanyahu has been accused of demonising Israeli Arabs, who make up about 17% of the population, in an attempt to boost rightwing turnout in elections due on 9 April.
He has continually warned that his opponents will receive the support of Arab parties and that they will make significant concessions to the Palestinians.
Netanyahu, under threat of indictment for corruption, is facing a tough challenge from a centrist political alliance led by Benny Gantz, a former military chief of staff, and Yair Lapid, an ex-finance minister.
The alliance’s centrist positions and its security credentials – it includes three former military chiefs of staff – have helped it beat back Netanyahu’s claims that its leaders are “weak” leftists.
Arab parties would be extremely unlikely to be part of any coalition government after elections.
Arab Israelis are Palestinians who remained on their land after the 1948 creation of Israel and are largely supportive of the Palestinian cause.
Netanyahu leads what is seen as the most rightwing government in Israel’s history and says he wants a similar coalition after the upcoming polls.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...P=share_btn_tw
ReplyAnother update.
Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel is ‘not a state of all its citizens’
PM has been accused of demonising Israeli Arabs in lead-up to April election
Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel is “not a state of all its citizens”, in a reference to the country’s Arab population.
In comments on Instagram, the prime minister went on to say all citizens, including Arabs, had equal rights, but he referred to a deeply controversial law passed last year declaring Israel the nation state of the Jewish people.
“Israel is not a state of all its citizens,” he wrote in response to criticism from an Israeli actor, Rotem Sela. “According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and only it.
“As you wrote, there is no problem with the Arab citizens of Israel. They have equal rights like all of us and the Likud government has invested more in the Arab sector than any other government,” he said of his rightwing party.
As the comments caused waves in Israel, Netanyahu again spoke of the issue at the start of a cabinet meeting. He called Israel a “Jewish, democratic state” with equal rights, but “the nation state not of all its citizens but only of the Jewish people”.
Netanyahu has been accused of demonising Israeli Arabs, who make up about 17% of the population, in an attempt to boost rightwing turnout in elections due on 9 April.
He has continually warned that his opponents will receive the support of Arab parties and that they will make significant concessions to the Palestinians.
Netanyahu, under threat of indictment for corruption, is facing a tough challenge from a centrist political alliance led by Benny Gantz, a former military chief of staff, and Yair Lapid, an ex-finance minister.
The alliance’s centrist positions and its security credentials – it includes three former military chiefs of staff – have helped it beat back Netanyahu’s claims that its leaders are “weak” leftists.
Arab parties would be extremely unlikely to be part of any coalition government after elections.
Arab Israelis are Palestinians who remained on their land after the 1948 creation of Israel and are largely supportive of the Palestinian cause.
Netanyahu leads what is seen as the most rightwing government in Israel’s history and says he wants a similar coalition after the upcoming polls.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...P=share_btn_tw
Altaqwa
03-11-2019, 12:47 AM
Man, the Dajjal is a strong force today. It's not a coincidence that Communism is the most fissionable ideology in the west, truly sad to see happening :hmm:
Replyسيف الله
03-11-2019, 02:28 AM
Salaam
Another update
Trump is trying to pay his way to an annihilation of Palestinian statehood, and an erasure of Israel’s crimes
This was the first time in modern Arab history that America has offered the bribes before anyone has agreed to the terms
“Palestine” has been compared to many things. The world’s longest colonial war, a “hell-disaster” – Churchill’s memorable epithet – and the site of Israel’s “war on terror”, a conflict in which we are supposed to believe that the Palestinians are playing the role of al-Qaeda or Isis or any other outfit which the west and its allies have helped into existence, and which Israel is going to fight on our behalf.
But there are times when Palestine turns out to have been located in the Bermuda Triangle. The Palestinians disappear. They cease to exist. They are forgotten, irrelevant, outside the landscape of fear, pain, injustice and occupation that we once heard about so often. No one can imagine what has happened to these Palestinians. Like the aircraft and boats which strayed into the mythical triangle, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Sad to see them go. But it’s a mystery.
The last two weeks have been a case in point. Trump’s fey and vain son-in-law Jared Kushner, a supporter of Israel’s colonial expansion on Arab land, set off with Trump’s “special representative to the peace process” Jason Greenblatt (the man who says that “West Bank settlements are not an obstacle to peace”) to work out the economic underpinning of Trump’s “deal of the century” to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Kushner went to visit some Muslim killer-states, some of them with very nasty and tyrannical leaders – Saudi Arabia and Turkey among them – to chat about the “economic dimension” of this mythical deal.
Middle East leaders may be murderers with lots of torturers to help them stay in power, but they are not entirely stupid. It’s clear that Kushner and Greenblatt need lots and lots of cash to prop up their plans for the final destruction of Palestinian statehood – we are talking in billions – and the Arab leaders they met did not hear anything about the political “dimension” of Trump’s “deal”. Because presumably there isn’t one. After all, Trump thinks that by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and declaring it the capital of Israel, he has taken that most holy of cities “off the table”.
Our titans of journalism were silent – maybe they, too, fell into the Bermuda Triangle – and had absolutely nothing to say, absolutely zilch, about Kushner’s march of folly around the Middle East. They called it, inevitably, a “whirlwind tour” in which this foolish young man would – readers will recognise CNN’s equally inevitable clichés – “prep allies for a spring rollout” of the “plan”.
This very vagueness is amazing, because the Kushner-Greenblatt fandango was in fact a very historic event. It was unprecedented as well as bizarre, unequalled in recent Arab history for its temerity as well as its outrageous assumption.
For this was the first time in modern Arab history – indeed modern Muslim history – that America has constructed and prepared a bribe BEFORE the acquiescence of those who are supposed to take the money; before actually telling the Palestinians and other Arabs what they are supposed to do in order to get their hands on the loot.
Usually, the Americans or the EU come up with highfalutin “peace” proposals – two states, security for Israel, viability for Palestinians, talks about a joint capital, an end to Jewish colonies on occupied Arab land, mutual trust-building, refugees, the usual paint-pots – and then gently suggest that it might be financially worthwhile for everyone to start talking.
But now the bank account is being set up before the customers’ agreement. The banks themselves – we have to include Saudi Arabia, do we not? – have not even been told what investments their funds are meant to support. How many times can you fit a South Sea Bubble into a Bermuda Triangle?
It’s not a blank cheque the Americans want from the Arabs. It’s going to be a very big cheque with specific amounts, to be given to a people who have never – as an occupied, repressed, abandoned community – ever demanded cash from anyone. Sure – and this has been a Kushner theme – Palestinians would be happier if they were better off.
But who has ever seen, in all the bloody Palestinians protests, demonstrations and cries of despair and massacres, a single poster – just one demand – for prime business opportunities, new motorways, five-star hotels, hospitals or pre-natal clinics?
Palestinian demands have been uniformly identical: justice, dignity, freedom and – yes – the return of lost lands, if only of those properties thieved from them by Israel in the West Bank. Of the thousands of unarmed innocents eviscerated in the great Gaza wars, which of their families is now going to settle for an American cheque in return for the end of all their ideals, dreams and political demands? But then again, what do we care for any of those families?
For the Bermuda Triangle sucked into its vortex these past few days yet another Palestinian victim: the UN’s preliminary report on the mass killings by Israeli troops and snipers of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza demonstrating since 30 March last year – against their imprisonment in the enclave and their right, under UN General Assembly Resolution 194, to return to their families’ original homes or receive compensation for them.
More than 200 Palestinians have been killed and around 18,000 wounded. The UN investigated 189 fatalities. Its researchers thought that perhaps on two occasions, armed Palestinian men may have infiltrated the crowds to shoot at the Israeli army, but even the briefest reading of the UN report’s 22 pages makes it perfectly clear that the dead were largely the victims of deliberate and aimed shots. They included journalists, health workers, children. Israel may have committed war crimes, the UN report concluded.
But each new war, each new set of casualties, each new UN report has become normal. Or perhaps the word is “normalised”. None more so than the 25 February UN document. The demonstrators belonged to the “terrorist” Hamas, according to Israel. The investigation was a “theatre of the absurd”, announced Israel’s spokesman, “a report that is hostile, mendacious and biased against Israel”.
But what did we expect? Ever since Israel trashed and demeaned and politically destroyed that great Jewish jurist Richard Goldstone after his devastating critique of the 2008-2009 Israeli bombardment of Gaza – the accusations by Israel and Jewish Americans of his antisemitism and his innate “evil” (the latter from Alan Dershowitz, of course) make even US Democrat Ilhan Omar’s sins look childlike – UN reports have been little more than wallpaper. Yet none of this matters.
The Palestinians are even supposed to be duped by the closure of the US consulate in Jerusalem and its merger with Washington’s embassy in Israel to enhance “the efficiency and effectiveness of [America’s] diplomatic engagements”, according to the ambassador David Friedman, who also, by extraordinary chance, supports Israel’s land expropriations in the West Bank but claims he wants a “two-state solution”.
Hanan Ashrawi simply and eloquently explained that the merging of the consulate with the embassy “is not an administrative decision. It is an act of political assault on Palestinian rights and identity, and a negation of the consulate’s historic status and function, dating back nearly 200 years.” She was quite right. And no one paid the slightest attention. The US consulate simply got swallowed up by the Bermuda Triangle.
Is all this because Trump has now steamrolled morality and so indelibly soiled the American flag that we have all, somehow, closed down in the Middle East on ideas like principles, promises and humanity, and accepted everlasting night – even if the latter is referred to as the deal of the century? Is that what happens when you fall into the Bermuda Triangle? Goodbye to the Palestinians. Didn’t they know this was dangerous territory? Hadn’t they heard the stories? It’s all a mystery if you ask me.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8811546.html
Background of US Israel relations.
ReplyAnother update
Trump is trying to pay his way to an annihilation of Palestinian statehood, and an erasure of Israel’s crimes
This was the first time in modern Arab history that America has offered the bribes before anyone has agreed to the terms
“Palestine” has been compared to many things. The world’s longest colonial war, a “hell-disaster” – Churchill’s memorable epithet – and the site of Israel’s “war on terror”, a conflict in which we are supposed to believe that the Palestinians are playing the role of al-Qaeda or Isis or any other outfit which the west and its allies have helped into existence, and which Israel is going to fight on our behalf.
But there are times when Palestine turns out to have been located in the Bermuda Triangle. The Palestinians disappear. They cease to exist. They are forgotten, irrelevant, outside the landscape of fear, pain, injustice and occupation that we once heard about so often. No one can imagine what has happened to these Palestinians. Like the aircraft and boats which strayed into the mythical triangle, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Sad to see them go. But it’s a mystery.
The last two weeks have been a case in point. Trump’s fey and vain son-in-law Jared Kushner, a supporter of Israel’s colonial expansion on Arab land, set off with Trump’s “special representative to the peace process” Jason Greenblatt (the man who says that “West Bank settlements are not an obstacle to peace”) to work out the economic underpinning of Trump’s “deal of the century” to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Kushner went to visit some Muslim killer-states, some of them with very nasty and tyrannical leaders – Saudi Arabia and Turkey among them – to chat about the “economic dimension” of this mythical deal.
Middle East leaders may be murderers with lots of torturers to help them stay in power, but they are not entirely stupid. It’s clear that Kushner and Greenblatt need lots and lots of cash to prop up their plans for the final destruction of Palestinian statehood – we are talking in billions – and the Arab leaders they met did not hear anything about the political “dimension” of Trump’s “deal”. Because presumably there isn’t one. After all, Trump thinks that by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and declaring it the capital of Israel, he has taken that most holy of cities “off the table”.
Our titans of journalism were silent – maybe they, too, fell into the Bermuda Triangle – and had absolutely nothing to say, absolutely zilch, about Kushner’s march of folly around the Middle East. They called it, inevitably, a “whirlwind tour” in which this foolish young man would – readers will recognise CNN’s equally inevitable clichés – “prep allies for a spring rollout” of the “plan”.
This very vagueness is amazing, because the Kushner-Greenblatt fandango was in fact a very historic event. It was unprecedented as well as bizarre, unequalled in recent Arab history for its temerity as well as its outrageous assumption.
For this was the first time in modern Arab history – indeed modern Muslim history – that America has constructed and prepared a bribe BEFORE the acquiescence of those who are supposed to take the money; before actually telling the Palestinians and other Arabs what they are supposed to do in order to get their hands on the loot.
Usually, the Americans or the EU come up with highfalutin “peace” proposals – two states, security for Israel, viability for Palestinians, talks about a joint capital, an end to Jewish colonies on occupied Arab land, mutual trust-building, refugees, the usual paint-pots – and then gently suggest that it might be financially worthwhile for everyone to start talking.
But now the bank account is being set up before the customers’ agreement. The banks themselves – we have to include Saudi Arabia, do we not? – have not even been told what investments their funds are meant to support. How many times can you fit a South Sea Bubble into a Bermuda Triangle?
It’s not a blank cheque the Americans want from the Arabs. It’s going to be a very big cheque with specific amounts, to be given to a people who have never – as an occupied, repressed, abandoned community – ever demanded cash from anyone. Sure – and this has been a Kushner theme – Palestinians would be happier if they were better off.
But who has ever seen, in all the bloody Palestinians protests, demonstrations and cries of despair and massacres, a single poster – just one demand – for prime business opportunities, new motorways, five-star hotels, hospitals or pre-natal clinics?
Palestinian demands have been uniformly identical: justice, dignity, freedom and – yes – the return of lost lands, if only of those properties thieved from them by Israel in the West Bank. Of the thousands of unarmed innocents eviscerated in the great Gaza wars, which of their families is now going to settle for an American cheque in return for the end of all their ideals, dreams and political demands? But then again, what do we care for any of those families?
For the Bermuda Triangle sucked into its vortex these past few days yet another Palestinian victim: the UN’s preliminary report on the mass killings by Israeli troops and snipers of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza demonstrating since 30 March last year – against their imprisonment in the enclave and their right, under UN General Assembly Resolution 194, to return to their families’ original homes or receive compensation for them.
More than 200 Palestinians have been killed and around 18,000 wounded. The UN investigated 189 fatalities. Its researchers thought that perhaps on two occasions, armed Palestinian men may have infiltrated the crowds to shoot at the Israeli army, but even the briefest reading of the UN report’s 22 pages makes it perfectly clear that the dead were largely the victims of deliberate and aimed shots. They included journalists, health workers, children. Israel may have committed war crimes, the UN report concluded.
But each new war, each new set of casualties, each new UN report has become normal. Or perhaps the word is “normalised”. None more so than the 25 February UN document. The demonstrators belonged to the “terrorist” Hamas, according to Israel. The investigation was a “theatre of the absurd”, announced Israel’s spokesman, “a report that is hostile, mendacious and biased against Israel”.
But what did we expect? Ever since Israel trashed and demeaned and politically destroyed that great Jewish jurist Richard Goldstone after his devastating critique of the 2008-2009 Israeli bombardment of Gaza – the accusations by Israel and Jewish Americans of his antisemitism and his innate “evil” (the latter from Alan Dershowitz, of course) make even US Democrat Ilhan Omar’s sins look childlike – UN reports have been little more than wallpaper. Yet none of this matters.
The Palestinians are even supposed to be duped by the closure of the US consulate in Jerusalem and its merger with Washington’s embassy in Israel to enhance “the efficiency and effectiveness of [America’s] diplomatic engagements”, according to the ambassador David Friedman, who also, by extraordinary chance, supports Israel’s land expropriations in the West Bank but claims he wants a “two-state solution”.
Hanan Ashrawi simply and eloquently explained that the merging of the consulate with the embassy “is not an administrative decision. It is an act of political assault on Palestinian rights and identity, and a negation of the consulate’s historic status and function, dating back nearly 200 years.” She was quite right. And no one paid the slightest attention. The US consulate simply got swallowed up by the Bermuda Triangle.
Is all this because Trump has now steamrolled morality and so indelibly soiled the American flag that we have all, somehow, closed down in the Middle East on ideas like principles, promises and humanity, and accepted everlasting night – even if the latter is referred to as the deal of the century? Is that what happens when you fall into the Bermuda Triangle? Goodbye to the Palestinians. Didn’t they know this was dangerous territory? Hadn’t they heard the stories? It’s all a mystery if you ask me.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8811546.html
Background of US Israel relations.
سيف الله
03-12-2019, 11:46 PM
Salaam
Another update.
On racial supremacy
From The Times of Israel:
Israeli lawmaker proclaims supremacy of ‘Jewish race’
A lawmaker from the ruling Likud party said Wednesday that the “Jewish race” is the smartest in the world and possessing of the “highest human capital,” which is why, he said, the Israeli public did not buy into the allegations of wrongdoing by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I can tell you something very basic,” Zohar said during the Radio 103FM debate. “You can’t fool the Jews, no matter what is the media writes. The public in Israel is a public that belongs to the Jewish race, and the entire Jewish race is the highest human capital, the smartest, the most comprehending. The public knows what the prime minister is doing for the country and how excellent he is at his job.”
In a follow-up interview with Hadashot TV news, Zohar at first denied that he had spoken about the supremacy of the “Jewish race,” but, presented with a recording of his earlier comments, doubled down and reiterated: “The Jewish people and the Jewish race are of the highest human capital that exists.”
“What can you do? We were blessed by God… and I will continue to say that at every opportunity,” he said. “I don’t have to be ashamed about the Jewish people being the Chosen People; the smartest, most special people in the world.”
A gaffe, as they say, is when one accidentally speaks the truth.
And yet, the average Jewish IQ in Israel is 98.7. The average GDP per capita in Israel is 53.4 percent that of Norway, despite the fact that the Norwegians do not receive $3.8 billion in annual handouts from the USA.
As Mr. Zohar demonstrates, whatever their racial genius may be, it does not appear to be in public relations.
A refusal to learn
Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The level of unmitigated stupidity and total lack of foresight on every side is simply astonishing.
Even if you don't believe in God, you'd do well to pray, because neither science nor politics is going to get anyone out of this.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/
ReplyAnother update.
On racial supremacy
From The Times of Israel:
Israeli lawmaker proclaims supremacy of ‘Jewish race’
A lawmaker from the ruling Likud party said Wednesday that the “Jewish race” is the smartest in the world and possessing of the “highest human capital,” which is why, he said, the Israeli public did not buy into the allegations of wrongdoing by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I can tell you something very basic,” Zohar said during the Radio 103FM debate. “You can’t fool the Jews, no matter what is the media writes. The public in Israel is a public that belongs to the Jewish race, and the entire Jewish race is the highest human capital, the smartest, the most comprehending. The public knows what the prime minister is doing for the country and how excellent he is at his job.”
In a follow-up interview with Hadashot TV news, Zohar at first denied that he had spoken about the supremacy of the “Jewish race,” but, presented with a recording of his earlier comments, doubled down and reiterated: “The Jewish people and the Jewish race are of the highest human capital that exists.”
“What can you do? We were blessed by God… and I will continue to say that at every opportunity,” he said. “I don’t have to be ashamed about the Jewish people being the Chosen People; the smartest, most special people in the world.”
And yet, the average Jewish IQ in Israel is 98.7. The average GDP per capita in Israel is 53.4 percent that of Norway, despite the fact that the Norwegians do not receive $3.8 billion in annual handouts from the USA.
As Mr. Zohar demonstrates, whatever their racial genius may be, it does not appear to be in public relations.
A refusal to learn
You see this napkin? In 24 hours, we could have the signatures of 70 Senators on this napkin.
–Steven Rosen, AIPAC
Questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.
–Rep. Juan Vargas, D-CA
If this capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be our commitment to aid — I won’t even call it aid — our cooperation with Israel.
–Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
AIPAC now seems acutely sensitive to the appearance of dual loyalty. The theme of this year’s AIPAC conference was “Israel, an American Value”.
–Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker
How reassuring is it that the only American who upholds the core values of liberty, patriotism and freedom is a black Muslim and an immigrant…
–Gilad Atzmon
–Steven Rosen, AIPAC
Questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.
–Rep. Juan Vargas, D-CA
If this capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be our commitment to aid — I won’t even call it aid — our cooperation with Israel.
–Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
AIPAC now seems acutely sensitive to the appearance of dual loyalty. The theme of this year’s AIPAC conference was “Israel, an American Value”.
–Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker
How reassuring is it that the only American who upholds the core values of liberty, patriotism and freedom is a black Muslim and an immigrant…
–Gilad Atzmon
Even if you don't believe in God, you'd do well to pray, because neither science nor politics is going to get anyone out of this.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/
CuriousonTruth
03-13-2019, 07:34 AM
Ashkezani jews are the smartest because they have been practicing Eugenics for around 2000 years.
- - - Updated - - -
I think he meant the IQ of Ashkenazi jews which is the highest in the world.
Reply- - - Updated - - -
I think he meant the IQ of Ashkenazi jews which is the highest in the world.
سيف الله
03-16-2019, 09:41 AM
A lot of this high IQ talk is exaggerated, I think Their success has many other factors involved, notably that they work very well together when looking out for their interests.
Another update.
Miko Peled: The Zionists’ Fight Extends Beyond Palestine
Miko Peled highlights the campaign by pro-Israel groups to overwhelm the Labour Party into submission and bring about the fall of Corbyn by using a barrage of anti-Semitism accusation
LONDON — The Zionists’ suppression of freedoms extends beyond Palestine, particularly when it comes to freedom of speech about Israel. Zionist agents, planted in centers of power around the world, are busy silencing those who would criticize Israel. Using an array of highly effective methods, they have been successful at getting laws passed by legislators, getting major political figures falsely accused of making anti-Semitic statements, and establishing a new, Zionist-manufactured definition of what it means to be anti-Semitic.
Earlier this year the United States Senate passed Resolution S-1 that gives the federal government the right to penalize anyone calling to boycott Israel. Then — being a black, Muslim woman who dared to challenge the patriarchy, white supremacy, and Zionism and thus alienate the Washington establishment — Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was targeted and accused of anti-Semitism.
As I had reported in 2017 and again in 2018, this disturbing political witch hunt is not limited to the U.S. In the U.K., members of the Labor Party, including the leader Jeremy Corbyn, have been under attack for several years, with the latest targets being MP Chris Williamson of the U.K. Labour Party and journalist Asa Winstanley. They are latest of a long list of members of the party who have been suspended from the party because of bogus accusations of anti-Semitism.
A campaign to bring down Corbyn
Israel is terrified of a Corbyn government in the U.K. and we can expect that it will stop at nothing in order to bring him down. The campaign to undermine him includes the office of the Israeli prime minister. This was made evident in August of 2018 when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded that Corbyn receive “unequivocal condemnation” for attending “a memorial service for the Munich massacre terrorists.” Corbyn attended no such memorial, as I was able to demonstrate in a piece published by MintPress News at the time.
The Zionist fear of Corbyn is a result of his lifelong commitment to justice and his unwavering support for all oppressed people, including the Palestinians. He has said on more than one occasion, and as recently as this month, that the U.K. must freeze its arms sales to Israel. However, attacks aimed directly at Corbyn are not enough to get the job done. Israel and its agents around the U.K. have been engaged in a campaign of lies and smears, the results of which are shown in this report that was put out by the Labour Party and published by the BBC.
The report points out, among other things:
673 complaints of anti-Semitism by Labour Party members were received — a Labour spokesman said this represented about 0.1 percent of the membership;
96 members were immediately suspended after complaints were made, and a further 211 were told they would be investigated;
146 members received a first warning, and 220 cases did not have sufficient evidence of a breach of party rules for an investigation;
Of the 307 who were suspended or notified of an investigation, 44 members left the party.
These are complaints that pertain to members of the party. An additional 433 complaints were received by the party that were not about Labour Party members. Clearly, the campaign by the pro-Israel groups aims to overwhelm the Labour Party into submission and bring about the fall of Corbyn by using a barrage of anti-Semitism accusations.
Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has stood against racism and injustice his entire career. His leadership has energized the party, which has gained more than half a million new members over that span. However, one has to wonder if there is an argument being made somewhere that Corbyn is the reason for this sudden outbreak of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Again, one can only guess that the Zionist goal is to bring the Labour Party to exhaustion, and to the conclusion that Corbyn is too much trouble for his worth and thus must be replaced for the good of the party.
Chris Williamson
Slated to be Corbyn’s number-two man, at least in the minds of Corbyn supporters, Williamson is no less principled and no less a fighter than Corbyn himself. He is charismatic and he and Corbyn could make a powerful progressive leadership team, which is why he had to be taken down.
The hope, one assumes, on the pro-Israel flank of the Labour Party is that Corbyn’s current deputy, Tom Watson — who is an avid Zionist and not at all a Corbyn supporter — will take over once Corbyn steps down, or rather, once Corbyn is taken down by Zionist agencies working for Israel. Watson, for his part, is already rallying supporters behind him in a new group he formed within the Labour Party, called “Future Britain.”
Williamson, like Corbyn, is dedicated to the idea of democratizing the Labour Party, which means taking control from the party establishment and giving it to the members. Combine that with his pro-Palestine views and he is the perfect target for an anti-Semitism smear.
Asa Winstanley
According to a report in the Electronic Intifada, a publication for which Asa Winstanley writes, the Labour Party has initiated disciplinary proceedings against Winstanley, who is also a member of the party. This was first published by a journalist from the Jewish Chronicle — which is a Zionist, anti-Palestinian publication. Winstanley is a journalist whose views on Palestine are clear, uncompromising and precise. No doubt he was placed on the list of members to be smeared and suspended because of his honest writing on Palestine.
Zionist oppression and brutal tactics against the people of Palestine, and the attempts to silence their supporters around the world, are not going to end on their own. People of conscience must stand for Palestine; people whose right to free speech is being denied must stand up and stand together; steps must be taken to end the dominant influence and automatic legitimacy that Zionism and its agents enjoy around the world.
Top Photo | A woman uses a cellphone to record video of Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, speaking to journalists during the Party of European Socialists Council in Lisbon, Dec. 2 2017. Armando Franca | AP
https://www.mintpressnews.com/miko-p...estine/256253/
ReplyAnother update.
Miko Peled: The Zionists’ Fight Extends Beyond Palestine
Miko Peled highlights the campaign by pro-Israel groups to overwhelm the Labour Party into submission and bring about the fall of Corbyn by using a barrage of anti-Semitism accusation
LONDON — The Zionists’ suppression of freedoms extends beyond Palestine, particularly when it comes to freedom of speech about Israel. Zionist agents, planted in centers of power around the world, are busy silencing those who would criticize Israel. Using an array of highly effective methods, they have been successful at getting laws passed by legislators, getting major political figures falsely accused of making anti-Semitic statements, and establishing a new, Zionist-manufactured definition of what it means to be anti-Semitic.
Earlier this year the United States Senate passed Resolution S-1 that gives the federal government the right to penalize anyone calling to boycott Israel. Then — being a black, Muslim woman who dared to challenge the patriarchy, white supremacy, and Zionism and thus alienate the Washington establishment — Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was targeted and accused of anti-Semitism.
As I had reported in 2017 and again in 2018, this disturbing political witch hunt is not limited to the U.S. In the U.K., members of the Labor Party, including the leader Jeremy Corbyn, have been under attack for several years, with the latest targets being MP Chris Williamson of the U.K. Labour Party and journalist Asa Winstanley. They are latest of a long list of members of the party who have been suspended from the party because of bogus accusations of anti-Semitism.
A campaign to bring down Corbyn
Israel is terrified of a Corbyn government in the U.K. and we can expect that it will stop at nothing in order to bring him down. The campaign to undermine him includes the office of the Israeli prime minister. This was made evident in August of 2018 when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded that Corbyn receive “unequivocal condemnation” for attending “a memorial service for the Munich massacre terrorists.” Corbyn attended no such memorial, as I was able to demonstrate in a piece published by MintPress News at the time.
The Zionist fear of Corbyn is a result of his lifelong commitment to justice and his unwavering support for all oppressed people, including the Palestinians. He has said on more than one occasion, and as recently as this month, that the U.K. must freeze its arms sales to Israel. However, attacks aimed directly at Corbyn are not enough to get the job done. Israel and its agents around the U.K. have been engaged in a campaign of lies and smears, the results of which are shown in this report that was put out by the Labour Party and published by the BBC.
The report points out, among other things:
673 complaints of anti-Semitism by Labour Party members were received — a Labour spokesman said this represented about 0.1 percent of the membership;
96 members were immediately suspended after complaints were made, and a further 211 were told they would be investigated;
146 members received a first warning, and 220 cases did not have sufficient evidence of a breach of party rules for an investigation;
Of the 307 who were suspended or notified of an investigation, 44 members left the party.
These are complaints that pertain to members of the party. An additional 433 complaints were received by the party that were not about Labour Party members. Clearly, the campaign by the pro-Israel groups aims to overwhelm the Labour Party into submission and bring about the fall of Corbyn by using a barrage of anti-Semitism accusations.
Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has stood against racism and injustice his entire career. His leadership has energized the party, which has gained more than half a million new members over that span. However, one has to wonder if there is an argument being made somewhere that Corbyn is the reason for this sudden outbreak of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Again, one can only guess that the Zionist goal is to bring the Labour Party to exhaustion, and to the conclusion that Corbyn is too much trouble for his worth and thus must be replaced for the good of the party.
Chris Williamson
Slated to be Corbyn’s number-two man, at least in the minds of Corbyn supporters, Williamson is no less principled and no less a fighter than Corbyn himself. He is charismatic and he and Corbyn could make a powerful progressive leadership team, which is why he had to be taken down.
The hope, one assumes, on the pro-Israel flank of the Labour Party is that Corbyn’s current deputy, Tom Watson — who is an avid Zionist and not at all a Corbyn supporter — will take over once Corbyn steps down, or rather, once Corbyn is taken down by Zionist agencies working for Israel. Watson, for his part, is already rallying supporters behind him in a new group he formed within the Labour Party, called “Future Britain.”
Williamson, like Corbyn, is dedicated to the idea of democratizing the Labour Party, which means taking control from the party establishment and giving it to the members. Combine that with his pro-Palestine views and he is the perfect target for an anti-Semitism smear.
Asa Winstanley
According to a report in the Electronic Intifada, a publication for which Asa Winstanley writes, the Labour Party has initiated disciplinary proceedings against Winstanley, who is also a member of the party. This was first published by a journalist from the Jewish Chronicle — which is a Zionist, anti-Palestinian publication. Winstanley is a journalist whose views on Palestine are clear, uncompromising and precise. No doubt he was placed on the list of members to be smeared and suspended because of his honest writing on Palestine.
Zionist oppression and brutal tactics against the people of Palestine, and the attempts to silence their supporters around the world, are not going to end on their own. People of conscience must stand for Palestine; people whose right to free speech is being denied must stand up and stand together; steps must be taken to end the dominant influence and automatic legitimacy that Zionism and its agents enjoy around the world.
Top Photo | A woman uses a cellphone to record video of Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, speaking to journalists during the Party of European Socialists Council in Lisbon, Dec. 2 2017. Armando Franca | AP
https://www.mintpressnews.com/miko-p...estine/256253/
Saira Khan
03-16-2019, 12:03 PM
Whatever is going on, it's distined for them already. The creation and making of "State of Israel" will ultimately lead to their destruction according to Qur'an.
This event that has traditionally been linked to the Day of Judgment, both in the Judeo-Christian traditions and in the Qur’an, is the Return of the Children of Israel to the Holy Land.
ReplyThis event that has traditionally been linked to the Day of Judgment, both in the Judeo-Christian traditions and in the Qur’an, is the Return of the Children of Israel to the Holy Land.
Qur'an 17:104 : And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter (wa3’dul akhirati) cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.Qur'an 59:2 : He it is Who caused those who disbelieved of the followers of the Book (Jews) to go forth from their homes (leave their exile) till the first gathering (Li awalil hashr) you did not think that they would go forth, while they were certain that their fortresses would defend them against Allah; but Allah came to them whence they did not expect, and cast terror into their hearts; they demolished their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers; therefore take a lesson, O you who have eyes!
Qur'an 17:4 : And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scripture: Ye verily will experience corruption (exile) in the earth twice, but Ye will then after (thumma) ascend (ta’lunna) to a great height (or station).
Qur'an 17:4 : And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scripture: Ye verily will experience corruption (exile) in the earth twice, but Ye will then after (thumma) ascend (ta’lunna) to a great height (or station).
Ignominy shall be their portion [the Jews'] wheresoever they are found... They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them... because they disbelieve the revelations of Allah and slew the Prophets wrongfully... because they were rebellious and used to transgress. [Surah 111, v. 112]
And thou wilt find them [the Jews] the greediest of mankind....[Surah 11, v. 96]
Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews.... And of their taking usury ... and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretenses. We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom.[Surah IV, v. 160, 161]
Allah hath cursed them [the Jews] for their disbelief.[Surah IV, v. 46]
Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews.... And of their taking usury ... and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretenses. We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom.[Surah IV, v. 160, 161]
Allah hath cursed them [the Jews] for their disbelief.[Surah IV, v. 46]
CuriousonTruth
03-16-2019, 06:46 PM
Believe me I have no love for the jews. But first step to beat your enemy is to recognize their strengths and weaknesses.
In the Talmud, wise jewish rabbis encouraged jews to marry women of successful men like scholars, merchants,etc. They took the advice to heart, and over centuries they have greatly improved gene pool.This is why Ashkenazi jews are so smart, that includes making many of scientific and pharmaceutical breakthroughs today.
Imagine being so devoted to your tribe that you even select your spouse for the betterment of your tribe. It is that selfless tribalistic mentality that has led jews to the very summit of the wealth of the world.
ReplyIn the Talmud, wise jewish rabbis encouraged jews to marry women of successful men like scholars, merchants,etc. They took the advice to heart, and over centuries they have greatly improved gene pool.This is why Ashkenazi jews are so smart, that includes making many of scientific and pharmaceutical breakthroughs today.
Imagine being so devoted to your tribe that you even select your spouse for the betterment of your tribe. It is that selfless tribalistic mentality that has led jews to the very summit of the wealth of the world.
AbdurRahman.
03-16-2019, 10:59 PM
سيف الله
03-17-2019, 09:35 AM
Salaam
Another update.
Israel’s Hand in the Short History of Islamophobia.
You know you have reached peak Islamophobia when semi-literate, ex-cons who have never studied Islam or terrorism, can’t read Arabic, have never visited the Middle East, and don’t have a single Muslim friend publish a book about Islam and its alleged (non-existent) relationship to violence.
Well, that’s exactly what Tommy Robinson, the high profiled leader of drunken football hooligans (aka English Defense League) who hate Muslims has done. It would appear his two stints in prison (12 months in prison for assaulting a police officer in 2003, and another 18 months in jail in 2012 for mortgage fraud) has bestowed Robinson all the credentials he needs to publicly comment on a complex religious faith — one that is followed and practiced by a great many diverse cultures and ethnicities.
Yes, that guy has written a book on Islam, which is kind of like writing a book on cardiothoracic surgery because you once watched a season of General Hospital. But this is where we are today. If you have neither a job nor qualifications, a career in peddling anti-Muslim hate awaits.
In a recent Australian televised panel debate on Islam and terrorism, the moderator asked Mehdi Hasan, a British Muslim television journalist, where exactly Islamophoba comes from. “The fear comes from many places,” replied Hasan. “Partly, of course, it comes from the fear terrorism provokes…but a lot it, unfortunately, comes from media and social media these days.”
Since al Qaeda attacked the United States in 2001, Islamophobia has been a rags-to-riches story and a career builder for any number of opportunistic cons, politicians and book peddlers. It has put the likes of Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Sam Harris on best selling book lists; has launched or re-launched the political careers of Geert Wilders (The Netherlands), Marine Le Pen (France), and Pauline Hanson (Australia), and helped put Donald Trump into the White House.
All of who portray Islam as uniquely violent, hostile to Western democratic values, and tied to terrorism, despite the fact none of the aforementioned has attained a single academic credential in either Islamic or security studies.
Behind them is a cadre of anti-Muslim organizations and networks, many funded by a cohort of groups that could be described as loosely affiliated with the pro-Israel lobby. In 2014, this column identified the pro-Israel millionaires who fund what has become widely known as the “Islamophobia industry.”
Their conspiracy theories about Muslims — ones that accuse Muslims in the West of plotting to implement Sharia and those that portray Muslims as a demographic time bomb — and their unrelenting efforts to tie Islam to acts of political violence make their way into mainstream media and then later into actual official government policy.
But while this account of Islamophobia in the post -9/11 West is well known and documented, the Israeli origins of the Western discourse on terrorism are more opaque, and it’s from here that most of the erroneous anti-Muslim narratives were born.
Professor Deepa Kumar, author of Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, says the effort to tie Islam to terrorism in public discourse started at a neo-con, Zionist funded conference on international terrorism in 1979. Notable attendees included George H. Bush and Likud party founder Menachem Begin.
If the conference had one goal, it was to reach an agreement that right wing parties in Israel and the United States should adopt rhetoric that paints Palestinian struggle for self-determination and independence as “terrorism.” Kumar notes that while the conference aimed to “serve as the new beginning of a new process — the process of rallying the democracies of the world to struggle against terrorism and the dangers it represents,” it did not emphasize any ties between terrorism and Islam.
This changed five years later, however, at the second International Conference on Terrorism held in Washington DC. It was here that US neo-cons and the Israeli far right rooted modern terrorism to Islamic and Arab radicalism, notes Kumar. At this conference, Bernard Lewis became the first public intellectual to overtly link terrorism to Islam by arguing “Islam is a political religion,” and thus because terrorism is an act of political violence, the term “Islamic terrorism” applies, while the descriptor Jewish terrorism or Christian terrorism does not.
From this point forward, both US neocons and Zionists worked together to convince Western policy makers that “Islamic terrorism” would replace Communism as the West’s next great threat. By tying Islam to terrorism, neocons would gain political cover for their imperialistic ambitions in the Middle East, and Zionists would benefit from garnering Western sympathies for their struggle against Palestinian “terrorism.”
Dr. Remi Brulin, a research fellow at New York University, observes that the term “terrorism” was largely absent from American discourse until the Reagan administration began adopting a “very specific, narrow, and ideologically driven understanding of ‘terrorism” — one adopted from those tied to the respective neoconservative and Zionist movements.
“The discourse on ‘terrorism” is thus full of contradictions, and inconsistencies,” notes Brulin. “It is, at heart, the result of a deeply political and ideological process of meaning production, one in which specific political actors, from American neoconservative political operatives to Israeli officials to…the mainstream media, played a central role. Since it burst onto the American political scene three decades ago, this discourse’s central aim has been to de-humanize, de-politicize and de-legitimize the ‘enemy of the day,’ while legitimizing any and all uses of political violence against it. It is, in its contemporary expression, a dangerous, a-historical and anti-intellectual discourse, which should be deconstructed and, ultimately, discarded.”
It is thus from these pro-Israeli and US neoconservative think tanks that anti-Muslim conspiracies, tropes, and negative stereotypes emerge. It is from this discourse that the likes of Trump and all those associated with the Islamophobia industry, including Tommy Robinson, borrow their Islamophobic notions that posit Islam as dangerous, violent, and a threat to Western civilization itself.
And right there is your short history on Islamophobia in the West, and Israel’s hand behind it.
https://medium.com/@cjwerleman/israe...a-df102c687fb6
ReplyAnother update.
Israel’s Hand in the Short History of Islamophobia.
You know you have reached peak Islamophobia when semi-literate, ex-cons who have never studied Islam or terrorism, can’t read Arabic, have never visited the Middle East, and don’t have a single Muslim friend publish a book about Islam and its alleged (non-existent) relationship to violence.
Well, that’s exactly what Tommy Robinson, the high profiled leader of drunken football hooligans (aka English Defense League) who hate Muslims has done. It would appear his two stints in prison (12 months in prison for assaulting a police officer in 2003, and another 18 months in jail in 2012 for mortgage fraud) has bestowed Robinson all the credentials he needs to publicly comment on a complex religious faith — one that is followed and practiced by a great many diverse cultures and ethnicities.
Yes, that guy has written a book on Islam, which is kind of like writing a book on cardiothoracic surgery because you once watched a season of General Hospital. But this is where we are today. If you have neither a job nor qualifications, a career in peddling anti-Muslim hate awaits.
In a recent Australian televised panel debate on Islam and terrorism, the moderator asked Mehdi Hasan, a British Muslim television journalist, where exactly Islamophoba comes from. “The fear comes from many places,” replied Hasan. “Partly, of course, it comes from the fear terrorism provokes…but a lot it, unfortunately, comes from media and social media these days.”
Since al Qaeda attacked the United States in 2001, Islamophobia has been a rags-to-riches story and a career builder for any number of opportunistic cons, politicians and book peddlers. It has put the likes of Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Sam Harris on best selling book lists; has launched or re-launched the political careers of Geert Wilders (The Netherlands), Marine Le Pen (France), and Pauline Hanson (Australia), and helped put Donald Trump into the White House.
All of who portray Islam as uniquely violent, hostile to Western democratic values, and tied to terrorism, despite the fact none of the aforementioned has attained a single academic credential in either Islamic or security studies.
Behind them is a cadre of anti-Muslim organizations and networks, many funded by a cohort of groups that could be described as loosely affiliated with the pro-Israel lobby. In 2014, this column identified the pro-Israel millionaires who fund what has become widely known as the “Islamophobia industry.”
Their conspiracy theories about Muslims — ones that accuse Muslims in the West of plotting to implement Sharia and those that portray Muslims as a demographic time bomb — and their unrelenting efforts to tie Islam to acts of political violence make their way into mainstream media and then later into actual official government policy.
But while this account of Islamophobia in the post -9/11 West is well known and documented, the Israeli origins of the Western discourse on terrorism are more opaque, and it’s from here that most of the erroneous anti-Muslim narratives were born.
Professor Deepa Kumar, author of Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, says the effort to tie Islam to terrorism in public discourse started at a neo-con, Zionist funded conference on international terrorism in 1979. Notable attendees included George H. Bush and Likud party founder Menachem Begin.
If the conference had one goal, it was to reach an agreement that right wing parties in Israel and the United States should adopt rhetoric that paints Palestinian struggle for self-determination and independence as “terrorism.” Kumar notes that while the conference aimed to “serve as the new beginning of a new process — the process of rallying the democracies of the world to struggle against terrorism and the dangers it represents,” it did not emphasize any ties between terrorism and Islam.
This changed five years later, however, at the second International Conference on Terrorism held in Washington DC. It was here that US neo-cons and the Israeli far right rooted modern terrorism to Islamic and Arab radicalism, notes Kumar. At this conference, Bernard Lewis became the first public intellectual to overtly link terrorism to Islam by arguing “Islam is a political religion,” and thus because terrorism is an act of political violence, the term “Islamic terrorism” applies, while the descriptor Jewish terrorism or Christian terrorism does not.
From this point forward, both US neocons and Zionists worked together to convince Western policy makers that “Islamic terrorism” would replace Communism as the West’s next great threat. By tying Islam to terrorism, neocons would gain political cover for their imperialistic ambitions in the Middle East, and Zionists would benefit from garnering Western sympathies for their struggle against Palestinian “terrorism.”
Dr. Remi Brulin, a research fellow at New York University, observes that the term “terrorism” was largely absent from American discourse until the Reagan administration began adopting a “very specific, narrow, and ideologically driven understanding of ‘terrorism” — one adopted from those tied to the respective neoconservative and Zionist movements.
“The discourse on ‘terrorism” is thus full of contradictions, and inconsistencies,” notes Brulin. “It is, at heart, the result of a deeply political and ideological process of meaning production, one in which specific political actors, from American neoconservative political operatives to Israeli officials to…the mainstream media, played a central role. Since it burst onto the American political scene three decades ago, this discourse’s central aim has been to de-humanize, de-politicize and de-legitimize the ‘enemy of the day,’ while legitimizing any and all uses of political violence against it. It is, in its contemporary expression, a dangerous, a-historical and anti-intellectual discourse, which should be deconstructed and, ultimately, discarded.”
It is thus from these pro-Israeli and US neoconservative think tanks that anti-Muslim conspiracies, tropes, and negative stereotypes emerge. It is from this discourse that the likes of Trump and all those associated with the Islamophobia industry, including Tommy Robinson, borrow their Islamophobic notions that posit Islam as dangerous, violent, and a threat to Western civilization itself.
And right there is your short history on Islamophobia in the West, and Israel’s hand behind it.
https://medium.com/@cjwerleman/israe...a-df102c687fb6
سيف الله
03-18-2019, 10:57 AM
Salaam
Like to share.
WitchHunt (the silencing of pro-Palestinian UK Labour Party activists)
Blurb
A documentary promoted by Jewish Voice for Labour exposes the campaign to discredit the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership as one based on disinformation, fake news and dirty tricks. WitchHunt, by Edinburgh-based filmmaker Jon Pullman, combines extensive archive material with authoritative new interviews, featuring experts in media, Jewish, black and labour history, racism and the politics of the Middle East. Pullman says: “I’ve set out to explore the connections between the attacks on Labour, the unfolding tragedy of Palestine and the wider struggle against race-based oppression.”
The film examines the use of antisemitism allegations to silence critics of Israel’s human rights violations, such as black Jewish activist Jackie Walker, a former vice-chair of Momentum. She continues to be publicly abused by anti-Corbyn Labour MPs, even in the run-up to her hearing before the National Constitutional Committee scheduled for March 26, 2019.
****Update 27/02/19 This is the film that Labour MP Chris Williamson was prevented from screening to MP's in Houses of Parliament. The PM has criticised him, and he has since been suspended from the party for his comments defending the party from allegations of anti-semitism. The Israeli lobby and it's supporters in the UK parliament have managed to remove a real socialist and supporter of Palestinian rights from Westminster ****
ReplyLike to share.
WitchHunt (the silencing of pro-Palestinian UK Labour Party activists)
Blurb
A documentary promoted by Jewish Voice for Labour exposes the campaign to discredit the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership as one based on disinformation, fake news and dirty tricks. WitchHunt, by Edinburgh-based filmmaker Jon Pullman, combines extensive archive material with authoritative new interviews, featuring experts in media, Jewish, black and labour history, racism and the politics of the Middle East. Pullman says: “I’ve set out to explore the connections between the attacks on Labour, the unfolding tragedy of Palestine and the wider struggle against race-based oppression.”
The film examines the use of antisemitism allegations to silence critics of Israel’s human rights violations, such as black Jewish activist Jackie Walker, a former vice-chair of Momentum. She continues to be publicly abused by anti-Corbyn Labour MPs, even in the run-up to her hearing before the National Constitutional Committee scheduled for March 26, 2019.
****Update 27/02/19 This is the film that Labour MP Chris Williamson was prevented from screening to MP's in Houses of Parliament. The PM has criticised him, and he has since been suspended from the party for his comments defending the party from allegations of anti-semitism. The Israeli lobby and it's supporters in the UK parliament have managed to remove a real socialist and supporter of Palestinian rights from Westminster ****
سيف الله
03-18-2019, 11:35 AM
سيف الله
03-21-2019, 06:05 PM
Salaam
Another update
Trump says US will recognize Israel's sovereignty over Golan Heights
Israel captured Golan Heights from Syria after war in 1967
Netanyahu responds on Twitter: ‘Thank you President Trump!’
Donald Trump has announced that the US will recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in 1967, in a dramatic move likely to bolster Benjamin Netanyahu’s hopes to win re-election, but which will also provoke international opposition.
Previous US administrations have treated Golan Heights as occupied Syrian territory, in line with UN security council resolutions. Trump declared his break with that policy in a tweet.
He said: “After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!”
Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, quickly tweeted his gratitude.
“At a time when Iran seeks to use Syria as a platform to destroy Israel, President Trump boldly recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights,” the Israeli prime minister wrote. “Thank you President Trump!”
The announcement marks a diplomatic coup for Netanyahu, two weeks before elections, and four days before he is due to visit Washington.
Administration officials had previously rebuffed Netanyahu’s pressure for recognition of Israel’s possession of the strategic border area, pointing out that Trump had already handed the Israeli leader a significant political gift by moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Recognition of the Golan would also set a postwar precedent for endorsing the conquest of territory by force, and could pave the way for US recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Palestinian occupied territories. In a recent state department report on human rights, the administration changed their description of the West Bank and Gaza from “occupied territories” to “Israeli-controlled territories”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...el-sovereignty
Recognizing sovereignty
Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!
9:50 AM - 21 Mar 2019
I'd prefer the United States fully recognize its sovereignty over its own southern border myself. Does President Trump really believe any American gives a flying rat's ass about what is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel in light of the complete lack of their own security?
I suspect this is primarily about trying to keep Netanyahu in office. Even so, whatever happened to America First?
http://voxday.blogspot.com/
ReplyAnother update
Trump says US will recognize Israel's sovereignty over Golan Heights
Israel captured Golan Heights from Syria after war in 1967
Netanyahu responds on Twitter: ‘Thank you President Trump!’
Donald Trump has announced that the US will recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in 1967, in a dramatic move likely to bolster Benjamin Netanyahu’s hopes to win re-election, but which will also provoke international opposition.
Previous US administrations have treated Golan Heights as occupied Syrian territory, in line with UN security council resolutions. Trump declared his break with that policy in a tweet.
He said: “After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!”
Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, quickly tweeted his gratitude.
“At a time when Iran seeks to use Syria as a platform to destroy Israel, President Trump boldly recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights,” the Israeli prime minister wrote. “Thank you President Trump!”
The announcement marks a diplomatic coup for Netanyahu, two weeks before elections, and four days before he is due to visit Washington.
Administration officials had previously rebuffed Netanyahu’s pressure for recognition of Israel’s possession of the strategic border area, pointing out that Trump had already handed the Israeli leader a significant political gift by moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Recognition of the Golan would also set a postwar precedent for endorsing the conquest of territory by force, and could pave the way for US recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Palestinian occupied territories. In a recent state department report on human rights, the administration changed their description of the West Bank and Gaza from “occupied territories” to “Israeli-controlled territories”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...el-sovereignty
Recognizing sovereignty
Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!
9:50 AM - 21 Mar 2019
I'd prefer the United States fully recognize its sovereignty over its own southern border myself. Does President Trump really believe any American gives a flying rat's ass about what is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel in light of the complete lack of their own security?
I suspect this is primarily about trying to keep Netanyahu in office. Even so, whatever happened to America First?
http://voxday.blogspot.com/
سيف الله
03-22-2019, 11:39 PM
Salaam
Like to share.
Blurb
Sputnik News interviews E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine. (March 22, 2019)
ReplyLike to share.
Blurb
Sputnik News interviews E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine. (March 22, 2019)
سيف الله
03-27-2019, 12:30 AM
Salaam
Another update
Netanyahu is not the Disease, he is a Symptom
In a recent thought-provoking article Gideon Levy, probably one of the last genuine Israeli voices for peace, claims that “It is not Netanyahu who is responsible for Israeli ‘racism, extreme nationalism, divisiveness, incitement, hatred, anxiety and corruption.’” Behind Netanyahu, Levy says, there’s a nation of voters and other elected officials that aren’t very different from their leader.
“Simply put, the people are the problem... There are those who have hated Arabs long before Netanyahu. There are those who despise blacks, detest foreigners, exploit the weak and look down their noses at the whole world – and not because of Netanyahu. There are those who believe they are the chosen people and therefore deserve everything.”
Levy reaffirms the observation that I have been pushing for two decades. The problem with Israel is not of a political kind. The conflict with the Palestinians or the Arabs is not of a political nature as some delusional characters within the Palestinian solidarity movement have been proclaiming for years. Israel defines itself as the Jewish state. In order to grasp Israel, its politics, its policies and the intrusive nature of its lobby, we must understand the nature of Jewishness. We must learn to define the differences between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the ideology). We have to understand how those terms are related to each other and how they influence Israeli and Jewish politics globally.
Levy writes that “there are those who think that after the Holocaust, they are permitted to do anything. There are those who believe that Israel is tops in the world in every field, that international law doesn’t apply to it, and that no one can tell it what to do. There are those who think Israelis are victims – always victims, the only victims – and that the whole world is against us. There are those who are convinced that Israel is allowed to do anything, simply because it can.”
In order to understand what Levy is referring to we must dig into the core of Jewish identification and once and for all grasp the notion of Jewish choseness. Levy contends that “racism and xenophobia are deeply entrenched here, far more deeply than any Netanyahu…The apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure; it probably won’t even be dented. One of the most racist nations in the world cannot complain about its prime minister’s racism.” Netanyahu as such, is not the disease. He is a mere symptom.
The devastating news is that neither the Israeli ‘Left’ nor the Jewish so-called ‘anti’ Zionist league are any less racist than their Zionist foes. The Israeli Left pushes for a ‘two state solution.’ It crudely ignores the Palestinian cause i.e. the Right of Return. The Israeli Left advocates segregation and ghettoization; not exactly the universal message of harmony one would expect from ‘leftists.’ Disturbingly, the Diaspora Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist Left is even more racially exclusive than the Israeli Right. As I have explored many times in the past, Corbyn’s ‘favourite Jewish political group namely, Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is a racially exclusive political cell. It wouldn’t allow gentiles into its Jews-only club. Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is no better. It will happily take donations from Goyim but will never allow those Goyim to become its board members.
Levy proclaims that “Netanyahu is the best thing to ever happen to Israeli politics – you can dump everything on him.” But in his most astute observation, which has been explored before by Uri Avnery (may he rest in peace) and yours truly, Levy continues, “It would be great if some local Nelson Mandela would arise, a brave leader with vision who would change the country’s basic values and lead a revolution. But no such person has been born here, and it’s doubtful he ever will be.”
Levy points at the core of the Zionist failure. If early Zionism was a promise to civilise the diaspora Jew by means of ‘homecoming,’ Israel happened to do the complete opposite. Not much is left out of the Zionist promise to make the Jews ‘people like all other people’: as Israel is about to perpetrate another colossal war crime in Gaza, we have to admit that we are dealing with an institutionally racist and dangerous identity like no other.
https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/201...e-is-a-symptom
ReplyAnother update
Netanyahu is not the Disease, he is a Symptom
In a recent thought-provoking article Gideon Levy, probably one of the last genuine Israeli voices for peace, claims that “It is not Netanyahu who is responsible for Israeli ‘racism, extreme nationalism, divisiveness, incitement, hatred, anxiety and corruption.’” Behind Netanyahu, Levy says, there’s a nation of voters and other elected officials that aren’t very different from their leader.
“Simply put, the people are the problem... There are those who have hated Arabs long before Netanyahu. There are those who despise blacks, detest foreigners, exploit the weak and look down their noses at the whole world – and not because of Netanyahu. There are those who believe they are the chosen people and therefore deserve everything.”
Levy reaffirms the observation that I have been pushing for two decades. The problem with Israel is not of a political kind. The conflict with the Palestinians or the Arabs is not of a political nature as some delusional characters within the Palestinian solidarity movement have been proclaiming for years. Israel defines itself as the Jewish state. In order to grasp Israel, its politics, its policies and the intrusive nature of its lobby, we must understand the nature of Jewishness. We must learn to define the differences between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the ideology). We have to understand how those terms are related to each other and how they influence Israeli and Jewish politics globally.
Levy writes that “there are those who think that after the Holocaust, they are permitted to do anything. There are those who believe that Israel is tops in the world in every field, that international law doesn’t apply to it, and that no one can tell it what to do. There are those who think Israelis are victims – always victims, the only victims – and that the whole world is against us. There are those who are convinced that Israel is allowed to do anything, simply because it can.”
In order to understand what Levy is referring to we must dig into the core of Jewish identification and once and for all grasp the notion of Jewish choseness. Levy contends that “racism and xenophobia are deeply entrenched here, far more deeply than any Netanyahu…The apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure; it probably won’t even be dented. One of the most racist nations in the world cannot complain about its prime minister’s racism.” Netanyahu as such, is not the disease. He is a mere symptom.
The devastating news is that neither the Israeli ‘Left’ nor the Jewish so-called ‘anti’ Zionist league are any less racist than their Zionist foes. The Israeli Left pushes for a ‘two state solution.’ It crudely ignores the Palestinian cause i.e. the Right of Return. The Israeli Left advocates segregation and ghettoization; not exactly the universal message of harmony one would expect from ‘leftists.’ Disturbingly, the Diaspora Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist Left is even more racially exclusive than the Israeli Right. As I have explored many times in the past, Corbyn’s ‘favourite Jewish political group namely, Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is a racially exclusive political cell. It wouldn’t allow gentiles into its Jews-only club. Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is no better. It will happily take donations from Goyim but will never allow those Goyim to become its board members.
Levy proclaims that “Netanyahu is the best thing to ever happen to Israeli politics – you can dump everything on him.” But in his most astute observation, which has been explored before by Uri Avnery (may he rest in peace) and yours truly, Levy continues, “It would be great if some local Nelson Mandela would arise, a brave leader with vision who would change the country’s basic values and lead a revolution. But no such person has been born here, and it’s doubtful he ever will be.”
Levy points at the core of the Zionist failure. If early Zionism was a promise to civilise the diaspora Jew by means of ‘homecoming,’ Israel happened to do the complete opposite. Not much is left out of the Zionist promise to make the Jews ‘people like all other people’: as Israel is about to perpetrate another colossal war crime in Gaza, we have to admit that we are dealing with an institutionally racist and dangerous identity like no other.
https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/201...e-is-a-symptom
سيف الله
04-23-2019, 12:09 PM
Salaam
Another update
Some of the topics Assange’s Wikileaks exposed:
Wikileaks published a number of diplomatic cables and emails that exposed Israeli plans and actions, and U.S. collusion, that Israel and its partisans wished to keep hidden. Below are some of them.
• Israel planned to keep Gaza on “brink of collapse”
In 2008 Wikileaks published a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Washington, that Israel had designated Gaza as a “hostile entity.”
The cable said: “As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed [to U.S. officials] on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge.”
The U.S. cable, classified “secret,” recommended that the U.S. try to persuade Israel to abandon this policy.The cable said that the U.S. should encourage Israel to “review its present policies (as requested by the Office of the Quartet Representative and the PA) while pressing the Israelis to approve as much funding each month as possible under security constraints…”
• Israel used control over Palestinian money to control Gaza
The leaked cable also described how Israel used its control over Palestinian currency to control Gaza. The cable said Israel’s “monetary policy towards Gaza is consistent with its declaration that Gaza is a ‘hostile entity.’
The cable reported that Israel “believes that maintaining the shekel as the currency of the Palestinian Territories is in Israel’s interests.”It reported that Israel “treats decisions regarding the amount of shekels in circulation in Gaza as a security matter.” Requests by Palestinian banks to transfer shekels into Gaza are approved or denied by the National Security Council (NSC), an organ of the Israeli security establishment, not by the Bank of Israel.
The cable reported that Israel’s NSC “has the final say in permitting new liquidity into Gaza” and used this power to suppress Gaza’s economy.The cable reported that Israel had decided “that Gaza should receive just enough money for the basic needs of the population but it is not interested in returning the Gazan economy to a state of normal commerce and business.”
• Israel colluded with PA and Fatah
A 2007 U.S. diplomatic cable, also marked secret, revealed the way in which Israel was using the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, the party of President Mahmoud Abbas.
The cable, from the U.S. embassy, reported information given the by Israeli Security Agency (ISA) Head Yuval Diskin to U.S. officials.
Diskin was concerned that Fatah’s weakness compared to Hamas “bodes ill for Israel,” especially since Israel had “established a very good working relationship” with the Palestinian Authority. He said that PA security agencies were sharing almost all the intelligence they collected with Israel. Diskin said: “They understand that Israel’s security is central to their survival in the struggle with Hamas in the West Bank.”
• Israel planned violence against Palestinian nonviolence
A 2010 U.S. cable published by Wikileaks was entitled: “IDF PLANS HARSHER METHODS WITH WEST BANK DEMONSTRATIONS.”
The cable, again from the U.S. embassy, reported that Israel was greatly concerned by Palestinian nonviolence.
A diplomat wrote: “Less violent [Palestinian] demonstrations [were] likely to stymie the IDF. As MOD Pol-Mil chief Amos Gilad told USG interlocutors recently, “we don’t do Gandhi very well.”
The cable reported that an official “expressed frustration with ongoing demonstrations in the West Bank.” He said that the IDF would start to be “more assertive in how it deals with these demonstrations, even demonstrations that appear peaceful.”
The cable reported that the official said Israel would “start sending trucks with ‘dirty water’ to break up these protests, even if they are not violent… (NOTE: dirty water is a reference to the IDF’s chemically treated water that duplicates the effects of skunk spray. End note.)”
The cable reported that Israeli officials had ordered the Palestinian security force commanders “that they must stop these demonstrations or the IDF will.”
• Israel’s nuclear monopoly, helping Israel by opposing Assad
Wikileaks posted an email memo to Hillary Clinton saying: “What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot not talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.
”The memo recommended: “The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability [sic] is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.” It reported: “Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.”
The 2012 memo was apparently by James P. Rubin, assistant secretary of state during the Bill Clinton administration (and husband of CNN’s Christiane Amanpour). Rubin emailed it to Hillary Clinton, who then forwarded it to her aide to print out for her.
• Susan Rice worked to protect Israel at the UN
Foreign Policy’s Colum Lynch reported on diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks from U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice. They showed Rice working to stymie a UN investigation into Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza, an investigation that led to the Goldstone report.
“In one pointed cable,” Lynch wrote, “Rice repeatedly prodded U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to block a recommendation of the board of inquiry to carry out a sweeping inquiry into alleged war crimes by Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants.
“In another cable, Rice issued a veiled warning to the president of the International Criminal Court, Sang-Hyun Song, that an investigation into alleged Israeli crimes could damage its standing with the United States at a time when the new administration was moving closer to the tribunal. ‘How the ICC handles issues concerning the Goldstone Report will be perceived by many in the US as a test for the ICC, as this is a very sensitive matter,’ she told him, according to a Nov. 3, 2009, cable from the U.S. mission to the United Nations.”
Another cable reveals that “Rice assured Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman during an Oct. 21, 2009, meeting in Tel Aviv that the United States had done its utmost to ‘blunt the effects of the Goldstone Report’ and that she was confident she could ‘build a blocking coalition’ to prevent any push for a probe by the Security Council, according to an Oct. 27, 2009 cable.”
Lynch wrote that the diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks “provide a rare glimpse behind the scenes at the U.N. as American diplomats sought to shield Israel’s military from outside scrutiny of its conduct during Operation Cast Lead.”
They “also demonstrate how the United States and Israel were granted privileged access to highly sensitive internal U.N. deliberations on an ‘independent’ U.N. board of inquiry into the Gaza war, raising questions about the independence of the process.”
• Eizenstat worked to influence Hillary on Israel
A 2015 Wikileak consisted of an email from former U.S. Ambassador to the EU Stuart Eizenstat to top Clinton foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan that was also sent to Hillary Clinton. The email revealed Eizenstat’s close ties to Israel and is another example of how advisors like Eizenstat and Rubin work to influence Clinton’s positions.
Eizenstat had held numerous influential positions in both Israel and the U.S., including Chief Domestic Policy Adviser under President Jimmy Carter and Executive Director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton.
His bio states that Eizenstat “served as the presidents’ special representative on Holocaust-related issues and negotiated major Holocaust restitution agreements with a number of European countries, and at the time of his ambassadorial nomination, he sat on the following boards: the Weizmann Institute of Science, The Jerusalem Foundation, Brandeis University, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Council for Excellence in Government Center for National Policy, the Overseas Development Council, the International Management and Development Institute, the American Jewish Committee and the UJA Federation of Greater Washington. He was chairman of the Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann Institute and served on the board of directors of Hercules Incorporated; PSI Energy, Inc.; and the Israel Discount Bank of New York.”
For his work, the Government of Israel presented Eizenstat with the Courage and Conscience Award.
Eizenstat noted in his email that the widely known Obama-Netanyahu animosity placed “Hillary in an extremely difficult position, caught between the President she served and the organized parts of the Jewish community.” He advised her on how to maneuver this.
Eizenstat wrote: “Permit me to suggest some points she might make. By way of background, I have very deep connections to the State of Israel and to its elected officials and leading academics. I go to Israel two to three times a year, perhaps 50 times since my first visit in 1965. My grandfather and great-grandfather are buried in Israel, and I have scores of relatives and friends there.”
Eizenstat explained his central role in US. Israel policies:
“During the Clinton Administration, I was responsible for the economic dimension of the peace process, working with Yasir Arafat, the Jordanians and the Israeli government…” He said that he co-chaired with Dennis Ross the Jewish People’s Policy Institute of Jerusalem (JPPI), a think tank funded by the Jewish Agency and major American Jewish federations and foundations, “focusing on strategic challenges facing Israel and the Diaspora around the world.”
Eizenstat recommended that Hillary “should stress the enduring commitment of the United States to Israel’s security interests, not only direct military threats, but attacks against Israel in the form of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign, on campuses in the U.S. and Europe. She should express grave concern for the increase in anti-Semitism in Europe and violent attacks by radical Islamic terrorists (Obama refuses to use this term; she will need to decide what language to use and then stick with it)…
“Third, and critically, she should express a strong feeling that Israel MUST remain a bipartisan issue, as it has been since its formation. She should sharply criticize those in the U.S. and in Israel who are injecting Israel into a partisan context…”
• Hillary’s campaign team advised that she only talk about Israel at private fundraisers
Wikileaks published emails showing that in 2015 Hillary Clinton’s campaign team was concerned that mentioning Israel during election speeches would alienate Democratic party activists.
Campaign manager Robby Mook emailed that they “shouldn’t have Israel at public events.” He was especially concerned about “activists.”
After some debate about strategy, speechwriter Dan Schwerin suggested a basic text for her to use that omitted Israel. He said, “Then she can drop in Israel when she’s with donors.”
• Israeli general admits that US and Israeli security interests “often clash”
A 2009 diplomatic cable describing a meeting Assistant Secretary of Defense Ambassador Alexander Vershbow with senior Israeli defense officials in Israel reported that an Israeli general “acknowledged the sometimes difficult position the U.S. finds itself in given its global interests, and conceded that Israel’s security focus is so narrow that its QME concerns often clash with broader American security interests in the region.”
The cable also showed Israeli officials promoting the belief that Iran was about to acquire nuclear weapons. The cable shows that US diplomats were skeptical, the report including the parenthetical comment: “It is unclear if the Israelis firmly believe this or are using worst-case estimates to raise greater urgency from the United States.”)
• Israeli Chief of Staff reveals Israel is preparing for a war against civilians
Wikileaks posted a Dec. 23, 2009 secret diplomatic cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv that described a briefing by IDF Chief of General Staff Lt General Gabi Ashkenazi of a U.S. Congressional delegation consisting of House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D, MO), Representative Steve Israel (D-NY), and Representative Tim Murphy (R, PA).
The cable reported: “Ashkenazi began the meeting by expressing his appreciation for the Committee’s support for Israel over the years.”
Ashkenazi “said he is preparing the IDF for a big war” and said that the next battle would be conducted in Gaza and southern Lebanon.
The cable also quoted Ashkenazi as telling the US representatives “the IDF cannot allow a situation in which it is restricted from operating in urban areas,” suggesting that the Israeli military would be even more violent than its invasion of Gaza a year before, in which Israeli forces killed about 1,400 Palestinians, including more than 900 civilians, many of them children. Middle East expert Juan Cole writes: “Planning to bomb civilian areas with foreknowledge that you will thereby kill large numbers of civilians is a war crime.
Ashkenazi admitted that “there were mistakes made.” The report said: “He noted that Israeli soldiers were also hit by mistake. The same tank battalion that hit the house of Dr. Abul Eish and killed his two daughters also hit an IDF infantry unit.”
Cole reports that Ashkenazi had told a delegation “that Israeli unmanned drones had had great success in identifying rocket emplacements in southern Lebanon, and that it had been aided in this endeavor by the US National Security Agency, which spies on communications.”
According to Cole, “Israel could have a peace treaty with Syria and Lebanon tomorrow by giving back the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms, and by accepting a two-state solution. Instead, its Dr. Strangeloves are planning out massive bombings of areas thick with innocent civilians and willing to subject Tel Aviv to two months worth of rocket fire.”
The impact of Israel’s actions on the U.S.
Cole discussed what this could mean for the United States:
“Nor will the United States be held harmless from the blowback in the region caused by another Israeli war of aggression. Before September 11, Israel hawks used to make fun of Americans who warned that eventually there would be hell to pay for the Israeli strangulation of the Palestinians (for the argument, see this posting). And, imagine what a war would do to gasoline prices and to the world economy.”
Cole concluded: “My deepest fear is that US support for Israeli militarism, and the terrorism that support inevitably engenders, will be what finally finishes off the civil liberties enshrined in the American Constitution.”
Former US Treasury Undersecretary and journalist Paul Craig Roberts worries that this is already in process: “As the grand jury [for Assange] was secret because of ‘national security,’ will the trial also be secret and the evidence secret? Is what we have here a Star Chamber proceeding in which a person is indicted in secret and convicted in secret on secret evidence? This is the procedure used by tyrannical governments who have no case against the person they intend to destroy.”
• Israel misled public about Hamas; Israel opposes a lasting ceasefire
Another secret US diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks reported on a trip to Israel by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (R-NY). Gillibrand’s group was briefed on “the Gaza security situation” by the IDF Southern Command and the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) on September 2nd and 3rd, 2009.
(At the time, Gillibrand was facing an upcoming fight to retain her position in the Senate in what was expected to be a close election in 2010 – she had been appointed by the governor to the seat after Hillary became Secretary of State).
The cable reported: “Israel Major General Yoav Gallant told the CODEL [Congressional Delegation] that the Southern Command’s role is to manage the threat from Gaza.”
While Israel publicly portrays Gaza as filled with extremists who hate Israel because of Islamic extremism, the Wikileaks disclosure shows that privately its officials tell a different story.
Gallant was quoted as telling Gillibrand: “Sixty percent of Gaza’s population is under the age of twenty and the average income is one-twenty-fifth of the average income of Israelis in Sderot (a relatively poor Israeli town). Gaza has no natural resources except for fishing. Those factors would be reason enough for Gazans to fight, even without religious extremism.”
Gallant admitted that Israel opposed a lasting ceasefire with Hamas, since “a lasting ceasefire is likely to lead to a stronger Hamas.”
An Israeli official said that one of the reasons that Fatah couldn’t make concessions to reconcile with Hamas was “because of the U.S. position,” suggesting that the US has played a role in the continuing division between Hamas and Fatah.
The briefing disclosed that Israeli officials were displeased that Egypt didn’t always do what Israel government told it to do. An Israeli official complained “that Shin Bet and the Mossad gave Egyptian intelligence the names of the top 300 smugglers in the Sinai, but Egypt did not act against any of them.”
While Israel always blames Hamas for any and all violence against Israel, the cable revealed that privately Israeli officials are aware that other, newer groups are often responsible.
Israeli Officials said that these groups “oppose the rule of Hamas,” which has tried to suppress them.
• Israel & US decide to hide delivery of US bunker busting bombs to Israel (for targeting Iran)
A secret 2009 diplomatic cable reported on the “Executive Session of the 40th Joint Political Military Group (JPMG)”. The US group was led by Andrew Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. They met with top Israeli officials.
The cable reported that the combined group decided that the upcoming delivery of GBU-28 bunker busting bombs to Israel “should be handled quietly to avoid any allegations that the USG [United States Government] is helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran.”
The cable also reported: “The GOI [Government of Israel] made the case for “crippling sanctions” against Iran.
• Israeli was concerned about Russia & Turkey
The same 2009 secret cable reported that Israel was extremely concerned about Russia, reporting:
“The GOI [Government of Israel] was not confident that Moscow will be helpful in any Iranian sanctions effort — GOI participants opined that Russia is considered a ‘mystery’ with respect to their views on Iran. The GOI raised the Russian S-300 sale to Iran, noting that the transfer is still pending. GOI participants argued that Moscow seeks a return to superpower status.” (This suggests that Israel’s continual concern about Russia could be a factor in the promotion of the widespread – and dangerous – anti-Russia discourse in the US.)
Israel was also worried that Turkey wasn’t toeing the Israeli line:
“The GOI raised the current direction the Government of Turkey has taken toward Syria and Iran — and away from Israel. Israeli participants argued that Turkey has been supportive of Hamas in Gaza while pursuing a more ‘Islamic’ direction with the goal of becoming a regional superpower. The GOI argued that the Turkish military is losing its ability to influence government decisions and strategic direction. After this past year, GOI participants said they have a ‘bad feeling’ about Turkey.”
• Efforts “at the highest levels” of the US government to remove restrictions for Israelis concerning dual citizenship
The same 2009 secret cable discussed above also revealed that there were efforts at the top levels of the US government to allow dual Israel citizens in the US to have access to sensitive technology:
“The GOI raised the issue of dual citizenship within the context of access to sensitive technology. U.S. participants acknowledged Israeli concerns, noting that the issue is being worked at the highest levels of the USG to reach consensus on how to proceed.”
(Dual citizenship used to be prohibited in the United States, until this was overturned in 1967 on behalf of Israel; Abe Fortas was the swing vote.)
https://israelpalestinenews.org/juli...luding-israel/
To add
ReplyAnother update
Some of the topics Assange’s Wikileaks exposed:
Wikileaks published a number of diplomatic cables and emails that exposed Israeli plans and actions, and U.S. collusion, that Israel and its partisans wished to keep hidden. Below are some of them.
• Israel planned to keep Gaza on “brink of collapse”
In 2008 Wikileaks published a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Washington, that Israel had designated Gaza as a “hostile entity.”
The cable said: “As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed [to U.S. officials] on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge.”
The U.S. cable, classified “secret,” recommended that the U.S. try to persuade Israel to abandon this policy.The cable said that the U.S. should encourage Israel to “review its present policies (as requested by the Office of the Quartet Representative and the PA) while pressing the Israelis to approve as much funding each month as possible under security constraints…”
• Israel used control over Palestinian money to control Gaza
The leaked cable also described how Israel used its control over Palestinian currency to control Gaza. The cable said Israel’s “monetary policy towards Gaza is consistent with its declaration that Gaza is a ‘hostile entity.’
The cable reported that Israel “believes that maintaining the shekel as the currency of the Palestinian Territories is in Israel’s interests.”It reported that Israel “treats decisions regarding the amount of shekels in circulation in Gaza as a security matter.” Requests by Palestinian banks to transfer shekels into Gaza are approved or denied by the National Security Council (NSC), an organ of the Israeli security establishment, not by the Bank of Israel.
The cable reported that Israel’s NSC “has the final say in permitting new liquidity into Gaza” and used this power to suppress Gaza’s economy.The cable reported that Israel had decided “that Gaza should receive just enough money for the basic needs of the population but it is not interested in returning the Gazan economy to a state of normal commerce and business.”
• Israel colluded with PA and Fatah
A 2007 U.S. diplomatic cable, also marked secret, revealed the way in which Israel was using the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, the party of President Mahmoud Abbas.
The cable, from the U.S. embassy, reported information given the by Israeli Security Agency (ISA) Head Yuval Diskin to U.S. officials.
Diskin was concerned that Fatah’s weakness compared to Hamas “bodes ill for Israel,” especially since Israel had “established a very good working relationship” with the Palestinian Authority. He said that PA security agencies were sharing almost all the intelligence they collected with Israel. Diskin said: “They understand that Israel’s security is central to their survival in the struggle with Hamas in the West Bank.”
• Israel planned violence against Palestinian nonviolence
A 2010 U.S. cable published by Wikileaks was entitled: “IDF PLANS HARSHER METHODS WITH WEST BANK DEMONSTRATIONS.”
The cable, again from the U.S. embassy, reported that Israel was greatly concerned by Palestinian nonviolence.
A diplomat wrote: “Less violent [Palestinian] demonstrations [were] likely to stymie the IDF. As MOD Pol-Mil chief Amos Gilad told USG interlocutors recently, “we don’t do Gandhi very well.”
The cable reported that an official “expressed frustration with ongoing demonstrations in the West Bank.” He said that the IDF would start to be “more assertive in how it deals with these demonstrations, even demonstrations that appear peaceful.”
The cable reported that the official said Israel would “start sending trucks with ‘dirty water’ to break up these protests, even if they are not violent… (NOTE: dirty water is a reference to the IDF’s chemically treated water that duplicates the effects of skunk spray. End note.)”
The cable reported that Israeli officials had ordered the Palestinian security force commanders “that they must stop these demonstrations or the IDF will.”
• Israel’s nuclear monopoly, helping Israel by opposing Assad
Wikileaks posted an email memo to Hillary Clinton saying: “What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot not talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.
”The memo recommended: “The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability [sic] is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.” It reported: “Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.”
The 2012 memo was apparently by James P. Rubin, assistant secretary of state during the Bill Clinton administration (and husband of CNN’s Christiane Amanpour). Rubin emailed it to Hillary Clinton, who then forwarded it to her aide to print out for her.
• Susan Rice worked to protect Israel at the UN
Foreign Policy’s Colum Lynch reported on diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks from U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice. They showed Rice working to stymie a UN investigation into Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza, an investigation that led to the Goldstone report.
“In one pointed cable,” Lynch wrote, “Rice repeatedly prodded U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to block a recommendation of the board of inquiry to carry out a sweeping inquiry into alleged war crimes by Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants.
“In another cable, Rice issued a veiled warning to the president of the International Criminal Court, Sang-Hyun Song, that an investigation into alleged Israeli crimes could damage its standing with the United States at a time when the new administration was moving closer to the tribunal. ‘How the ICC handles issues concerning the Goldstone Report will be perceived by many in the US as a test for the ICC, as this is a very sensitive matter,’ she told him, according to a Nov. 3, 2009, cable from the U.S. mission to the United Nations.”
Another cable reveals that “Rice assured Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman during an Oct. 21, 2009, meeting in Tel Aviv that the United States had done its utmost to ‘blunt the effects of the Goldstone Report’ and that she was confident she could ‘build a blocking coalition’ to prevent any push for a probe by the Security Council, according to an Oct. 27, 2009 cable.”
Lynch wrote that the diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks “provide a rare glimpse behind the scenes at the U.N. as American diplomats sought to shield Israel’s military from outside scrutiny of its conduct during Operation Cast Lead.”
They “also demonstrate how the United States and Israel were granted privileged access to highly sensitive internal U.N. deliberations on an ‘independent’ U.N. board of inquiry into the Gaza war, raising questions about the independence of the process.”
• Eizenstat worked to influence Hillary on Israel
A 2015 Wikileak consisted of an email from former U.S. Ambassador to the EU Stuart Eizenstat to top Clinton foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan that was also sent to Hillary Clinton. The email revealed Eizenstat’s close ties to Israel and is another example of how advisors like Eizenstat and Rubin work to influence Clinton’s positions.
Eizenstat had held numerous influential positions in both Israel and the U.S., including Chief Domestic Policy Adviser under President Jimmy Carter and Executive Director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton.
His bio states that Eizenstat “served as the presidents’ special representative on Holocaust-related issues and negotiated major Holocaust restitution agreements with a number of European countries, and at the time of his ambassadorial nomination, he sat on the following boards: the Weizmann Institute of Science, The Jerusalem Foundation, Brandeis University, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Council for Excellence in Government Center for National Policy, the Overseas Development Council, the International Management and Development Institute, the American Jewish Committee and the UJA Federation of Greater Washington. He was chairman of the Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann Institute and served on the board of directors of Hercules Incorporated; PSI Energy, Inc.; and the Israel Discount Bank of New York.”
For his work, the Government of Israel presented Eizenstat with the Courage and Conscience Award.
Eizenstat noted in his email that the widely known Obama-Netanyahu animosity placed “Hillary in an extremely difficult position, caught between the President she served and the organized parts of the Jewish community.” He advised her on how to maneuver this.
Eizenstat wrote: “Permit me to suggest some points she might make. By way of background, I have very deep connections to the State of Israel and to its elected officials and leading academics. I go to Israel two to three times a year, perhaps 50 times since my first visit in 1965. My grandfather and great-grandfather are buried in Israel, and I have scores of relatives and friends there.”
Eizenstat explained his central role in US. Israel policies:
“During the Clinton Administration, I was responsible for the economic dimension of the peace process, working with Yasir Arafat, the Jordanians and the Israeli government…” He said that he co-chaired with Dennis Ross the Jewish People’s Policy Institute of Jerusalem (JPPI), a think tank funded by the Jewish Agency and major American Jewish federations and foundations, “focusing on strategic challenges facing Israel and the Diaspora around the world.”
Eizenstat recommended that Hillary “should stress the enduring commitment of the United States to Israel’s security interests, not only direct military threats, but attacks against Israel in the form of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign, on campuses in the U.S. and Europe. She should express grave concern for the increase in anti-Semitism in Europe and violent attacks by radical Islamic terrorists (Obama refuses to use this term; she will need to decide what language to use and then stick with it)…
“Third, and critically, she should express a strong feeling that Israel MUST remain a bipartisan issue, as it has been since its formation. She should sharply criticize those in the U.S. and in Israel who are injecting Israel into a partisan context…”
• Hillary’s campaign team advised that she only talk about Israel at private fundraisers
Wikileaks published emails showing that in 2015 Hillary Clinton’s campaign team was concerned that mentioning Israel during election speeches would alienate Democratic party activists.
Campaign manager Robby Mook emailed that they “shouldn’t have Israel at public events.” He was especially concerned about “activists.”
After some debate about strategy, speechwriter Dan Schwerin suggested a basic text for her to use that omitted Israel. He said, “Then she can drop in Israel when she’s with donors.”
• Israeli general admits that US and Israeli security interests “often clash”
A 2009 diplomatic cable describing a meeting Assistant Secretary of Defense Ambassador Alexander Vershbow with senior Israeli defense officials in Israel reported that an Israeli general “acknowledged the sometimes difficult position the U.S. finds itself in given its global interests, and conceded that Israel’s security focus is so narrow that its QME concerns often clash with broader American security interests in the region.”
The cable also showed Israeli officials promoting the belief that Iran was about to acquire nuclear weapons. The cable shows that US diplomats were skeptical, the report including the parenthetical comment: “It is unclear if the Israelis firmly believe this or are using worst-case estimates to raise greater urgency from the United States.”)
• Israeli Chief of Staff reveals Israel is preparing for a war against civilians
Wikileaks posted a Dec. 23, 2009 secret diplomatic cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv that described a briefing by IDF Chief of General Staff Lt General Gabi Ashkenazi of a U.S. Congressional delegation consisting of House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D, MO), Representative Steve Israel (D-NY), and Representative Tim Murphy (R, PA).
The cable reported: “Ashkenazi began the meeting by expressing his appreciation for the Committee’s support for Israel over the years.”
Ashkenazi “said he is preparing the IDF for a big war” and said that the next battle would be conducted in Gaza and southern Lebanon.
The cable also quoted Ashkenazi as telling the US representatives “the IDF cannot allow a situation in which it is restricted from operating in urban areas,” suggesting that the Israeli military would be even more violent than its invasion of Gaza a year before, in which Israeli forces killed about 1,400 Palestinians, including more than 900 civilians, many of them children. Middle East expert Juan Cole writes: “Planning to bomb civilian areas with foreknowledge that you will thereby kill large numbers of civilians is a war crime.
Ashkenazi admitted that “there were mistakes made.” The report said: “He noted that Israeli soldiers were also hit by mistake. The same tank battalion that hit the house of Dr. Abul Eish and killed his two daughters also hit an IDF infantry unit.”
Cole reports that Ashkenazi had told a delegation “that Israeli unmanned drones had had great success in identifying rocket emplacements in southern Lebanon, and that it had been aided in this endeavor by the US National Security Agency, which spies on communications.”
According to Cole, “Israel could have a peace treaty with Syria and Lebanon tomorrow by giving back the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms, and by accepting a two-state solution. Instead, its Dr. Strangeloves are planning out massive bombings of areas thick with innocent civilians and willing to subject Tel Aviv to two months worth of rocket fire.”
The impact of Israel’s actions on the U.S.
Cole discussed what this could mean for the United States:
“Nor will the United States be held harmless from the blowback in the region caused by another Israeli war of aggression. Before September 11, Israel hawks used to make fun of Americans who warned that eventually there would be hell to pay for the Israeli strangulation of the Palestinians (for the argument, see this posting). And, imagine what a war would do to gasoline prices and to the world economy.”
Cole concluded: “My deepest fear is that US support for Israeli militarism, and the terrorism that support inevitably engenders, will be what finally finishes off the civil liberties enshrined in the American Constitution.”
Former US Treasury Undersecretary and journalist Paul Craig Roberts worries that this is already in process: “As the grand jury [for Assange] was secret because of ‘national security,’ will the trial also be secret and the evidence secret? Is what we have here a Star Chamber proceeding in which a person is indicted in secret and convicted in secret on secret evidence? This is the procedure used by tyrannical governments who have no case against the person they intend to destroy.”
• Israel misled public about Hamas; Israel opposes a lasting ceasefire
Another secret US diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks reported on a trip to Israel by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (R-NY). Gillibrand’s group was briefed on “the Gaza security situation” by the IDF Southern Command and the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) on September 2nd and 3rd, 2009.
(At the time, Gillibrand was facing an upcoming fight to retain her position in the Senate in what was expected to be a close election in 2010 – she had been appointed by the governor to the seat after Hillary became Secretary of State).
The cable reported: “Israel Major General Yoav Gallant told the CODEL [Congressional Delegation] that the Southern Command’s role is to manage the threat from Gaza.”
While Israel publicly portrays Gaza as filled with extremists who hate Israel because of Islamic extremism, the Wikileaks disclosure shows that privately its officials tell a different story.
Gallant was quoted as telling Gillibrand: “Sixty percent of Gaza’s population is under the age of twenty and the average income is one-twenty-fifth of the average income of Israelis in Sderot (a relatively poor Israeli town). Gaza has no natural resources except for fishing. Those factors would be reason enough for Gazans to fight, even without religious extremism.”
Gallant admitted that Israel opposed a lasting ceasefire with Hamas, since “a lasting ceasefire is likely to lead to a stronger Hamas.”
An Israeli official said that one of the reasons that Fatah couldn’t make concessions to reconcile with Hamas was “because of the U.S. position,” suggesting that the US has played a role in the continuing division between Hamas and Fatah.
The briefing disclosed that Israeli officials were displeased that Egypt didn’t always do what Israel government told it to do. An Israeli official complained “that Shin Bet and the Mossad gave Egyptian intelligence the names of the top 300 smugglers in the Sinai, but Egypt did not act against any of them.”
While Israel always blames Hamas for any and all violence against Israel, the cable revealed that privately Israeli officials are aware that other, newer groups are often responsible.
Israeli Officials said that these groups “oppose the rule of Hamas,” which has tried to suppress them.
• Israel & US decide to hide delivery of US bunker busting bombs to Israel (for targeting Iran)
A secret 2009 diplomatic cable reported on the “Executive Session of the 40th Joint Political Military Group (JPMG)”. The US group was led by Andrew Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. They met with top Israeli officials.
The cable reported that the combined group decided that the upcoming delivery of GBU-28 bunker busting bombs to Israel “should be handled quietly to avoid any allegations that the USG [United States Government] is helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran.”
The cable also reported: “The GOI [Government of Israel] made the case for “crippling sanctions” against Iran.
• Israeli was concerned about Russia & Turkey
The same 2009 secret cable reported that Israel was extremely concerned about Russia, reporting:
“The GOI [Government of Israel] was not confident that Moscow will be helpful in any Iranian sanctions effort — GOI participants opined that Russia is considered a ‘mystery’ with respect to their views on Iran. The GOI raised the Russian S-300 sale to Iran, noting that the transfer is still pending. GOI participants argued that Moscow seeks a return to superpower status.” (This suggests that Israel’s continual concern about Russia could be a factor in the promotion of the widespread – and dangerous – anti-Russia discourse in the US.)
Israel was also worried that Turkey wasn’t toeing the Israeli line:
“The GOI raised the current direction the Government of Turkey has taken toward Syria and Iran — and away from Israel. Israeli participants argued that Turkey has been supportive of Hamas in Gaza while pursuing a more ‘Islamic’ direction with the goal of becoming a regional superpower. The GOI argued that the Turkish military is losing its ability to influence government decisions and strategic direction. After this past year, GOI participants said they have a ‘bad feeling’ about Turkey.”
• Efforts “at the highest levels” of the US government to remove restrictions for Israelis concerning dual citizenship
The same 2009 secret cable discussed above also revealed that there were efforts at the top levels of the US government to allow dual Israel citizens in the US to have access to sensitive technology:
“The GOI raised the issue of dual citizenship within the context of access to sensitive technology. U.S. participants acknowledged Israeli concerns, noting that the issue is being worked at the highest levels of the USG to reach consensus on how to proceed.”
(Dual citizenship used to be prohibited in the United States, until this was overturned in 1967 on behalf of Israel; Abe Fortas was the swing vote.)
https://israelpalestinenews.org/juli...luding-israel/
To add
CuriousonTruth
04-23-2019, 01:35 PM
Huh so Assad wasn't an Israeli dog after all. He still needed to be removed though because his hegemony came from France.
ReplyPhysicist
04-23-2019, 05:26 PM
The complete picture should include also Russia and China.
So much antiglobalist propaganda, while antiglobalism itself has biggest danger.
Consider regional specialization and antiglobalism together:
For example,
Industrial facilities in China.
Research and engineering in US and Israel.
Some dark tech may be done in Russia.
...
Due to antiglobalism, tensions and local issues only small wealthy elite, who has all necessary connections may have access to all parts and beat all possible competitions.
- - - Updated - - -
What if, say that group decided to get military control over the rest of the world with the army of billion drone swarms.
They can quitely achieve such production levels only in China. China can blindly produce parts for these, but has no chance to develop it by itself. Neither really understand what is it for.
In US they already do research on tiny military drone swarms, but since no one seen mass production, public assumes it's for some small anti-terrorist operations. If there will be any software in it, it will have just some general functions.
In Russia, NK, etc countries, they can form group of engineers who will ask no questions and will quietly disappear afterwards, so it will be convenient to assemble actual software for drones, with face recognition and whatever they like.
Just for an example of what can be done in such separated world.
ReplySo much antiglobalist propaganda, while antiglobalism itself has biggest danger.
Consider regional specialization and antiglobalism together:
For example,
Industrial facilities in China.
Research and engineering in US and Israel.
Some dark tech may be done in Russia.
...
Due to antiglobalism, tensions and local issues only small wealthy elite, who has all necessary connections may have access to all parts and beat all possible competitions.
- - - Updated - - -
What if, say that group decided to get military control over the rest of the world with the army of billion drone swarms.
They can quitely achieve such production levels only in China. China can blindly produce parts for these, but has no chance to develop it by itself. Neither really understand what is it for.
In US they already do research on tiny military drone swarms, but since no one seen mass production, public assumes it's for some small anti-terrorist operations. If there will be any software in it, it will have just some general functions.
In Russia, NK, etc countries, they can form group of engineers who will ask no questions and will quietly disappear afterwards, so it will be convenient to assemble actual software for drones, with face recognition and whatever they like.
Just for an example of what can be done in such separated world.
سيف الله
04-28-2019, 08:46 PM
Salaam
Globalism is a great danger to the world, not only to Islamic societies and culture. The attempt to create one size fits New World Order (Neo-Babelism) will inevitably fail.
Another update. What is the point of this? :facepalm:
British Muslim leaders continue to engage with Zionists
British Muslim organisations are continuing to engage with Zionist groups and figures in the UK and Israel despite the Muslim community’s widespread opposition to such initiatives.
Earlier this month, seven British Muslim leaders went on a trip to occupied Jerusalem, including visits to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and the Western Wall.
The delegation included Imam Dr Musharraf Hussain, the chief executive of Nottingham’s Karima Institute; Imam Asim Hafiz, the first Muslim Chaplain to the British Armed Forces; Shaykh Ghulam Rabbani; and Shaykh Mohammad Asrar, who heads the largest mosque in Leeds.
The delegation also visited al-Aqsa Mosque and then journeyed to the Palestinian Authority, meeting leaders in Rawabi and Palestinians in East Jerusalem.
Speaking to the Israeli i24 News channel, Imam Hafiz said: “To come here and actually see that people are going about their daily lives, and people from the Jewish community do interact with the Muslim community here, the Arab community, is absolutely fascinating.”
Rabbi David Rosen, an adviser to the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, said he “thoroughly welcomed” the initiative, with the second such trip being planned for September.
“The more we can do to break down barriers and stereotypes, the better world we will live in,” he said, adding that while senior Christian and Sikh leaders have visited Israel, it is extremely rare for senior British Muslim leaders to visit through auspices other than the Palestinian Authority.
Muslim Aid, East London Mosque and the MCB
On April 3 the Zionist Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner spoke at a “Honouring the Christchurch Victims,” a parliamentary reception which was organised by Muslim Aid in partnership with the East London Mosque and the Muslim Council of Britain.
Rabbi Janner-Klausner, who lived in Israel for 15 years and has been described as a “progressive Zionist,” urged politicians and wider society to learn from New Zealand’s response to last month’s mosque shootings which left 50 dead and dozens injured.
She said: “Jews and Muslims have much in common, including experiencing a worrying increase in the number of attacks against us in Britain. Anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred are scourges on our country, and both must be countered with determination and vigour by all sections of society, including the media, political parties and ourselves. We are so much stronger when we fight hate together”.
Rabbi Janner-Klausner wrote in the The Jewish Chronicle last year that she has been in love with Israel as long as she can remember.
“I love her contours, her sounds and her smells. Her language is the heart-language that superseded my mother tongue. Her language is the language of my prayers, of my strongest songs and my true soul. I lived with her for many joyful years and now I am away from her in another land and I yearn for her.”
East London Mosque and Muslim Aid last year held Mitzvah Day which was organised by the Zionist Laura Marks and sponsored by Our Israel, Our Future.
5Pillars approached East London Mosque for comment but did not receive a response.
Lancashire Council of Mosques and Raza Jamia Masjid
On a two-day visit to Lancashire in March, senior representatives from the pro Israel, Zionist Board of Deputies of British Jews met with the leadership of Lancashire Council of Mosques of Mosques, the leader of Blackburn with Darwen Council Cllr Mohammed Khan, and equalities expert Cllr Saima Afzal.
They also visited Raza Jamia Masjid in Accrington, from where Board of Deputies Senior Vice-President Sheila Gewolb said: “I am absolutely horrified to hear of this terrorist attack on Muslims in New Zealand. The murder of innocent people at prayer is a callous, depraved act. By visiting mosques and Muslim communities in Lancashire, we are saying loud and clear that the Jewish community are allies and friends to Muslims.
“We are leaving Lancashire now with even stronger relationships with our Muslim friends. We will continue fighting anti-Muslim hatred no matter where it arises, as we have done before, whether it is on the street, in the media, or in politics.”
5Pillars contacted both the Lancashire Council of Mosques and Raza Jamia Masjid for comment but did not receive a response.
Over the past few years pro Israel organisations in the UK have been promoting interfaith gatherings with Muslims, presenting them as harmless community relationship-building events. The government is also encouraging this type of activity through funding.
But many Muslims feel they are a deliberate tactic to firmly establish Israel as a fait accompli, to neuter criticism of it and to divide groups which could pose a threat to it.
They say the thinking behind this strategy is to make personal connections with influential Muslims so it becomes more difficult for those Muslims to become harsh critics of Israel for fear of disrupting those relationships or rocking the boat.
Reza Kazim of the Islamic Human Rights Commission told 5Pillars: “Some of the Muslim leadership is using the prism of Zionism through which to view their interaction with the Establishment in order to get some crumbs thrown their way from the top table and a pat on the head for being a good Muslim. To achieve this they sell the Palestinians down the river and profess their subservience to the Zionist establishment.”
https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/04/23/br...with-zionists/
Meanwhile.
ReplyGlobalism is a great danger to the world, not only to Islamic societies and culture. The attempt to create one size fits New World Order (Neo-Babelism) will inevitably fail.
Another update. What is the point of this? :facepalm:
British Muslim leaders continue to engage with Zionists
British Muslim organisations are continuing to engage with Zionist groups and figures in the UK and Israel despite the Muslim community’s widespread opposition to such initiatives.
Earlier this month, seven British Muslim leaders went on a trip to occupied Jerusalem, including visits to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and the Western Wall.
The delegation included Imam Dr Musharraf Hussain, the chief executive of Nottingham’s Karima Institute; Imam Asim Hafiz, the first Muslim Chaplain to the British Armed Forces; Shaykh Ghulam Rabbani; and Shaykh Mohammad Asrar, who heads the largest mosque in Leeds.
The delegation also visited al-Aqsa Mosque and then journeyed to the Palestinian Authority, meeting leaders in Rawabi and Palestinians in East Jerusalem.
Speaking to the Israeli i24 News channel, Imam Hafiz said: “To come here and actually see that people are going about their daily lives, and people from the Jewish community do interact with the Muslim community here, the Arab community, is absolutely fascinating.”
Rabbi David Rosen, an adviser to the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, said he “thoroughly welcomed” the initiative, with the second such trip being planned for September.
“The more we can do to break down barriers and stereotypes, the better world we will live in,” he said, adding that while senior Christian and Sikh leaders have visited Israel, it is extremely rare for senior British Muslim leaders to visit through auspices other than the Palestinian Authority.
Muslim Aid, East London Mosque and the MCB
On April 3 the Zionist Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner spoke at a “Honouring the Christchurch Victims,” a parliamentary reception which was organised by Muslim Aid in partnership with the East London Mosque and the Muslim Council of Britain.
Rabbi Janner-Klausner, who lived in Israel for 15 years and has been described as a “progressive Zionist,” urged politicians and wider society to learn from New Zealand’s response to last month’s mosque shootings which left 50 dead and dozens injured.
She said: “Jews and Muslims have much in common, including experiencing a worrying increase in the number of attacks against us in Britain. Anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred are scourges on our country, and both must be countered with determination and vigour by all sections of society, including the media, political parties and ourselves. We are so much stronger when we fight hate together”.
Rabbi Janner-Klausner wrote in the The Jewish Chronicle last year that she has been in love with Israel as long as she can remember.
“I love her contours, her sounds and her smells. Her language is the heart-language that superseded my mother tongue. Her language is the language of my prayers, of my strongest songs and my true soul. I lived with her for many joyful years and now I am away from her in another land and I yearn for her.”
East London Mosque and Muslim Aid last year held Mitzvah Day which was organised by the Zionist Laura Marks and sponsored by Our Israel, Our Future.
5Pillars approached East London Mosque for comment but did not receive a response.
Lancashire Council of Mosques and Raza Jamia Masjid
On a two-day visit to Lancashire in March, senior representatives from the pro Israel, Zionist Board of Deputies of British Jews met with the leadership of Lancashire Council of Mosques of Mosques, the leader of Blackburn with Darwen Council Cllr Mohammed Khan, and equalities expert Cllr Saima Afzal.
They also visited Raza Jamia Masjid in Accrington, from where Board of Deputies Senior Vice-President Sheila Gewolb said: “I am absolutely horrified to hear of this terrorist attack on Muslims in New Zealand. The murder of innocent people at prayer is a callous, depraved act. By visiting mosques and Muslim communities in Lancashire, we are saying loud and clear that the Jewish community are allies and friends to Muslims.
“We are leaving Lancashire now with even stronger relationships with our Muslim friends. We will continue fighting anti-Muslim hatred no matter where it arises, as we have done before, whether it is on the street, in the media, or in politics.”
5Pillars contacted both the Lancashire Council of Mosques and Raza Jamia Masjid for comment but did not receive a response.
Over the past few years pro Israel organisations in the UK have been promoting interfaith gatherings with Muslims, presenting them as harmless community relationship-building events. The government is also encouraging this type of activity through funding.
But many Muslims feel they are a deliberate tactic to firmly establish Israel as a fait accompli, to neuter criticism of it and to divide groups which could pose a threat to it.
They say the thinking behind this strategy is to make personal connections with influential Muslims so it becomes more difficult for those Muslims to become harsh critics of Israel for fear of disrupting those relationships or rocking the boat.
Reza Kazim of the Islamic Human Rights Commission told 5Pillars: “Some of the Muslim leadership is using the prism of Zionism through which to view their interaction with the Establishment in order to get some crumbs thrown their way from the top table and a pat on the head for being a good Muslim. To achieve this they sell the Palestinians down the river and profess their subservience to the Zionist establishment.”
https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/04/23/br...with-zionists/
Meanwhile.
سيف الله
04-30-2019, 08:55 PM
Salaam
Another update
Netanyahu's Israel will declare an apartheid state. Will the West do nothing?
The world’s leaders will have no choice but to acknowledge that under their radar, a second South Africa-style apartheid state has been declared
he world revolves on its axis, nothing has changed, even after the recent election in Israel.
Chosen to lead Israel for the fifth time, Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to instal the most nationalist and rightist government in the country’s history – and meanwhile the world seems to proceed as usual.
Unconditional support
For decades now, Israel has continually spat in the face of the rest of the planet – with casual disdain for international law, and with complete disregard for the explicit decisions and detailed policies adopted by global institutions and by most of the world’s national governments.
Out there in the world, however, all that spittle somehow passes for raindrops. The election came and went with no discernible effect on the blindly automatic support for Israel by European governments and, of course, by the Americans too: unconditional, without reservations, apparently unchanged. Evidently what was is what will be.
Israel, though, has changed during the course of Netanyahu’s long reign. This talented Israeli statesman is leaving his mark on the profile of his country, with deep and lasting effect - more so than anticipated or even apparent.
Yes, it’s true that leftist governments in Israel also did their utmost to preserve the Israeli occupation forever and had no intention, not for one moment, of ever bringing it to an end – but Netanyahu is taking Israel much farther afield, to places even more extreme.
He is damaging what constitutes acceptable governance within Israel’s recognised sovereign territory, even with respect to its Jewish citizens. The very face of the "only democracy in the Middle East", which has long functioned mainly to the benefit of Jewish Israelis who comprise its privileged class, is being altered now by Netanyahu and company.
Darling of the West
Meanwhile, incredibly, the response of the world is to alter nothing in the support it has been extending to Israel during all the years of Netanyahu’s rule, as if in this latest round he were changing nothing, as if the shifting positions taken by Israel will neither augment nor diminish that support.
With or without Netanyahu, Israel remains the darling of the West. No other country enjoys the same level of military, economic, diplomatic and moral support, no strings attached. But the next Israeli administration, the fifth Netanyahu government, is getting ready to announce a change that the world will finally find difficult to ignore.
The new government is poised to rip the last layer of mask from its real face. Israel’s main asset, in casting itself as a liberal democracy that shares values dear to the West, is about to be demolished.
Will the West continue supporting it, then? The West, which demands that Turkey adopt deep changes before according it full admission, which levies sanctions on Russia the moment it invades Crimea, will this West go on supporting the new Republic of Israel that Netanyahu and his governing partners are preparing to launch?
A radical change
The degree of change expected cannot be overstated. Israel will look different. Where the previous government lit fires, this one will fan the flames as they spread. The judicial system, the media, the organisations defending human rights and the rights of Arabs in Israel will soon feel a scorching sensation.
Op-ed articles will soon be denied publication in Israeli media, by law, if they criticise Israeli soldiers, for example, or support a boycott of Israel. Ben-Gurion Airport will deny entry more broadly to critics of the Israeli regime.
Civil society organisations will be stripped of legal standing. Arabs will be more thoroughly excluded en route to actualising the vision of a Jewish state all of whose legislators are Jews. And of course there’s the annexation currently waiting in the wings.
The new government will be the Israeli annexation government. If the anticipated backing from Washington is forthcoming – American recognition of the annexation of the Golan Heights was the first step, the trial balloon – then Netanyahu will take the step he has refrained from taking throughout his reign thus far.
He will announce the annexation of at least part of the occupied territories.
The import will be unequivocal: Israel will admit for the first time that its 52-year military occupation of the West Bank is here to stay; that it is not, as long claimed, a passing phenomenon.
Dramatic policy changes
The territories are not “bargaining chips” in negotiations for peace, as was claimed at the outset of the occupation, but rather colonial holdings meant to remain under Israeli rule permanently. There is no intention that the territories annexed now, which could then be expanded, would ever be returned to the Palestinians.
Thus the new Netanyahu government will declare two dramatic policy changes. First will be an end to the two-state solution which even Netanyahu supported and which all global leaders have declared themselves as favouring.
That option will be declared dead. At the same time, Israel will declare itself an apartheid state, not just de facto but now, for the first time, also de jure.
Since none of those favouring annexation intend to grant equal rights to Palestinians in the territories to be annexed, and since targeted annexation of the land on which the settlements sit is patently deceitful, the world’s statesmen will have no choice but to acknowledge that under their radar, in the 21st century, a second South Africa-style apartheid state has been declared.
Last time around, an apartheid regime was miraculously brought down without all-out bloodshed. Will the world rally around this time and effect a repetition?
Rest here
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinio...est-do-nothing
ReplyAnother update
Netanyahu's Israel will declare an apartheid state. Will the West do nothing?
The world’s leaders will have no choice but to acknowledge that under their radar, a second South Africa-style apartheid state has been declared
he world revolves on its axis, nothing has changed, even after the recent election in Israel.
Chosen to lead Israel for the fifth time, Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to instal the most nationalist and rightist government in the country’s history – and meanwhile the world seems to proceed as usual.
Unconditional support
For decades now, Israel has continually spat in the face of the rest of the planet – with casual disdain for international law, and with complete disregard for the explicit decisions and detailed policies adopted by global institutions and by most of the world’s national governments.
Out there in the world, however, all that spittle somehow passes for raindrops. The election came and went with no discernible effect on the blindly automatic support for Israel by European governments and, of course, by the Americans too: unconditional, without reservations, apparently unchanged. Evidently what was is what will be.
Israel, though, has changed during the course of Netanyahu’s long reign. This talented Israeli statesman is leaving his mark on the profile of his country, with deep and lasting effect - more so than anticipated or even apparent.
Yes, it’s true that leftist governments in Israel also did their utmost to preserve the Israeli occupation forever and had no intention, not for one moment, of ever bringing it to an end – but Netanyahu is taking Israel much farther afield, to places even more extreme.
He is damaging what constitutes acceptable governance within Israel’s recognised sovereign territory, even with respect to its Jewish citizens. The very face of the "only democracy in the Middle East", which has long functioned mainly to the benefit of Jewish Israelis who comprise its privileged class, is being altered now by Netanyahu and company.
Darling of the West
Meanwhile, incredibly, the response of the world is to alter nothing in the support it has been extending to Israel during all the years of Netanyahu’s rule, as if in this latest round he were changing nothing, as if the shifting positions taken by Israel will neither augment nor diminish that support.
With or without Netanyahu, Israel remains the darling of the West. No other country enjoys the same level of military, economic, diplomatic and moral support, no strings attached. But the next Israeli administration, the fifth Netanyahu government, is getting ready to announce a change that the world will finally find difficult to ignore.
The new government is poised to rip the last layer of mask from its real face. Israel’s main asset, in casting itself as a liberal democracy that shares values dear to the West, is about to be demolished.
Will the West continue supporting it, then? The West, which demands that Turkey adopt deep changes before according it full admission, which levies sanctions on Russia the moment it invades Crimea, will this West go on supporting the new Republic of Israel that Netanyahu and his governing partners are preparing to launch?
A radical change
The degree of change expected cannot be overstated. Israel will look different. Where the previous government lit fires, this one will fan the flames as they spread. The judicial system, the media, the organisations defending human rights and the rights of Arabs in Israel will soon feel a scorching sensation.
Op-ed articles will soon be denied publication in Israeli media, by law, if they criticise Israeli soldiers, for example, or support a boycott of Israel. Ben-Gurion Airport will deny entry more broadly to critics of the Israeli regime.
Civil society organisations will be stripped of legal standing. Arabs will be more thoroughly excluded en route to actualising the vision of a Jewish state all of whose legislators are Jews. And of course there’s the annexation currently waiting in the wings.
The new government will be the Israeli annexation government. If the anticipated backing from Washington is forthcoming – American recognition of the annexation of the Golan Heights was the first step, the trial balloon – then Netanyahu will take the step he has refrained from taking throughout his reign thus far.
He will announce the annexation of at least part of the occupied territories.
The import will be unequivocal: Israel will admit for the first time that its 52-year military occupation of the West Bank is here to stay; that it is not, as long claimed, a passing phenomenon.
Dramatic policy changes
The territories are not “bargaining chips” in negotiations for peace, as was claimed at the outset of the occupation, but rather colonial holdings meant to remain under Israeli rule permanently. There is no intention that the territories annexed now, which could then be expanded, would ever be returned to the Palestinians.
Thus the new Netanyahu government will declare two dramatic policy changes. First will be an end to the two-state solution which even Netanyahu supported and which all global leaders have declared themselves as favouring.
That option will be declared dead. At the same time, Israel will declare itself an apartheid state, not just de facto but now, for the first time, also de jure.
Since none of those favouring annexation intend to grant equal rights to Palestinians in the territories to be annexed, and since targeted annexation of the land on which the settlements sit is patently deceitful, the world’s statesmen will have no choice but to acknowledge that under their radar, in the 21st century, a second South Africa-style apartheid state has been declared.
Last time around, an apartheid regime was miraculously brought down without all-out bloodshed. Will the world rally around this time and effect a repetition?
Rest here
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinio...est-do-nothing
سيف الله
05-01-2019, 01:51 PM
Salaam
Like to share
Blurb
In 2019, the Israeli #Zionist movement is pressuring US politicians to make it illegal for American citizens to boycott #Israel.
They are pushing an anti-boycott bill known as HR 336. But in 1933, against the wishes of German Jews, Jews in America and the United Kingdom organized a global boycott of Germany. Just as Jews were justified in boycotting German goods over concerns about abuse of Jews in 1933, today we are justified in organizing the global #BDS boycott of Israel over its abuse of Palestinians. أخبار فلسطين
ReplyLike to share
Blurb
In 2019, the Israeli #Zionist movement is pressuring US politicians to make it illegal for American citizens to boycott #Israel.
They are pushing an anti-boycott bill known as HR 336. But in 1933, against the wishes of German Jews, Jews in America and the United Kingdom organized a global boycott of Germany. Just as Jews were justified in boycotting German goods over concerns about abuse of Jews in 1933, today we are justified in organizing the global #BDS boycott of Israel over its abuse of Palestinians. أخبار فلسطين
سيف الله
05-20-2019, 11:28 PM
Salaam
Like to share, good analysis of how anti-Semitism is weaponised.
Blurb
In a febrile, political and media age the proverbial lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. Lying is one thing…but politicizing racism is something entirely different.
The leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn has fought racism all of his political life yet throughout his tenure his party has been dogged by claims of antisemitism. But is there substance to all of these allegations? Host Ross Ashcroft travels to New York to meet the American political scientist and author Professor Norman Finkelstein to discuss antisemitism and the fundamental right to free speech.
ReplyLike to share, good analysis of how anti-Semitism is weaponised.
Blurb
In a febrile, political and media age the proverbial lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. Lying is one thing…but politicizing racism is something entirely different.
The leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn has fought racism all of his political life yet throughout his tenure his party has been dogged by claims of antisemitism. But is there substance to all of these allegations? Host Ross Ashcroft travels to New York to meet the American political scientist and author Professor Norman Finkelstein to discuss antisemitism and the fundamental right to free speech.
سيف الله
06-08-2019, 01:16 AM
Salaam
This is a pattern of late. Sections of the American right are distancing themselves from their previous support of Israel.
A historical rhyme
It appears Americans will find themselves sympathizing with the Palestinian people sooner rather than later now that Florida and other states are occupied territory:
This is pure and unmitigated anti-American evil on display. It clearly demonstrates the way in which the Republican Party has been totally corrupted and is now incapable of defending either American interests or American rights. It is said that while history does not repeat, it does rhyme. And what we are seeing is an astonishing ur-repetition of the way in which the Roman empire offered refuge to poor, desperate Gothic refugees beleaguered by the Huns in 376 AD, only to see those refugees slaughter the emperor and sack Rome within 44 years.
I wonder how many states will support identical laws banning a certain perception of Christians, which may be expressed as hatred toward Christianity? I also note that some of these examples of "anti-semitism" observably contradict some of the other examples provided.
UPDATE: Lest you fail to grasp that this Florida law is a direct Neo-Palestinian attack on the First Amendment rights of Americans:
ReplyThis is a pattern of late. Sections of the American right are distancing themselves from their previous support of Israel.
A historical rhyme
It appears Americans will find themselves sympathizing with the Palestinian people sooner rather than later now that Florida and other states are occupied territory:
What is, however, less known is that inside the US, the Neocons and their allies have been a prime force to dismantle the Bill of Rights, especially the First and Second Amendments.
Today, I want to give a simple yet telling example of how this kind of stuff is quietly happening with very little opposition. And for that example, I will use the US state in which I am currently living, Florida.
Check out this stunning sequence of events:
On April 11th the FL House unanimously (114-0) passed a House Bill 741 which would define anti-Semitism as:
“A certain perception of the Jewish people, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jewish people.”
“Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed toward a person, his or her property, or toward Jewish community institutions or religious facilities.”
The bill also provides many examples of “anti-Semitism,” including:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews, often in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Accusing Jews as a people or the State of Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations.
The bill also provides that examples of anti-Semitism related to Israel include:
Applying a double standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or focusing peace or human rights investigations only on Israel.
Delegitimizing Israel by denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and denying Israel the right to exist.
On April 29th Governor DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet met in Jerusalem (not a joke!) to proclaim their support for “the Jewish state” (sic) and declare that DeSantis will be the most pro-Israel governor in “America” (sic). The fact that holding that meeting abroad is a violation of Florida law did not bother anybody (except The Florida First Amendment Foundation which filed a lawsuit against this outrage). Neither did the fact that Israel is the last openly and officially racist state on our planet. Sadly, Florida is hardly an exception, two dozen other states (including Texas) have passed similar laws.
Today, I want to give a simple yet telling example of how this kind of stuff is quietly happening with very little opposition. And for that example, I will use the US state in which I am currently living, Florida.
Check out this stunning sequence of events:
On April 11th the FL House unanimously (114-0) passed a House Bill 741 which would define anti-Semitism as:
“A certain perception of the Jewish people, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jewish people.”
“Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed toward a person, his or her property, or toward Jewish community institutions or religious facilities.”
The bill also provides many examples of “anti-Semitism,” including:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews, often in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Accusing Jews as a people or the State of Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations.
The bill also provides that examples of anti-Semitism related to Israel include:
Applying a double standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or focusing peace or human rights investigations only on Israel.
Delegitimizing Israel by denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and denying Israel the right to exist.
On April 29th Governor DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet met in Jerusalem (not a joke!) to proclaim their support for “the Jewish state” (sic) and declare that DeSantis will be the most pro-Israel governor in “America” (sic). The fact that holding that meeting abroad is a violation of Florida law did not bother anybody (except The Florida First Amendment Foundation which filed a lawsuit against this outrage). Neither did the fact that Israel is the last openly and officially racist state on our planet. Sadly, Florida is hardly an exception, two dozen other states (including Texas) have passed similar laws.
I wonder how many states will support identical laws banning a certain perception of Christians, which may be expressed as hatred toward Christianity? I also note that some of these examples of "anti-semitism" observably contradict some of the other examples provided.
UPDATE: Lest you fail to grasp that this Florida law is a direct Neo-Palestinian attack on the First Amendment rights of Americans:
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the enforcement of a state law that prohibits government agencies in Texas from doing business with contractors who are boycotting Israel. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman issued an injunction Thursday against the law, saying it threatens to suppress unpopular ideas and manipulates “the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.” "This the First Amendment does not allow," he wrote.
سيف الله
06-11-2019, 10:19 AM
Salaam
The mask comes off.
UAE, Israel had secret relations for 20 years
The Hebrew-language Israeli daily Maariv has revealed new details about the deep secret Israeli-Emirati relations which started about 20 years ago, Al-Khaleej Online reported yesterday.
Citing former Haarets intelligence and strategic affairs correspondent Yossi Melman, Maariv said that these relations developed due to the nature of common interests between the two sides.
The UAE has been developing its relations with Israel not as a state that has formal representation in the country, Melman said, stating that these relations are based on arms and intelligence IT deals worth billions of dollars sold by Israel to the UAE.
He also noted that the countries’ common hostility towards the Muslim Brotherhood pushed Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed Bin Zayed to build an alliance with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman.
Melman revealed that the US President Donald Trump, who has good personal relations with Bin Zayed, allows Israel to sell military technology dependent on American technology to the UAE.
The Israeli cyber company NSO sold software to Abu Dhabi, according to Melman, which enables the state to spy on the mobiles of its citizens, stressing that Tel Aviv knows about the violation of human rights in the UAE.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...-for-20-years/
ReplyThe mask comes off.
UAE, Israel had secret relations for 20 years
The Hebrew-language Israeli daily Maariv has revealed new details about the deep secret Israeli-Emirati relations which started about 20 years ago, Al-Khaleej Online reported yesterday.
Citing former Haarets intelligence and strategic affairs correspondent Yossi Melman, Maariv said that these relations developed due to the nature of common interests between the two sides.
The UAE has been developing its relations with Israel not as a state that has formal representation in the country, Melman said, stating that these relations are based on arms and intelligence IT deals worth billions of dollars sold by Israel to the UAE.
He also noted that the countries’ common hostility towards the Muslim Brotherhood pushed Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed Bin Zayed to build an alliance with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman.
Melman revealed that the US President Donald Trump, who has good personal relations with Bin Zayed, allows Israel to sell military technology dependent on American technology to the UAE.
The Israeli cyber company NSO sold software to Abu Dhabi, according to Melman, which enables the state to spy on the mobiles of its citizens, stressing that Tel Aviv knows about the violation of human rights in the UAE.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...-for-20-years/
سيف الله
06-18-2019, 10:44 PM
Salaam
Another update.
Israel renames Golan Heights town "Trump Heights" in honor of U.S. president
The Trump name graces apartment towers, hotels and golf courses. Now it is the namesake of a tiny Israeli settlement in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Cabinet convened in this hamlet Sunday to inaugurate a new settlement named after Donald Trump in a gesture of appreciation for the U.S. president's recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the territory.
The settlement isn't exactly new. Currently known as Bruchim, it is over 30 years old and has a population of 10 people.
Israel is hoping the rebranded "Ramat Trump," Hebrew for "Trump Heights," will encourage a wave of residents to vastly expand it.
"It's absolutely beautiful," said U.S. Ambassador David Friedman, who attended Sunday's ceremony. Noting that Mr. Trump celebrated his birthday Friday, he said: "I can't think of a more appropriate and a more beautiful birthday present."
Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed it in 1981. Most of the international community considers the move illegal under international law.
But during a visit to Washington by Netanyahu in March, just weeks before Israeli elections, Mr. Trump signed an executive order recognizing the strategic mountainous plateau as Israeli territory. The decision, the latest in a series of diplomatic moves benefiting Israel, was widely applauded in Israel.
"Few things are more important to the security of the state of Israel than permanent sovereignty over the Golan Heights," Friedman said. "It is simply obvious, it is indisputable and beyond any reasonable debate."
After the Cabinet decision, Netanyahu and Friedman unveiled a sign trimmed in gold with the name "Trump Heights" and adorned with U.S. and Israeli flags. the president retweeted photos Friedman posted of the event and thanked Netanyahu "and the State of Israel for this great honor!"
Addressing the ceremony, Netanyahu called Mr. Trump a "great friend" of Israel and described the Golan, which overlooks northern Israel, as an important strategic asset.
"The Golan Heights was and will always be an inseparable part of our country and homeland," he said.
Developing Ramat Trump will not be easy. Ringed by high yellow grass and land mines, it is roughly 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the Syrian border and a half hour drive from the nearest Israeli town, Kiryat Shmona, a community of about 20,000 people near the Lebanese border.
According to Israeli figures, almost 50,000 people live in the Golan, including about 22,000 Jewish Israelis and nearly 25,000 Arab Druze residents.
While Israel has encouraged and promoted settlement in the Golan, its remote location, several hours from the economic center of Tel Aviv, has been an obstacle. The area is home to small agriculture and tourism sectors but otherwise has little industry.
The eight-year Syrian civil war, which at times has resulted in spillover fire into the Golan, also could present an obstacle to luring new residents.
Zvi Hauser, an opposition lawmaker who formerly served as Netanyahu's Cabinet secretary, called Sunday's ceremony a cheap PR stunt.
"There's no funding, no planning, no location, and there's no real binding decision," he said.
Ramat Trump joins a handful of Israeli places named after American presidents, including a village for Harry S. Truman, who first recognized the Jewish state, and George W. Bush Plaza, a square the size of a modest living room in central Jerusalem.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-...ay-2019-06-16/
ReplyAnother update.
Israel renames Golan Heights town "Trump Heights" in honor of U.S. president
The Trump name graces apartment towers, hotels and golf courses. Now it is the namesake of a tiny Israeli settlement in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Cabinet convened in this hamlet Sunday to inaugurate a new settlement named after Donald Trump in a gesture of appreciation for the U.S. president's recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the territory.
The settlement isn't exactly new. Currently known as Bruchim, it is over 30 years old and has a population of 10 people.
Israel is hoping the rebranded "Ramat Trump," Hebrew for "Trump Heights," will encourage a wave of residents to vastly expand it.
"It's absolutely beautiful," said U.S. Ambassador David Friedman, who attended Sunday's ceremony. Noting that Mr. Trump celebrated his birthday Friday, he said: "I can't think of a more appropriate and a more beautiful birthday present."
Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed it in 1981. Most of the international community considers the move illegal under international law.
But during a visit to Washington by Netanyahu in March, just weeks before Israeli elections, Mr. Trump signed an executive order recognizing the strategic mountainous plateau as Israeli territory. The decision, the latest in a series of diplomatic moves benefiting Israel, was widely applauded in Israel.
"Few things are more important to the security of the state of Israel than permanent sovereignty over the Golan Heights," Friedman said. "It is simply obvious, it is indisputable and beyond any reasonable debate."
After the Cabinet decision, Netanyahu and Friedman unveiled a sign trimmed in gold with the name "Trump Heights" and adorned with U.S. and Israeli flags. the president retweeted photos Friedman posted of the event and thanked Netanyahu "and the State of Israel for this great honor!"
Addressing the ceremony, Netanyahu called Mr. Trump a "great friend" of Israel and described the Golan, which overlooks northern Israel, as an important strategic asset.
"The Golan Heights was and will always be an inseparable part of our country and homeland," he said.
Developing Ramat Trump will not be easy. Ringed by high yellow grass and land mines, it is roughly 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the Syrian border and a half hour drive from the nearest Israeli town, Kiryat Shmona, a community of about 20,000 people near the Lebanese border.
According to Israeli figures, almost 50,000 people live in the Golan, including about 22,000 Jewish Israelis and nearly 25,000 Arab Druze residents.
While Israel has encouraged and promoted settlement in the Golan, its remote location, several hours from the economic center of Tel Aviv, has been an obstacle. The area is home to small agriculture and tourism sectors but otherwise has little industry.
The eight-year Syrian civil war, which at times has resulted in spillover fire into the Golan, also could present an obstacle to luring new residents.
Zvi Hauser, an opposition lawmaker who formerly served as Netanyahu's Cabinet secretary, called Sunday's ceremony a cheap PR stunt.
"There's no funding, no planning, no location, and there's no real binding decision," he said.
Ramat Trump joins a handful of Israeli places named after American presidents, including a village for Harry S. Truman, who first recognized the Jewish state, and George W. Bush Plaza, a square the size of a modest living room in central Jerusalem.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-...ay-2019-06-16/
سيف الله
06-23-2019, 01:12 PM
Salaam
Another update, the mask continues to come off.
SAUDI OFFICIAL SAYS 'DEAL OF CENTURY' LEADS TO FULL PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD
The official slammed Palestinian leadership as “irresponsible” for not even considering the Deal of the Century, which will bring 60 billion USD to their people.
“History and Allah brought a real opportunity,” a top-ranking Saudi diplomat told Israelis via an interview in Globes on Friday. “The blood conflict had lasted too long. Us Saudis and all Gulf States plus Egypt and Jordan realize that the age of going to war with Israel is over.”
Pointing to “the advantages of normalizing relations,” he argued that “the whole Arab world could benefit from it,” Globes reported.
The Saudi diplomat told Globes that “Israeli technology is very advanced and the Arab world, including those who hate you, looks at Israel in admiration due to this success and hopes to copy it.”
He further stated that despite the understanding among Saudi people that the age of war with Israel needs to end, the kingdom has a deep commitment to the Palestinians.
“Maybe it is hard for them to part with the character of the ever-suffering victim and they don’t believe they could survive without it,” he said, noting that if they accept the American peace plan they will be given “sums they never dreamed of.”
The official slammed Palestinian leadership as “irresponsible” for not even considering the "Deal of the Century," which will bring $50 billion to their people, he said.
Far from arguing the plan is based solely on money, the Saudi diplomat argued that it includes a “clear path leading to complete Palestinian independence” and added that “we are convinced that even the hard issues can be resolved when one has a full stomach and a relaxed life…they still don’t accept this.”
The diplomat argued that one of the reasons for this refusal is the Palestinian perspective that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may not be able to sell a peace deal to the Israelis and so they can wait until a leader who is more suitable to their needs might appear.
“We think that when it’s time to decide every Israeli leader, Netanyahu as well, will take the path of peace as this is what most Israelis want,” the man said.
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Sa...atehood-593306
ReplyAnother update, the mask continues to come off.
SAUDI OFFICIAL SAYS 'DEAL OF CENTURY' LEADS TO FULL PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD
The official slammed Palestinian leadership as “irresponsible” for not even considering the Deal of the Century, which will bring 60 billion USD to their people.
“History and Allah brought a real opportunity,” a top-ranking Saudi diplomat told Israelis via an interview in Globes on Friday. “The blood conflict had lasted too long. Us Saudis and all Gulf States plus Egypt and Jordan realize that the age of going to war with Israel is over.”
Pointing to “the advantages of normalizing relations,” he argued that “the whole Arab world could benefit from it,” Globes reported.
The Saudi diplomat told Globes that “Israeli technology is very advanced and the Arab world, including those who hate you, looks at Israel in admiration due to this success and hopes to copy it.”
He further stated that despite the understanding among Saudi people that the age of war with Israel needs to end, the kingdom has a deep commitment to the Palestinians.
“Maybe it is hard for them to part with the character of the ever-suffering victim and they don’t believe they could survive without it,” he said, noting that if they accept the American peace plan they will be given “sums they never dreamed of.”
The official slammed Palestinian leadership as “irresponsible” for not even considering the "Deal of the Century," which will bring $50 billion to their people, he said.
Far from arguing the plan is based solely on money, the Saudi diplomat argued that it includes a “clear path leading to complete Palestinian independence” and added that “we are convinced that even the hard issues can be resolved when one has a full stomach and a relaxed life…they still don’t accept this.”
The diplomat argued that one of the reasons for this refusal is the Palestinian perspective that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may not be able to sell a peace deal to the Israelis and so they can wait until a leader who is more suitable to their needs might appear.
“We think that when it’s time to decide every Israeli leader, Netanyahu as well, will take the path of peace as this is what most Israelis want,” the man said.
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Sa...atehood-593306
سيف الله
06-27-2019, 07:23 PM
Salaam
The mask continues to come off.
Israel lauds Bahraini FM for friendly comments, hopes for closer ties
Foreign Ministry invites Bahraini journalists to visit Israel, saying ‘direct contact is the key to peace,’ after Shaikh Khalid Al Khalifa’s first interviews with Israeli media
Jerusalem on Thursday welcomed comments by Bahrain’s foreign minister to Israeli journalists expressing hopes for ties with Israel, and said it would invite Bahraini reporters to visit as a thank you.
In interviews with The Times of Israel and with Israeli television channels on the sidelines of a US-led peace workshop in the Bahraini capital of Manama, Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa said Israel was part of the Middle East and that he hoped for peace with the Jewish state.
“We welcome Bahrain FM Shaikh Khalid Al Khalifa’s decision to openly share his views with the Israeli media,” the ministry said in a statement. “The positive comments that were expressed in the interview are very encouraging and offer hope for closer ties bilaterally & a peaceful future for our region.”
Ministry spokesperson Emmanuel Nahshon told The Times of Israel that Jerusalem was issuing an official invitation to Bahraini journalists to visit Israel.
“I’ll be overjoyed to host a delegation of Bahraini journalists and show them Israel,” Nahshon said. “Direct contact is the key to peace.”
Khalifa firmly backed Israel’s right to exist Wednesday in a first-ever series of on the record interviews with Israeli outlets against the backdrop of the Peace to Prosperity workshop in Manama.
“Israel is a country in the region… and it’s there to stay, of course,” he told ToI.
“Who did we offer peace to [with] the [Arab] Peace Initiative? We offered it to a state named the State of Israel, in the region. We did not offer it to some faraway island or some faraway country,” Khalifa continued, referring to a Saudi-backed peace framework.
“We offered it to Israel. So we do believe that Israel is a country to stay, and we want better relations with it, and we want peace with it.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel...r-closer-ties/
Some reaction.
ReplyThe mask continues to come off.
Israel lauds Bahraini FM for friendly comments, hopes for closer ties
Foreign Ministry invites Bahraini journalists to visit Israel, saying ‘direct contact is the key to peace,’ after Shaikh Khalid Al Khalifa’s first interviews with Israeli media
Jerusalem on Thursday welcomed comments by Bahrain’s foreign minister to Israeli journalists expressing hopes for ties with Israel, and said it would invite Bahraini reporters to visit as a thank you.
In interviews with The Times of Israel and with Israeli television channels on the sidelines of a US-led peace workshop in the Bahraini capital of Manama, Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa said Israel was part of the Middle East and that he hoped for peace with the Jewish state.
“We welcome Bahrain FM Shaikh Khalid Al Khalifa’s decision to openly share his views with the Israeli media,” the ministry said in a statement. “The positive comments that were expressed in the interview are very encouraging and offer hope for closer ties bilaterally & a peaceful future for our region.”
Ministry spokesperson Emmanuel Nahshon told The Times of Israel that Jerusalem was issuing an official invitation to Bahraini journalists to visit Israel.
“I’ll be overjoyed to host a delegation of Bahraini journalists and show them Israel,” Nahshon said. “Direct contact is the key to peace.”
Khalifa firmly backed Israel’s right to exist Wednesday in a first-ever series of on the record interviews with Israeli outlets against the backdrop of the Peace to Prosperity workshop in Manama.
“Israel is a country in the region… and it’s there to stay, of course,” he told ToI.
“Who did we offer peace to [with] the [Arab] Peace Initiative? We offered it to a state named the State of Israel, in the region. We did not offer it to some faraway island or some faraway country,” Khalifa continued, referring to a Saudi-backed peace framework.
“We offered it to Israel. So we do believe that Israel is a country to stay, and we want better relations with it, and we want peace with it.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel...r-closer-ties/
Some reaction.
سيف الله
06-28-2019, 11:44 AM
Salaam
Another update.
Blurb
A crowd protesting Manama's hosting of the US-sponsored 'Peace for Prosperity' conference stormed Bahrain's embassy in Baghdad on Thursday. Several protesters can be seen trying to break into the embassy, alongside some attempting to remove the Bahraini flag from the top of the building.
The brainchild of US President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner, the two-day US-Bahrain Manama workshop was reportedly a part of Trump's 'Deal of the Century' on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
No representatives from the Palestinian nor Israeli government attended the event. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Bahrain has condemned the attack, calling it "sabotage" and recalling its ambassador to Iraq for consultations.
The mask continues to come off.
ReplyAnother update.
Blurb
A crowd protesting Manama's hosting of the US-sponsored 'Peace for Prosperity' conference stormed Bahrain's embassy in Baghdad on Thursday. Several protesters can be seen trying to break into the embassy, alongside some attempting to remove the Bahraini flag from the top of the building.
The brainchild of US President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner, the two-day US-Bahrain Manama workshop was reportedly a part of Trump's 'Deal of the Century' on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
No representatives from the Palestinian nor Israeli government attended the event. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Bahrain has condemned the attack, calling it "sabotage" and recalling its ambassador to Iraq for consultations.
The mask continues to come off.
سيف الله
07-02-2019, 11:37 PM
Salaam
Another update
Israel's ambassador to the UN bizarrely calls for a Palestinian 'surrender'
The call for a 'suicide' of the Palestinian political and cultural ethos is just a call for a perpetual occupation.
Telling someone they should commit suicide is one of the meaner tropes of online abusers. Rarely do such messages make it to the New York Times opinion page.
Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, pulled off this obvious troll in the pages of the paper of record on Monday, calling on Palestinians to kill their own aspirations for nationhood in return for peace from Israel.
However, unlike a dead body, there is no proof of national suicide that the Palestinians can offer Israel, dooming the ‘Deal of the Century’ (now, the ‘Opportunity of the Century’) to failure.
“A national suicide of the Palestinians’ current political and cultural ethos is precisely what is needed for peace. The belief that the Jews have no right to the land and Israel is to be destroyed, which engenders a culture of hate and incitement, needs to end,” Danon writes in the piece entitled What’s Wrong With Palestinian Surrender?
Danon is offering Palestinians a lingering death, which is what Israel has offered Palestinians under occupation for decades, requiring Palestinians constantly be able to prove they are not guilty of being Palestinian. They know that their status as guilty-until-proven-innocent will remain so in the eyes of Israelis, no matter how much cash the Gulf shells out.
There is no way to bribe away racism, fear, and bigoted suspicion that comes under the Israeli system of apartheid.
But that won’t stop Danon from trying. In the article, he continues: “Surrendering will create the opportunity to transform Palestinian society,” and lead to their “liberation,” he added.
The article comes as the US, Israel and Gulf states huddle in Bahrain for a “workshop” on the Deal of the Century, presented by US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who talks about a vague peace plan with an unblinking impassivity. The Palestinian leadership has boycotted the “Peace to Prosperity” confab. No Israeli officials were in attendance, either.
A far more animated figure than Kushner, Danon writes about Palestinians cleansing their "national identity" of the urge to pointlessly resist Israeli rule. It’s an obvious troll, but Danon’s article represents a serious misunderstanding of who is in control over Palestinian identity.
Thanks to the occupation, Israel has helped shape Palestinian identity, too, just as Palestinians have shaped Israeli identity by its resistance to the occupation. The path to a lasting, humane peace depends not just on the decisions of powerful people in distant capitals, but more so on Israelis and Palestinians recognising commonalities between their societies, languages and religions. That is the kind of transformation that is necessary for lasting peace.
Indeed, when it comes to Israelis and Palestinians, it is difficult to imagine a world with one side and not the other, as much as it is difficult to imagine a prison guard without a handcuffed prisoner. Their identities are intertwined, and their relationship defined by who is holding the keys to the handcuffs. Israel doesn't even know where the keys are anymore but can pretend to look for them. And that is what the Deal of the Century is: a surreal charade.
But this is no mere petty theft. Palestinians remain shackled, and incapable of surviving without Israel spoonfeeding them outside aid.
The Deal of the Century proposes a huge sum of aid, paid for by the Saudis, in return for Palestinians abandoning anything Israel considers as resistance. But this shows Danon’s misunderstanding of what Palestinians want. It’s not to feast while in handcuffs. They want the handcuffs off.
That Danon doesn’t recognise that bodes poorly for the success of any peace process.
In his piece, he asserts that Palestinians can follow the model of Egypt’s truce with Israel in 1979, which saw the United States launch an annual bounty of military and economic aid to Cairo. But that relationship was forged in the midst of the Cold War when Washington had a concrete reason to permanently secure Egypt’s patronage away from Moscow. But this analogy is not just irrelevant, given the unique historical circumstances, but also misleading, as the main benefactor from the plan would be Saudi Arabia and its regional ambitions, not the US.
Securing the loyalty of another incarnation of Palestinian subcontractors to Israeli occupation would seem like a major diplomatic victory for Saudi Arabia. A Saudi dependency in the West Bank and Gaza would undermine Riyadh's rival Qatar, which has provided Palestinians with humanitarian aid, and Iran, which has provided Palestinian militant groups with money and weapons.
Removing Iran and sidelining Qatar seems to be Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s grand plan, but it is one that would keep the Palestinians subservient to another state. Danon imagines this as liberation as it would make Palestinians the responsibility of another Arab state, a return to the pre-1967 norm when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and Gaza under Egyptian sovereignty.
Although Danon refers to the United States as being the chief decision maker, Saudi, it seems, is the party with the disposable income. Indeed, Trump, has withdrawn all funding to the Palestinian Authority, destroying whatever meagre reputation his administration might have had as a peace broker.
The whole plan amounts to Israel’s admission of the failure of occupation, and a desperate desire to return Palestinian enclaves back to other Arabs. But there is no way Saudi Arabia can control what Israel might consider a breach by Palestinians of the terms of an imaginary armistice, criteria that can change with the leadership in the Knesset. One of the characteristics of the occupation is its unpredictable application of oppression.
If there is one thing the Oslo Accords taught Palestinians, it’s that Israeli promises do not transfer over between prime ministers. There are just some of the simpler complexities Kushner is not considering, as a novice at international diplomacy who shows no natural gift at it. He presents the Bahrain conference as a "workshop" because this is the kind of meaningless corporate jargon that Kushner thinks is inspiring.
But detached, analytical indifference is not what Israelis and Palestinians need to make peace, although the Times subhead to the essay strongly suggests so: “Knowing when to give up is often the first step to making peace.”
Danon himself might not have written that, but it conveys the most glaring flaw in his proposal for Palestinian capitulation. Forging peace between Palestinians and Israelis themselves requires a renewed passion for understanding and seeing the humanity in one another, a challenge that even prosperity can sometimes assist, but never achieve. That is the kind of transformation Israelis and Palestinians need to realise together. In peacebuilding as in war-making, neither side gets to give up.
https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/isr...urrender-27847
ReplyAnother update
Israel's ambassador to the UN bizarrely calls for a Palestinian 'surrender'
The call for a 'suicide' of the Palestinian political and cultural ethos is just a call for a perpetual occupation.
Telling someone they should commit suicide is one of the meaner tropes of online abusers. Rarely do such messages make it to the New York Times opinion page.
Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, pulled off this obvious troll in the pages of the paper of record on Monday, calling on Palestinians to kill their own aspirations for nationhood in return for peace from Israel.
However, unlike a dead body, there is no proof of national suicide that the Palestinians can offer Israel, dooming the ‘Deal of the Century’ (now, the ‘Opportunity of the Century’) to failure.
“A national suicide of the Palestinians’ current political and cultural ethos is precisely what is needed for peace. The belief that the Jews have no right to the land and Israel is to be destroyed, which engenders a culture of hate and incitement, needs to end,” Danon writes in the piece entitled What’s Wrong With Palestinian Surrender?
Danon is offering Palestinians a lingering death, which is what Israel has offered Palestinians under occupation for decades, requiring Palestinians constantly be able to prove they are not guilty of being Palestinian. They know that their status as guilty-until-proven-innocent will remain so in the eyes of Israelis, no matter how much cash the Gulf shells out.
There is no way to bribe away racism, fear, and bigoted suspicion that comes under the Israeli system of apartheid.
But that won’t stop Danon from trying. In the article, he continues: “Surrendering will create the opportunity to transform Palestinian society,” and lead to their “liberation,” he added.
The article comes as the US, Israel and Gulf states huddle in Bahrain for a “workshop” on the Deal of the Century, presented by US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who talks about a vague peace plan with an unblinking impassivity. The Palestinian leadership has boycotted the “Peace to Prosperity” confab. No Israeli officials were in attendance, either.
A far more animated figure than Kushner, Danon writes about Palestinians cleansing their "national identity" of the urge to pointlessly resist Israeli rule. It’s an obvious troll, but Danon’s article represents a serious misunderstanding of who is in control over Palestinian identity.
Thanks to the occupation, Israel has helped shape Palestinian identity, too, just as Palestinians have shaped Israeli identity by its resistance to the occupation. The path to a lasting, humane peace depends not just on the decisions of powerful people in distant capitals, but more so on Israelis and Palestinians recognising commonalities between their societies, languages and religions. That is the kind of transformation that is necessary for lasting peace.
Indeed, when it comes to Israelis and Palestinians, it is difficult to imagine a world with one side and not the other, as much as it is difficult to imagine a prison guard without a handcuffed prisoner. Their identities are intertwined, and their relationship defined by who is holding the keys to the handcuffs. Israel doesn't even know where the keys are anymore but can pretend to look for them. And that is what the Deal of the Century is: a surreal charade.
But this is no mere petty theft. Palestinians remain shackled, and incapable of surviving without Israel spoonfeeding them outside aid.
The Deal of the Century proposes a huge sum of aid, paid for by the Saudis, in return for Palestinians abandoning anything Israel considers as resistance. But this shows Danon’s misunderstanding of what Palestinians want. It’s not to feast while in handcuffs. They want the handcuffs off.
That Danon doesn’t recognise that bodes poorly for the success of any peace process.
In his piece, he asserts that Palestinians can follow the model of Egypt’s truce with Israel in 1979, which saw the United States launch an annual bounty of military and economic aid to Cairo. But that relationship was forged in the midst of the Cold War when Washington had a concrete reason to permanently secure Egypt’s patronage away from Moscow. But this analogy is not just irrelevant, given the unique historical circumstances, but also misleading, as the main benefactor from the plan would be Saudi Arabia and its regional ambitions, not the US.
Securing the loyalty of another incarnation of Palestinian subcontractors to Israeli occupation would seem like a major diplomatic victory for Saudi Arabia. A Saudi dependency in the West Bank and Gaza would undermine Riyadh's rival Qatar, which has provided Palestinians with humanitarian aid, and Iran, which has provided Palestinian militant groups with money and weapons.
Removing Iran and sidelining Qatar seems to be Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s grand plan, but it is one that would keep the Palestinians subservient to another state. Danon imagines this as liberation as it would make Palestinians the responsibility of another Arab state, a return to the pre-1967 norm when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and Gaza under Egyptian sovereignty.
Although Danon refers to the United States as being the chief decision maker, Saudi, it seems, is the party with the disposable income. Indeed, Trump, has withdrawn all funding to the Palestinian Authority, destroying whatever meagre reputation his administration might have had as a peace broker.
The whole plan amounts to Israel’s admission of the failure of occupation, and a desperate desire to return Palestinian enclaves back to other Arabs. But there is no way Saudi Arabia can control what Israel might consider a breach by Palestinians of the terms of an imaginary armistice, criteria that can change with the leadership in the Knesset. One of the characteristics of the occupation is its unpredictable application of oppression.
If there is one thing the Oslo Accords taught Palestinians, it’s that Israeli promises do not transfer over between prime ministers. There are just some of the simpler complexities Kushner is not considering, as a novice at international diplomacy who shows no natural gift at it. He presents the Bahrain conference as a "workshop" because this is the kind of meaningless corporate jargon that Kushner thinks is inspiring.
But detached, analytical indifference is not what Israelis and Palestinians need to make peace, although the Times subhead to the essay strongly suggests so: “Knowing when to give up is often the first step to making peace.”
Danon himself might not have written that, but it conveys the most glaring flaw in his proposal for Palestinian capitulation. Forging peace between Palestinians and Israelis themselves requires a renewed passion for understanding and seeing the humanity in one another, a challenge that even prosperity can sometimes assist, but never achieve. That is the kind of transformation Israelis and Palestinians need to realise together. In peacebuilding as in war-making, neither side gets to give up.
https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/isr...urrender-27847
سيف الله
07-03-2019, 06:35 PM
سيف الله
07-14-2019, 12:21 PM
Salaam
Another update
Why The BBC acts as a Propaganda Outlet for Israel– An Insider View
The BBC’s Panorama channel ‘investigation’ into Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ was so blatantly one sided its broadcast as ‘news’ demanded an explanation. In an attempt to grasp why the British national broadcaster fails to fulfil its core mission to report the news in as unbiased a manner as possible, I interviewed a former senior editor for the BBC. The editor, a 35 year veteran of the BBC, reveals the culture that has steered the BBC into its present position as a Zionist mouthpiece.
In acting as a whistle blower, the former editor risks severe consequences. In Britain leading journalists have been locked behind bars and put under threat of extradition for reporting information whose truthfulness has not even been challenged.
Sadly, this danger is heightened under the present toxic political atmosphere in Britain, as demonstrated by its purging of a major political party and its tolerance for abuse of its judicial system to deter and punish anyone who dares to question the Zionist narrative.
Q: When did the BBC become openly biased?
A: The BBC has always been biased towards Israel, and its bias has been well documented. The reasons for this bias have long been the subject of serious academic studies, the best known of which is Greg Philo’s and Mike Berry’s More Bad News from Israel. In fact, in 2006 an independent report commissioned by the BBC’s own governing body concluded that the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “does not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.”
Q: Who and what drove this cultural and political direction within the corporation?
A: There are a number of drivers behind this biased BBC culture. The most important is the fact that a small number of hardline Zionists occupy key positions at the top and middle levels of the corporation, as well as at the shop-floor level, by which I mean the people who select what to publish or broadcast on a daily basis and who provide editorial steer to journalists. This has been widely publicised and has been in the public domain for some time — see, for example, this http://tinyurl.com/ydhjzeek, these (a) http://tinyurl.com/y7mjtkc6, (b) http://tinyurl.com/y7k39vsh, and (c) http://tinyurl.com/y3x9nktl. Also see this http://tinyurl.com/y6ne4apn and this http://tinyurl.com/y7l88zwl.
Q: What about political impartiality, supposedly a core BBC value?
A: Unfortunately, there are many examples of such pro- Israel hype, some blatant and others who slant the news by use of emphasis and/or omission. For instance, there was Sarah Montague’s interview with Israel’s defence minister, Moshe Ya’alon, in March 2015, Head of Statistics’ Anthony Reuben’s reflection on fatalities in Gaza (http://tinyurl.com/ycc9p8d4), and the utilization of Gil Hoffman, an Israeli army reservist and chief political correspondent for the Jerusalem Post to write for the BBC News website (http://tinyurl.com/yanppk93) to mention but a few.
Q: Does the broadcaster have the means or inclination to fix itself ?
A: In my opinion, the chances of the BBC fixing itself is about zero. Apart from what I have said above, it is a cowardly, spineless organisation. Not only does it always pursue the path of least resistance by selecting to broadcast what is least likely to upset the Zionist lobby, but it is also deadly afraid of what the Daily Mail might say about its output. Very often, and by that I mean almost on a daily basis, one would hear senior managers ask at the morning agenda-setting editorial meetings, “What would the Daily Mail say about that?” Invariably, they would choose what is least likely to be picked up and criticised by the Daily Mail. Please remember, this is a public broadcaster that is funded by taxpayers (yes, the License Fee is a tax) and is supposed to “Educate, Inform and Entertain”, not propagandise on behalf of Israel.
Q: Some of the so-called Labour ‘Whistleblowers’ were exposed by Al Jazeera as Israeli Lobby assets. Is it possible that the BBC was so bold as to interview these characters hoping that no one would notice or was it simply a matter of a clumsy decision making? Can the BBC match the journalistic dedication of organisations such as RT or Al Jazeera?
A: There is no chance whatsoever that the BBC would do anything approximating Al Jazeera TV’s programme on Israeli infiltration of the Labour Party (http://tinyurl.com/yad6fslm). The BBC is institutionally pro-Zionist and institutionally spineless.
Q: You worked in the corporation for 35 years, did you notice a deterioration in the quality of people hired? Was there a change in employees’ attitudes and their willingness to express themselves freely and critically?
A: I worked for the BBC’s English-language outlets as an editor and senior editor for 35 years. Since the early 1990s there has been growing intolerance of criticism of editorial management decisions, even in internal forums which internal BBC propaganda claims are meant for staff to speak freely. This applies across the board on all matters. But certainly with regard to Israel and Zionism, any questioning of BBC impartiality would attract accusations of anti-Semitism and would certainly spell the end of one’s career, no matter how privately and confidentially such criticism is conveyed.
https://gilad.online/writings/2019/7...n-insider-view
ReplyAnother update
Why The BBC acts as a Propaganda Outlet for Israel– An Insider View
The BBC’s Panorama channel ‘investigation’ into Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ was so blatantly one sided its broadcast as ‘news’ demanded an explanation. In an attempt to grasp why the British national broadcaster fails to fulfil its core mission to report the news in as unbiased a manner as possible, I interviewed a former senior editor for the BBC. The editor, a 35 year veteran of the BBC, reveals the culture that has steered the BBC into its present position as a Zionist mouthpiece.
In acting as a whistle blower, the former editor risks severe consequences. In Britain leading journalists have been locked behind bars and put under threat of extradition for reporting information whose truthfulness has not even been challenged.
Sadly, this danger is heightened under the present toxic political atmosphere in Britain, as demonstrated by its purging of a major political party and its tolerance for abuse of its judicial system to deter and punish anyone who dares to question the Zionist narrative.
Q: When did the BBC become openly biased?
A: The BBC has always been biased towards Israel, and its bias has been well documented. The reasons for this bias have long been the subject of serious academic studies, the best known of which is Greg Philo’s and Mike Berry’s More Bad News from Israel. In fact, in 2006 an independent report commissioned by the BBC’s own governing body concluded that the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “does not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.”
Q: Who and what drove this cultural and political direction within the corporation?
A: There are a number of drivers behind this biased BBC culture. The most important is the fact that a small number of hardline Zionists occupy key positions at the top and middle levels of the corporation, as well as at the shop-floor level, by which I mean the people who select what to publish or broadcast on a daily basis and who provide editorial steer to journalists. This has been widely publicised and has been in the public domain for some time — see, for example, this http://tinyurl.com/ydhjzeek, these (a) http://tinyurl.com/y7mjtkc6, (b) http://tinyurl.com/y7k39vsh, and (c) http://tinyurl.com/y3x9nktl. Also see this http://tinyurl.com/y6ne4apn and this http://tinyurl.com/y7l88zwl.
Q: What about political impartiality, supposedly a core BBC value?
A: Unfortunately, there are many examples of such pro- Israel hype, some blatant and others who slant the news by use of emphasis and/or omission. For instance, there was Sarah Montague’s interview with Israel’s defence minister, Moshe Ya’alon, in March 2015, Head of Statistics’ Anthony Reuben’s reflection on fatalities in Gaza (http://tinyurl.com/ycc9p8d4), and the utilization of Gil Hoffman, an Israeli army reservist and chief political correspondent for the Jerusalem Post to write for the BBC News website (http://tinyurl.com/yanppk93) to mention but a few.
Q: Does the broadcaster have the means or inclination to fix itself ?
A: In my opinion, the chances of the BBC fixing itself is about zero. Apart from what I have said above, it is a cowardly, spineless organisation. Not only does it always pursue the path of least resistance by selecting to broadcast what is least likely to upset the Zionist lobby, but it is also deadly afraid of what the Daily Mail might say about its output. Very often, and by that I mean almost on a daily basis, one would hear senior managers ask at the morning agenda-setting editorial meetings, “What would the Daily Mail say about that?” Invariably, they would choose what is least likely to be picked up and criticised by the Daily Mail. Please remember, this is a public broadcaster that is funded by taxpayers (yes, the License Fee is a tax) and is supposed to “Educate, Inform and Entertain”, not propagandise on behalf of Israel.
Q: Some of the so-called Labour ‘Whistleblowers’ were exposed by Al Jazeera as Israeli Lobby assets. Is it possible that the BBC was so bold as to interview these characters hoping that no one would notice or was it simply a matter of a clumsy decision making? Can the BBC match the journalistic dedication of organisations such as RT or Al Jazeera?
A: There is no chance whatsoever that the BBC would do anything approximating Al Jazeera TV’s programme on Israeli infiltration of the Labour Party (http://tinyurl.com/yad6fslm). The BBC is institutionally pro-Zionist and institutionally spineless.
Q: You worked in the corporation for 35 years, did you notice a deterioration in the quality of people hired? Was there a change in employees’ attitudes and their willingness to express themselves freely and critically?
A: I worked for the BBC’s English-language outlets as an editor and senior editor for 35 years. Since the early 1990s there has been growing intolerance of criticism of editorial management decisions, even in internal forums which internal BBC propaganda claims are meant for staff to speak freely. This applies across the board on all matters. But certainly with regard to Israel and Zionism, any questioning of BBC impartiality would attract accusations of anti-Semitism and would certainly spell the end of one’s career, no matter how privately and confidentially such criticism is conveyed.
https://gilad.online/writings/2019/7...n-insider-view
سيف الله
07-24-2019, 02:22 AM
Salaam
Another update. This wasn't meant to get out.
This IS the question.
Trump has his priorities straight.
ReplyAnother update. This wasn't meant to get out.
This IS the question.
Trump has his priorities straight.
سيف الله
07-27-2019, 11:44 AM
سيف الله
07-27-2019, 10:01 PM
Salaam
Another update
Israel unveils details of railway connection to Saudi, UAE
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs revealed details of a proposed railway project that will connect the port of Haifa to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Unveiled in the UAE by Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz the project was introduced as being a way to “promote regional peace” and link the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian Gulf to allow for increased trade and improve local economies.
The initiative relies on the use of Israel as a land bridge, and Jordan as a regional transportation hub. A regional rail network will eventually also be open to passengers. “In the future, the network will also transport passengers between the United Kingdom, Europe and the Mediterranean to the east, and between the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia and Iraq to the west,” the ministry pointed out.
The ministry claimed that this initiative “will create shorter, faster, cheaper and safer regional trade routes and will contribute to the strengthening of the Jordanian, Palestinian, Saudi, Gulf and even the Iraqi economies in the future.” It also pointed out that the currently existing infrastructure in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states will enable the implementation of “this initiative within a relatively short period”.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...-to-saudi-uae/
ReplyAnother update
Israel unveils details of railway connection to Saudi, UAE
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs revealed details of a proposed railway project that will connect the port of Haifa to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Unveiled in the UAE by Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz the project was introduced as being a way to “promote regional peace” and link the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian Gulf to allow for increased trade and improve local economies.
The initiative relies on the use of Israel as a land bridge, and Jordan as a regional transportation hub. A regional rail network will eventually also be open to passengers. “In the future, the network will also transport passengers between the United Kingdom, Europe and the Mediterranean to the east, and between the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia and Iraq to the west,” the ministry pointed out.
The ministry claimed that this initiative “will create shorter, faster, cheaper and safer regional trade routes and will contribute to the strengthening of the Jordanian, Palestinian, Saudi, Gulf and even the Iraqi economies in the future.” It also pointed out that the currently existing infrastructure in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states will enable the implementation of “this initiative within a relatively short period”.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...-to-saudi-uae/
سيف الله
08-08-2019, 09:59 PM
Salaam
Another update
Morocco politician: Kushner intimidating and blackmailing Rabat with Deal of the Century file
A member of the Secretariat of the Justice and Development Party in Morocco, Abdelaziz Aftati, said: “the US is resorting to the policy of encouragement and intimidation and then blackmail in dealing with the file of the so-called Deal of the Century.”
Commenting on the visit of the US president’s adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner to Morocco, Aftati added that “Morocco’s positions concerning the Palestinian cause are firm and unchangeable,” pointing out that “some Arab countries take unclear positions towards the cause, while some other countries have declared their positions towards the US plan.”
In this regard, Aftati said that “the US is adopting the policy of blackmail, especially that the Arab countries have so far non-unified positions on the cause.”
The official stressed that Morocco will not be dragged behind the so-called “Deal of the Century,” and that matters need to be resolved on the ground.” He pointed out that the Palestinians insist on their rejection of any incomplete steps, but even push towards confrontation with the Israeli occupation, to liberate the Palestinian land.
Moroccan newspaper Alyaoum24 said that the “US scheme” insists on the replacement of Palestinian rights with some economic benefits, prompting Washington to resort to Morocco.
Jared Kushner made a Middle East tour last week, which included Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...-century-file/
ReplyAnother update
Morocco politician: Kushner intimidating and blackmailing Rabat with Deal of the Century file
A member of the Secretariat of the Justice and Development Party in Morocco, Abdelaziz Aftati, said: “the US is resorting to the policy of encouragement and intimidation and then blackmail in dealing with the file of the so-called Deal of the Century.”
Commenting on the visit of the US president’s adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner to Morocco, Aftati added that “Morocco’s positions concerning the Palestinian cause are firm and unchangeable,” pointing out that “some Arab countries take unclear positions towards the cause, while some other countries have declared their positions towards the US plan.”
In this regard, Aftati said that “the US is adopting the policy of blackmail, especially that the Arab countries have so far non-unified positions on the cause.”
The official stressed that Morocco will not be dragged behind the so-called “Deal of the Century,” and that matters need to be resolved on the ground.” He pointed out that the Palestinians insist on their rejection of any incomplete steps, but even push towards confrontation with the Israeli occupation, to liberate the Palestinian land.
Moroccan newspaper Alyaoum24 said that the “US scheme” insists on the replacement of Palestinian rights with some economic benefits, prompting Washington to resort to Morocco.
Jared Kushner made a Middle East tour last week, which included Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...-century-file/
سيف الله
08-12-2019, 10:57 AM
Salaam
Arab Zionism. They don't even bother to mask it anymore. Makes me nauseous +o(
Israel praises grand mufti of Saudi Arabia’s comments labelling Hamas a terrorist group
An Israeli minister has welcomed comments by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia that the Palestinian resistance group Hamas is a terrorist organisation.
Israeli Communications Minister Ayoub Kara wrote on his official Twitter account: “We congratulate Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, as well as the head of Ulema (Islamic scholars) for his fatwa forbidding the fight against the Jews and forbidding to kill them.”
Mr Kara also welcomed the grand mufti’s comments labelling the Palestinian resistance group Hamas a terrorist organisation.
He added: “I invite the mufti to visit Israel; he will be welcomed with a high level of respect.”
Last month, Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh said during a live Q&A on television that fighting against Israel was inappropriate and that Hamas was a “terror organisation” in response to a question regarding July’s protests across occupied West Bank when Israel shut Masjid Al-Aqsa Mosque following a deadly shootout.
The illegal Zionist entity of Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
It annexed the entire city in 1980, claiming it as the Jewish state’s “undivided and eternal capital” – a move never widely recognised by the international community, with exception to the U.S. most recently.
International law perceives East Jerusalem and the West Bank as “occupied territories” and considers all Jewish settlement construction there as illegal.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/08/04/is...rrorist-group/
This is related, No doubt MBS approves.
ReplyArab Zionism. They don't even bother to mask it anymore. Makes me nauseous +o(
Israel praises grand mufti of Saudi Arabia’s comments labelling Hamas a terrorist group
An Israeli minister has welcomed comments by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia that the Palestinian resistance group Hamas is a terrorist organisation.
Israeli Communications Minister Ayoub Kara wrote on his official Twitter account: “We congratulate Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, as well as the head of Ulema (Islamic scholars) for his fatwa forbidding the fight against the Jews and forbidding to kill them.”
Mr Kara also welcomed the grand mufti’s comments labelling the Palestinian resistance group Hamas a terrorist organisation.
He added: “I invite the mufti to visit Israel; he will be welcomed with a high level of respect.”
Last month, Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh said during a live Q&A on television that fighting against Israel was inappropriate and that Hamas was a “terror organisation” in response to a question regarding July’s protests across occupied West Bank when Israel shut Masjid Al-Aqsa Mosque following a deadly shootout.
The illegal Zionist entity of Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
It annexed the entire city in 1980, claiming it as the Jewish state’s “undivided and eternal capital” – a move never widely recognised by the international community, with exception to the U.S. most recently.
International law perceives East Jerusalem and the West Bank as “occupied territories” and considers all Jewish settlement construction there as illegal.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/08/04/is...rrorist-group/
This is related, No doubt MBS approves.
سيف الله
08-14-2019, 05:06 PM
Salaam
Another update
Saudi journalist: Palestinians are a scourge on the countries that host them
A Saudi columnist has called Palestinians a scourge on the countries that host them.
Mohammed Al Shaikh who writes for Al Jazirah newspaper posted a tweet on 9 August which he reposted yesterday to say: “Palestinians are a scourge on the countries that host them. Jordan hosted them and it was a black September, Lebanon suffered a civil war. Kuwait hosted them and they became soldiers for [former Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein].”
He went on to accuse Palestinians of using social media and other platforms to “insult” Saudi Arabia and its positions.
“No one is able to deal with them except the Israeli Defence Forces,” he concluded.
Al Shaikh is the latest Saudi to attack Palestinians. Earlier this month, activist Souad Al-Shammari appeared on Israeli TV and said “many Saudis” want to visit the occupation state.
“Visiting Israel is probably the dream of many Saudis and those of the Gulf and Arab states alike.”
Her appearance on Israeli TV has sparked further criticism of Saudi Arabia, which has been seen to be normalising relations with Tel Aviv in recent months.
Last month, Saudi blogger Mohammed Saud toured occupied Jerusalem following an invitation from Tel Aviv. He met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s son Yair and visited the Muslim holy site of Al-Aqsa Mosque however he was forced out of the area after he was insulted by Palestinian worshippers who called him a “traitor”.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...hat-host-them/
ReplyAnother update
Saudi journalist: Palestinians are a scourge on the countries that host them
A Saudi columnist has called Palestinians a scourge on the countries that host them.
Mohammed Al Shaikh who writes for Al Jazirah newspaper posted a tweet on 9 August which he reposted yesterday to say: “Palestinians are a scourge on the countries that host them. Jordan hosted them and it was a black September, Lebanon suffered a civil war. Kuwait hosted them and they became soldiers for [former Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein].”
He went on to accuse Palestinians of using social media and other platforms to “insult” Saudi Arabia and its positions.
“No one is able to deal with them except the Israeli Defence Forces,” he concluded.
Al Shaikh is the latest Saudi to attack Palestinians. Earlier this month, activist Souad Al-Shammari appeared on Israeli TV and said “many Saudis” want to visit the occupation state.
“Visiting Israel is probably the dream of many Saudis and those of the Gulf and Arab states alike.”
Her appearance on Israeli TV has sparked further criticism of Saudi Arabia, which has been seen to be normalising relations with Tel Aviv in recent months.
Last month, Saudi blogger Mohammed Saud toured occupied Jerusalem following an invitation from Tel Aviv. He met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s son Yair and visited the Muslim holy site of Al-Aqsa Mosque however he was forced out of the area after he was insulted by Palestinian worshippers who called him a “traitor”.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...hat-host-them/
سيف الله
08-18-2019, 09:42 PM
سيف الله
08-21-2019, 09:43 PM
Salaam
Like to share.
Blurb
Jewish academic and son of Holocaust survivors analyses the Labour Party anti-semitism scandal and its implications for the upcoming American elections
Corbyn is buckling under the pressure.
ReplyLike to share.
Blurb
Jewish academic and son of Holocaust survivors analyses the Labour Party anti-semitism scandal and its implications for the upcoming American elections
Corbyn is buckling under the pressure.
سيف الله
09-01-2019, 04:41 AM
Salaam
Another update.
Netanyahu endorses BDS
It's an ironic development, but now that he has very publicly violated state and federal anti-BDS laws, the Prime Minister of Israel will no longer be able to provide contracting services to Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, or Wisconsin, or even enter the State of Israel.
I'm sure this very surprising endorsement of BDS by the Prime Minister will take BDS advocates by surprise, but I'm sure they are sufficiently open-minded to welcome old Bibi to their cause of boycotting Israeli businesses and individuals.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/08/n...orses-bds.html
ReplyAnother update.
Netanyahu endorses BDS
It's an ironic development, but now that he has very publicly violated state and federal anti-BDS laws, the Prime Minister of Israel will no longer be able to provide contracting services to Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, or Wisconsin, or even enter the State of Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for a boycott of the producers of a HBO series which, he says, is “anti-Semitic” and “slanders Israel.” Netanyahu took to Facebook to call for a boycott of “propaganda” Channel 12 and its owner Keshet for creating the show ‘Our Boys’, which he says “besmirches the good name of Israel.” He urged his followers to stop watching the channel, especially those who have a ratings meter in their homes.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/08/n...orses-bds.html
سيف الله
09-01-2019, 11:18 PM
Salaam
Another update
Kushner’s Threat to Palestine: An Interview with Norman Finkelstein
What is the end goal of the Kushner-led ‘peace’ process?
The Trump administration hasn’t demonstrated focus or consistency at the diplomatic level. But I don’t agree with all the talk that the Kushner plan is “dead on arrival”.
The prime mover behind the Kushner plan is neither Israel nor the US. It’s Saudi Arabia. Saudi covets an open alliance with the Israelis and the US. It fears the Iran axis. It’s a feudal despotism largely impotent on its own; it needs others to pull its chestnuts out of the fire. Witness the Saudi debacles in Yemen and Syria. On a more immediate level, there’s the Khashoggi affair—MBS (Muhammad Bin Salman) is desperate to be rehabilitated in Washington. If Saudi enters into an open alliance with Israel, even liberal members of Congress will forgive his “indiscretions.” So the Saudis harbor strong motives to push through the Kushner plan. The one and only obstacle to an open alliance with Israel is the Palestine Question. If they can resolve it, or appear to resolve it, then it’s clear sailing.
What do the Israelis get out of it? They’ve already gotten from Trump recognition of Jerusalem and the Golan as belonging to Israel. The Kushner plan’s political component will almost certainly include recognition of what’s called the “major settlement blocs” as belonging to Israel. That’s about 10 percent of the West Bank on the “Israeli” side of the wall. For now, Israel doesn’t want the rest of the territory because it doesn’t want all those Arabs. It will be said by Trump supporters, correctly, that the whole elite establishment in the US—liberal to conservative, Democrat to Republican—has always supported Israeli annexation of the settlement blocs.
However, recognition won’t be a huge victory for Netanyahu because the Trump regime is too eccentric. It’s possible that if Trump is defeated in 2020, the Democratic president will resume the status quo ante and pretend the Trump years never happened. Then we’d be back to Jerusalem, the Golan, and the settlement blocs having the same status as in prior US administrations.
What would be a huge victory for Netanyahu would be an open alliance with Saudi Arabia. It would spell the official end of the Arab League. One of the core unifying elements of the Arab League was opposition to Israel. The Gulf states will realign with Israel, alongside Egypt and Jordan. Israel’s biggest diplomatic victories in the Arab world were Camp David, 1978 (Egypt’s defection from the “Arab Front”), and Oslo, 1993 (the PLO’s de facto collaboration with the US and Israel). A Saudi-Gulf open realignment would be Israel’s third big diplomatic victory.
What does the United States stand to gain from this?
The US motive has actually not been disguised. You have to pay attention to the language; they call it the “Deal of the Century”. Trump, Jared and Ivanka are business people. They don’t really care about politics per se, except as a vehicle for personal enrichment. They just want to cut deals. Jared sees the Gulf as chock full of real estate deals. It could become his playground literally for life as MBS, Saudi’s ruler for life, would be indebted to Jared for life.
The Palestinians don’t have many options. In the case of Gaza, the leadership has to show something for all the suffering in the Great March of Return. The Saudis will be able to offer them, alongside desperately needed funds, a partial lifting of the blockade. Israel would probably go along with it.
The Palestinian leadership has only ever cared about squirreling away money in their private bank accounts and paying the P.A.’s employees. It’s always been a corrupt patronage system. (The likes of pathetic Saeb Erekat also enjoy the pretenses and pageantry of power.) There was a very calculated policy by the US over the past couple of years to bankrupt the PA in order to soften it for the “Deal of the Century”. The Palestinian Authority is now broke, and desperate. Abbas is just bargaining as he says “No, No, No”; he wants to see how much money he can wring out of Washington and Riyadh. PLO hack Hanan Ashrawi says that the Palestinians can’t be bought for a “fistful of dollars.” True enough; they demand two fistfuls.
None of what I’ve suggested is set in stone. Consider the precursors–Carter and Clinton. Carter’s tenacity and grasp of micro-detail during the Camp David talks in 1978 was terrifying. It was said of Clinton that he knew every street in Jerusalem by the end of the 2000 (abortive) negotiations. To seal a deal does require that kind of laser-like focus.
Is Trump or anyone around him capable of that focus? At some level Saudi-US dollars can’t on their own set all the pieces in place. You need people who are equipped to do the tough negotiating.
That’s the level where things might not fall into place. But at the level of generality, all this talk about “it’s dead” and “Kushner is an idiot”– well, he is an idiot but it’s beside the point because if you look at the balance of political forces and the converging political agendas of the main players, it’s possible.
If the Trump administration is successful will the international consensus on the two-state settlement erode?
It will erode: once the dollars start rolling in, the Palestinians will do whatever suits their bankrollers. But at some point a new generation will undoubtedly emerge that demands the dignity of equality before the law.
The two-state settlement will then be over. If there is a resolution along the Trump-Saudi-Israeli lines, at least one generation will have to pass before a new leadership arises with a new vision, which will probably be one state. I won’t be around to see it. John Brown didn’t live to see the abolition of slavery. I will have been one link in the chain, one rung on Jacob’s Ladder.
***
What can we expect to come out of the State of Palestine’s case against Israel at the ICC?
The ICC is a very corrupt place. The former chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has been steeped in personal (sexual assault), political, and financial corruption. The iniquity of the current chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, reaches back to her judicial role during the Gambian military junta. Of late, she has been fighting tooth and nail not to investigate Israeli criminality.
My guess is, initially, she feared being Goldstoned.[1] She knew the Mossad would track down the 10,000 skeletons in her closet and she would end up like Richard Goldstone. So she had a strong personal motive to quash the complaints lodged against Israel in the ICC.
Then, an institutional motive emerged as US Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Advisor Bolton publicly declared that if the ICC investigated the US or Israel, the Trump administration would destroy the ICC. They were very blunt about it. And they’ve already set about it. When Bensouda attempted to launch a preliminary examination of US crimes in Afghanistan, she was immediately stripped of her US visa. Every ICC member has a t-shirt that says, “I LOVE NEW YORK”. The US message was clear: “Investigate Israel and you’ll never see Times Square again.” It worked like a charm. The pre-trial chamber overruled Bensouda and dropped the case.
On the other hand, a civil war has erupted in the ICC. There are forces within it that have been pushing back as they demand that Bensouda investigate Israeli crimes.
There are two referrals before the ICC now. One relates to the “Flotilla Incident” (Mavi Marmara) in 2010, and the second is the State of Palestine complaint relating mostly to the illegal Israeli settlements, Operation Protective Edge (2014) and the Great March of Return (ongoing). Bensouda has spent the past six years trying to bury the Mavi Marmara case. She keeps declaring the case closed but forces in the ICC keep replying “No, you have to investigate Israel.”
The stakes are very high. If Bensouda closes both complaints without even launching an investigation, its transparent that she’s completely corrupt. But if she indicts on any complaint, the US will set about destroying the ICC. The book I’ve written demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Bensouda has been whitewashing Israel. It poses two choices to Bensouda: indict Israel or step down. There is no third option.
But even if the ICC chooses to indict there is no chance that any Israeli general is ever going to stand trial.
Absolutely.
So, many would say, What’s the point?
It’s like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion in 2004, which declared the wall Israel has been building in the West Bank illegal. It’s another weapon in the arsenal of the Palestinians in the battle for public opinion. It would place on the public record that the two leading judicial bodies in the world, the ICJ and ICC, have both found Israel guilty of egregious international crimes. This is a powerful weapon to persuade public opinion if and when a Palestinian mass movement emerges that is truly committed to fighting the occupation.
Notes
1. After a UN Fact-Finding Mission led by the esteemed South African judge Richard Goldstone concluded that the goal of Israel’s 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead had been to “punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population” in Gaza, Israel responded with a torrent of personal attacks until Goldstone (but not his coauthors) recanted the report, effectively destroying his career.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08...n-finkelstein/
ReplyAnother update
Kushner’s Threat to Palestine: An Interview with Norman Finkelstein
What is the end goal of the Kushner-led ‘peace’ process?
The Trump administration hasn’t demonstrated focus or consistency at the diplomatic level. But I don’t agree with all the talk that the Kushner plan is “dead on arrival”.
The prime mover behind the Kushner plan is neither Israel nor the US. It’s Saudi Arabia. Saudi covets an open alliance with the Israelis and the US. It fears the Iran axis. It’s a feudal despotism largely impotent on its own; it needs others to pull its chestnuts out of the fire. Witness the Saudi debacles in Yemen and Syria. On a more immediate level, there’s the Khashoggi affair—MBS (Muhammad Bin Salman) is desperate to be rehabilitated in Washington. If Saudi enters into an open alliance with Israel, even liberal members of Congress will forgive his “indiscretions.” So the Saudis harbor strong motives to push through the Kushner plan. The one and only obstacle to an open alliance with Israel is the Palestine Question. If they can resolve it, or appear to resolve it, then it’s clear sailing.
What do the Israelis get out of it? They’ve already gotten from Trump recognition of Jerusalem and the Golan as belonging to Israel. The Kushner plan’s political component will almost certainly include recognition of what’s called the “major settlement blocs” as belonging to Israel. That’s about 10 percent of the West Bank on the “Israeli” side of the wall. For now, Israel doesn’t want the rest of the territory because it doesn’t want all those Arabs. It will be said by Trump supporters, correctly, that the whole elite establishment in the US—liberal to conservative, Democrat to Republican—has always supported Israeli annexation of the settlement blocs.
However, recognition won’t be a huge victory for Netanyahu because the Trump regime is too eccentric. It’s possible that if Trump is defeated in 2020, the Democratic president will resume the status quo ante and pretend the Trump years never happened. Then we’d be back to Jerusalem, the Golan, and the settlement blocs having the same status as in prior US administrations.
What would be a huge victory for Netanyahu would be an open alliance with Saudi Arabia. It would spell the official end of the Arab League. One of the core unifying elements of the Arab League was opposition to Israel. The Gulf states will realign with Israel, alongside Egypt and Jordan. Israel’s biggest diplomatic victories in the Arab world were Camp David, 1978 (Egypt’s defection from the “Arab Front”), and Oslo, 1993 (the PLO’s de facto collaboration with the US and Israel). A Saudi-Gulf open realignment would be Israel’s third big diplomatic victory.
What does the United States stand to gain from this?
The US motive has actually not been disguised. You have to pay attention to the language; they call it the “Deal of the Century”. Trump, Jared and Ivanka are business people. They don’t really care about politics per se, except as a vehicle for personal enrichment. They just want to cut deals. Jared sees the Gulf as chock full of real estate deals. It could become his playground literally for life as MBS, Saudi’s ruler for life, would be indebted to Jared for life.
The Palestinians don’t have many options. In the case of Gaza, the leadership has to show something for all the suffering in the Great March of Return. The Saudis will be able to offer them, alongside desperately needed funds, a partial lifting of the blockade. Israel would probably go along with it.
The Palestinian leadership has only ever cared about squirreling away money in their private bank accounts and paying the P.A.’s employees. It’s always been a corrupt patronage system. (The likes of pathetic Saeb Erekat also enjoy the pretenses and pageantry of power.) There was a very calculated policy by the US over the past couple of years to bankrupt the PA in order to soften it for the “Deal of the Century”. The Palestinian Authority is now broke, and desperate. Abbas is just bargaining as he says “No, No, No”; he wants to see how much money he can wring out of Washington and Riyadh. PLO hack Hanan Ashrawi says that the Palestinians can’t be bought for a “fistful of dollars.” True enough; they demand two fistfuls.
None of what I’ve suggested is set in stone. Consider the precursors–Carter and Clinton. Carter’s tenacity and grasp of micro-detail during the Camp David talks in 1978 was terrifying. It was said of Clinton that he knew every street in Jerusalem by the end of the 2000 (abortive) negotiations. To seal a deal does require that kind of laser-like focus.
Is Trump or anyone around him capable of that focus? At some level Saudi-US dollars can’t on their own set all the pieces in place. You need people who are equipped to do the tough negotiating.
That’s the level where things might not fall into place. But at the level of generality, all this talk about “it’s dead” and “Kushner is an idiot”– well, he is an idiot but it’s beside the point because if you look at the balance of political forces and the converging political agendas of the main players, it’s possible.
If the Trump administration is successful will the international consensus on the two-state settlement erode?
It will erode: once the dollars start rolling in, the Palestinians will do whatever suits their bankrollers. But at some point a new generation will undoubtedly emerge that demands the dignity of equality before the law.
The two-state settlement will then be over. If there is a resolution along the Trump-Saudi-Israeli lines, at least one generation will have to pass before a new leadership arises with a new vision, which will probably be one state. I won’t be around to see it. John Brown didn’t live to see the abolition of slavery. I will have been one link in the chain, one rung on Jacob’s Ladder.
***
What can we expect to come out of the State of Palestine’s case against Israel at the ICC?
The ICC is a very corrupt place. The former chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has been steeped in personal (sexual assault), political, and financial corruption. The iniquity of the current chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, reaches back to her judicial role during the Gambian military junta. Of late, she has been fighting tooth and nail not to investigate Israeli criminality.
My guess is, initially, she feared being Goldstoned.[1] She knew the Mossad would track down the 10,000 skeletons in her closet and she would end up like Richard Goldstone. So she had a strong personal motive to quash the complaints lodged against Israel in the ICC.
Then, an institutional motive emerged as US Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Advisor Bolton publicly declared that if the ICC investigated the US or Israel, the Trump administration would destroy the ICC. They were very blunt about it. And they’ve already set about it. When Bensouda attempted to launch a preliminary examination of US crimes in Afghanistan, she was immediately stripped of her US visa. Every ICC member has a t-shirt that says, “I LOVE NEW YORK”. The US message was clear: “Investigate Israel and you’ll never see Times Square again.” It worked like a charm. The pre-trial chamber overruled Bensouda and dropped the case.
On the other hand, a civil war has erupted in the ICC. There are forces within it that have been pushing back as they demand that Bensouda investigate Israeli crimes.
There are two referrals before the ICC now. One relates to the “Flotilla Incident” (Mavi Marmara) in 2010, and the second is the State of Palestine complaint relating mostly to the illegal Israeli settlements, Operation Protective Edge (2014) and the Great March of Return (ongoing). Bensouda has spent the past six years trying to bury the Mavi Marmara case. She keeps declaring the case closed but forces in the ICC keep replying “No, you have to investigate Israel.”
The stakes are very high. If Bensouda closes both complaints without even launching an investigation, its transparent that she’s completely corrupt. But if she indicts on any complaint, the US will set about destroying the ICC. The book I’ve written demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Bensouda has been whitewashing Israel. It poses two choices to Bensouda: indict Israel or step down. There is no third option.
But even if the ICC chooses to indict there is no chance that any Israeli general is ever going to stand trial.
Absolutely.
So, many would say, What’s the point?
It’s like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion in 2004, which declared the wall Israel has been building in the West Bank illegal. It’s another weapon in the arsenal of the Palestinians in the battle for public opinion. It would place on the public record that the two leading judicial bodies in the world, the ICJ and ICC, have both found Israel guilty of egregious international crimes. This is a powerful weapon to persuade public opinion if and when a Palestinian mass movement emerges that is truly committed to fighting the occupation.
Notes
1. After a UN Fact-Finding Mission led by the esteemed South African judge Richard Goldstone concluded that the goal of Israel’s 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead had been to “punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population” in Gaza, Israel responded with a torrent of personal attacks until Goldstone (but not his coauthors) recanted the report, effectively destroying his career.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08...n-finkelstein/
سيف الله
09-24-2019, 09:23 PM
Salaam
Like to share. If you are new to this conflict and debate surrounding it, this is a good place to start.
Blurb
The Intifada within the American, Israeli, Islamic Triangle was a debate that took place on the 8th of November 1989 at the University of Pennsylvania .
The infamous Dershowitz–Finkelstein debate. This started a feud that eventually led to Norman losing his job.
A much calmer debate between Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben Ami. Even though they are on opposite sides of the fence they agree on the basic facts of the conflict.
Blurb
In 2006, after the publication of his book "Beyond the Chutzpah" Norman Finkelstein was invited by Democracy Now to debate with Shlomo Ben Ami, Israeli Foreign Minister at the time of the Camp David and Taba peace talks.
For those of you who still believe that the Israeli political family in power is made up of Likud hawks and pacifist Labor, take the time to listen to what N.Finkelstein says about Israel's ruling left and violations. incessant international law by Israel.
A look at Norman Finklesteins life.
Blurb
American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein is a 2009 documentary film about the life of the American academic Norman Finkelstein, directed and produced by David Ridgen and Nicolas Rossier.
The documentary features Finkelstein and several of his supporters and opponents, including Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz.
ReplyLike to share. If you are new to this conflict and debate surrounding it, this is a good place to start.
Blurb
The Intifada within the American, Israeli, Islamic Triangle was a debate that took place on the 8th of November 1989 at the University of Pennsylvania .
The infamous Dershowitz–Finkelstein debate. This started a feud that eventually led to Norman losing his job.
A much calmer debate between Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben Ami. Even though they are on opposite sides of the fence they agree on the basic facts of the conflict.
Blurb
In 2006, after the publication of his book "Beyond the Chutzpah" Norman Finkelstein was invited by Democracy Now to debate with Shlomo Ben Ami, Israeli Foreign Minister at the time of the Camp David and Taba peace talks.
For those of you who still believe that the Israeli political family in power is made up of Likud hawks and pacifist Labor, take the time to listen to what N.Finkelstein says about Israel's ruling left and violations. incessant international law by Israel.
A look at Norman Finklesteins life.
Blurb
American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein is a 2009 documentary film about the life of the American academic Norman Finkelstein, directed and produced by David Ridgen and Nicolas Rossier.
The documentary features Finkelstein and several of his supporters and opponents, including Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz.
سيف الله
09-27-2019, 08:42 PM
Salaam
Like to share. A more recent debate.
Blurb
Israelis and Palestinians come together to find a middle ground. Can they look past the deep conflict to understand one another?
To answer the question
Israelis and Palestinians come together to find a middle ground. Can they look past the deep conflict to understand one another?
One side is trying to erase the other, what is there to discuss?
ReplyLike to share. A more recent debate.
Blurb
Israelis and Palestinians come together to find a middle ground. Can they look past the deep conflict to understand one another?
To answer the question
Israelis and Palestinians come together to find a middle ground. Can they look past the deep conflict to understand one another?
One side is trying to erase the other, what is there to discuss?
سيف الله
10-04-2019, 08:44 PM
Salaam
Like to share, a tidbit of history.
Blurb
As I was going through some files I came across this old clip of Netanyahu being caught, to his political embarrassment, admitting that the President of the United States and US Foreign Policy are easily steered in the direction that best suits Israel’s interests.
How many times have you seen people browbeat and called antisemitic for saying this exact same thing. Yet here is Netanyahu admitting it.
Blurb
In a speech at the United Nations on Friday, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Malaysia cannot accept the blatant seizure of Palestinian land by Israel for their settlements as well as the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel.
He highlighted the dire situation of the Palestinians who cannot even enter the settlements built on their land.
Malaysia, he said, accepted the state of Israel as a fait accompli but underscored that because of the creation of Israel, there is now enmity towards the Muslims and Islam.
ReplyLike to share, a tidbit of history.
Blurb
As I was going through some files I came across this old clip of Netanyahu being caught, to his political embarrassment, admitting that the President of the United States and US Foreign Policy are easily steered in the direction that best suits Israel’s interests.
How many times have you seen people browbeat and called antisemitic for saying this exact same thing. Yet here is Netanyahu admitting it.
Blurb
In a speech at the United Nations on Friday, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Malaysia cannot accept the blatant seizure of Palestinian land by Israel for their settlements as well as the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel.
He highlighted the dire situation of the Palestinians who cannot even enter the settlements built on their land.
Malaysia, he said, accepted the state of Israel as a fait accompli but underscored that because of the creation of Israel, there is now enmity towards the Muslims and Islam.
سيف الله
10-05-2019, 11:26 PM
Salaam
Another update.
Israel and Gulf states working on ‘historic pact’ to end conflict between them
TV says FM Katz met Gulf counterparts at UN to advance ‘non-aggression’ deal as they face Iran, pledging friendly ties, cooperation, no war or incitement; Greenblatt also in loop
Israel is reportedly negotiating with several Gulf states on a “non-aggression pact” between them as they face off against an increasingly emboldened Iran. The deal, which Channel 12 news described as potentially “historic,” aims to put an end to the state of conflict between the Gulf states and Israel, and reportedly provides for friendly relations, cooperation in a variety of fields, and no war or incitement against each other.
Advancing the Israeli initiative, Foreign Minister Israel Katz met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly last month with several foreign ministers from Arab Gulf states, Channel 12 news reported Saturday night.
There was no immediate comment from the Foreign Ministry.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel...hey-face-iran/
ReplyAnother update.
Israel and Gulf states working on ‘historic pact’ to end conflict between them
TV says FM Katz met Gulf counterparts at UN to advance ‘non-aggression’ deal as they face Iran, pledging friendly ties, cooperation, no war or incitement; Greenblatt also in loop
Israel is reportedly negotiating with several Gulf states on a “non-aggression pact” between them as they face off against an increasingly emboldened Iran. The deal, which Channel 12 news described as potentially “historic,” aims to put an end to the state of conflict between the Gulf states and Israel, and reportedly provides for friendly relations, cooperation in a variety of fields, and no war or incitement against each other.
Advancing the Israeli initiative, Foreign Minister Israel Katz met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly last month with several foreign ministers from Arab Gulf states, Channel 12 news reported Saturday night.
There was no immediate comment from the Foreign Ministry.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel...hey-face-iran/
سيف الله
10-29-2019, 01:38 PM
Salaam
Another update
A Window into Jewish Guilt
It has become an institutional Jewish habit to examine how much Jews are hated by their host nations and how fearful Jews are of their neighbours. Jewish press outlets reported yesterday that “9 out of 10 US Jews worry about anti-Semitism.”
I, for one, can’t think of another people who invest so much energy in measuring their unpopularity. Despite the scale of Islamophobia and anti-Black racism, we are not subjected to a constant barrage of ‘statistics’ to ‘warn us’ of how hated Blacks are or how unsafe Muslims feel.
The American Jewish Committee’s (AJC) statistics suggest that “most Jews think that the situation is getting worse.” I find their statistics unlikely but I guess any mathematically inclined person would agree that if 9 out of 10 are fearful, then the situation can’t get much ‘worse’ as 10 out of 10 would constitute only a minor increase (11%).
Assume, for a moment, that the AJC’s statistics reflect reality and that the overwhelming majority (90%) of 1,200 Jewish respondents, from all political and religious positions, regard Jew-hatred as a serious problem with potentially disastrous consequences.
We might wonder who are the ‘naughty’ one out of ten Jews who, unlike their brethren, are not scared of their American neighbours. I suspect these are the so-called ‘self-haters,’ that infamous bunch of horrid humanist Jews who support Palestine and are disgusted by the manifold of recent Jewish #MeToo scandals and paedophilia/organised crime networks. This small minority (10%) of disobedient Jews might be disturbed by the opioid scandal that left 400.000 Americans dead, they probably know who were the prime actors in this saga of class genocide. They are likely troubled by a range of financial crimes from Madoff to Israeli banks evading US taxes, to the Israeli binary options companies that defraud American citizens. These universalist Jewish outcasts are often vocal critics of their people, their culture and their politics. They may denounce AIPAC and the ADL, Soros and even JVP for acting as the controlled opposition. The AJC’s statistics point to the possible existence of a comic scenario in which 9 out of 10 Jews are intimidated by the 1 out of 10 Jews who speak out.
There is a less humorous, more serious interpretation of the AJC’s findings. It is possible that the large number of Jews who worry about anti-Semitism indicates that Jews at large are aware of the worrying traits associated with their politics, culture, identity, lobbying and Israeli criminality.
Jews may feel that they are stained as a group by problematic characters such as Weisntein, Epstein and Maxwell. They may feel polluted by Israeli politics and the intensive Zionist lobbying that plunders billions of American taxpayers dollars every year. As the White House seems to turn its back on the Neocons’ immoral interventionism, some Jews may be discomfited by the fact that the Neocon war mongering doctrine has been largely a Jewish project. As Haartez writer Ari Shavit wrote back in 2003: “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish…” Maybe some Jews now understand that the Zionist shift from a ‘promised land’ to the Neocon ‘promised planet’ doesn’t reflect well on the Jews as a group.
I am trying to point out the possibility that the overwhelming fear of ‘anti-Semitism,’ documented however poorly by the AJC, might well be the expression of guilt. American Jews may feel communal guilt over the disastrous politics and culture of some sections of their corrupted elite. They might even feel guilty as Americans about the brutal sacrifice of one of America’s prime values, that of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, on the altar of ‘antisemitism.’ .
Obviously, I would welcome AJC’s further investigation of this. It would be interesting to learn about the correlation between the Jewish fear of anti Semitism and Jewish guilt. It would also be fascinating to find out how Jewish anxiety translates into self-reflection. In that regard, I suggest that instead of blaming the American people, Jews try introspection. US Jews may want to follow the early Zionists, such as Theodor Herzl, who turned guilt into self-examination. Herzl was deeply disturbed by anti Semitism but this didn’t stop him from digging into its causes. “The wealthy Jews control the world, in their hands lies the fate of governments and nations,” Herzl wrote. He continued, “They set governments one against the other. When the wealthy Jews play, the nations and the rulers dance. One way or the other, they get rich.” Herzl, like other early Zionists, believed that Jews could be emancipated from their conditions and even be loved globally by means of a cultural, ideological and spiritual metamorphosis with the aspiration of ‘homecoming.’ Herzl and his fellow early Zionists were clearly wrong in their proposed remedy for the Jewish question, but were absolutely spot on in their adherence to self-reflection and harsh self-criticism.
American Jews have much to learn from Herzl and other early Zionists. They should ask themselves how their American ‘Golden Medina’ their Jewish land of opportunities, has turned into a ‘threatening’ realm. What happened, what has changed in the last few years? Was it the constant cries over anti-Semitism and the desperate and institutional attempts to silence critics that turned their Golden Medina into a daunting space?
https://gilad.online/writings/2019/1...o-jewish-guilt
ReplyAnother update
A Window into Jewish Guilt
It has become an institutional Jewish habit to examine how much Jews are hated by their host nations and how fearful Jews are of their neighbours. Jewish press outlets reported yesterday that “9 out of 10 US Jews worry about anti-Semitism.”
I, for one, can’t think of another people who invest so much energy in measuring their unpopularity. Despite the scale of Islamophobia and anti-Black racism, we are not subjected to a constant barrage of ‘statistics’ to ‘warn us’ of how hated Blacks are or how unsafe Muslims feel.
The American Jewish Committee’s (AJC) statistics suggest that “most Jews think that the situation is getting worse.” I find their statistics unlikely but I guess any mathematically inclined person would agree that if 9 out of 10 are fearful, then the situation can’t get much ‘worse’ as 10 out of 10 would constitute only a minor increase (11%).
Assume, for a moment, that the AJC’s statistics reflect reality and that the overwhelming majority (90%) of 1,200 Jewish respondents, from all political and religious positions, regard Jew-hatred as a serious problem with potentially disastrous consequences.
We might wonder who are the ‘naughty’ one out of ten Jews who, unlike their brethren, are not scared of their American neighbours. I suspect these are the so-called ‘self-haters,’ that infamous bunch of horrid humanist Jews who support Palestine and are disgusted by the manifold of recent Jewish #MeToo scandals and paedophilia/organised crime networks. This small minority (10%) of disobedient Jews might be disturbed by the opioid scandal that left 400.000 Americans dead, they probably know who were the prime actors in this saga of class genocide. They are likely troubled by a range of financial crimes from Madoff to Israeli banks evading US taxes, to the Israeli binary options companies that defraud American citizens. These universalist Jewish outcasts are often vocal critics of their people, their culture and their politics. They may denounce AIPAC and the ADL, Soros and even JVP for acting as the controlled opposition. The AJC’s statistics point to the possible existence of a comic scenario in which 9 out of 10 Jews are intimidated by the 1 out of 10 Jews who speak out.
There is a less humorous, more serious interpretation of the AJC’s findings. It is possible that the large number of Jews who worry about anti-Semitism indicates that Jews at large are aware of the worrying traits associated with their politics, culture, identity, lobbying and Israeli criminality.
Jews may feel that they are stained as a group by problematic characters such as Weisntein, Epstein and Maxwell. They may feel polluted by Israeli politics and the intensive Zionist lobbying that plunders billions of American taxpayers dollars every year. As the White House seems to turn its back on the Neocons’ immoral interventionism, some Jews may be discomfited by the fact that the Neocon war mongering doctrine has been largely a Jewish project. As Haartez writer Ari Shavit wrote back in 2003: “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish…” Maybe some Jews now understand that the Zionist shift from a ‘promised land’ to the Neocon ‘promised planet’ doesn’t reflect well on the Jews as a group.
I am trying to point out the possibility that the overwhelming fear of ‘anti-Semitism,’ documented however poorly by the AJC, might well be the expression of guilt. American Jews may feel communal guilt over the disastrous politics and culture of some sections of their corrupted elite. They might even feel guilty as Americans about the brutal sacrifice of one of America’s prime values, that of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, on the altar of ‘antisemitism.’ .
Obviously, I would welcome AJC’s further investigation of this. It would be interesting to learn about the correlation between the Jewish fear of anti Semitism and Jewish guilt. It would also be fascinating to find out how Jewish anxiety translates into self-reflection. In that regard, I suggest that instead of blaming the American people, Jews try introspection. US Jews may want to follow the early Zionists, such as Theodor Herzl, who turned guilt into self-examination. Herzl was deeply disturbed by anti Semitism but this didn’t stop him from digging into its causes. “The wealthy Jews control the world, in their hands lies the fate of governments and nations,” Herzl wrote. He continued, “They set governments one against the other. When the wealthy Jews play, the nations and the rulers dance. One way or the other, they get rich.” Herzl, like other early Zionists, believed that Jews could be emancipated from their conditions and even be loved globally by means of a cultural, ideological and spiritual metamorphosis with the aspiration of ‘homecoming.’ Herzl and his fellow early Zionists were clearly wrong in their proposed remedy for the Jewish question, but were absolutely spot on in their adherence to self-reflection and harsh self-criticism.
American Jews have much to learn from Herzl and other early Zionists. They should ask themselves how their American ‘Golden Medina’ their Jewish land of opportunities, has turned into a ‘threatening’ realm. What happened, what has changed in the last few years? Was it the constant cries over anti-Semitism and the desperate and institutional attempts to silence critics that turned their Golden Medina into a daunting space?
https://gilad.online/writings/2019/1...o-jewish-guilt
سيف الله
10-31-2019, 11:10 AM
Salaam
Another update
Israel seeks US help it normalise relations with Gulf
Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz said that he had asked the American Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin to help Israel normalise ties with Gulf states.
Taking to Twitter, Katz wrote on Monday: “I asked the American secretary of the Treasury to help Israel build economic relations with the Gulf States in the light of the continuous normalisation wave, mainly with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.”
He added: “In light of the Iranian threats and the alliance between America, Israel and the Sunni Gulf states, there is a historical opportunity being evolved that we must not lose. The goal of this opportunity is to reach a non-aggression deal.”
His calls come as there has been an increase in the number of meetings between officials from Gulf states and Israel.
Israel’s Labor party leader Avi Gabbay has visited a number of Arab state, including the UAE. According to the Times of Israel, the Moroccan national involved in arranging the December meeting had “previously arranged other meetings for Gabbay with senior Arab officials”.
Gabbay was not the first Israeli establishment figure to visit the UAE in 2018, with Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister visiting the Gulf state in October. Miri Regev attended the Abu Dhabi Grand Slam Judo tournament after being invited to support the Israeli national team that had been granted permission to participate, despite the fact that the two countries do not hold formal diplomatic relations and Israeli passports are not valid for travel to the UAE.
Just days after Regev’s visit to Abu Dhabi, Israel’s Communication Minister Ayoub Kara spoke at a conference in Dubai. Kara told the audience – which had gathered for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) conference – that “peace and security in every state […] with economic and scientific progress is what guarantees a future for the coming generations”. In a tweet following the event Kara wrote: “It is amazing and heartwarming to receive thunderous applause at the ITU conference in Dubai. I would like to thank the Government and people of the United Arab Emirates of Dubai for their warm hospitality.”
Israeli-Emirati relations reached new heights in 2018, against the backdrop of Israel’s efforts to foster normalisation with a number of Arab countries. In August, Israeli journalist Edy Cohen claimed that an Emirati pilot participated in the bombing of Palestinian targets in the besieged Gaza Strip during his training on Israeli Air Force F-35 fighters in July. Cohen also accused Dubai’s Deputy Chairman of Police and Public Security, General Dhahi Khalfan, of being complicit in assassinating Hamas leader Mahmoud Mabhouh in Dubai in 2010.
READ: The PA’s support for international agendas shuns the Palestinian right of return
In June, an exposé by the New Yorker revealed that Israel and the UAE have been engaged in secret normalisation talks since as early as the 1990s. The report disclosed that “the secret relationship between Israel and the UAE can be traced back to a series of meetings in a nondescript office in Washington D.C. after the signing of the Oslo Accords.” These meetings discussed the possibility of the UAE purchasing F-16 fighter jets from the US, which are known to be comprised of Israeli technology. The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed Bin Zayed, also gave his blessing for delegations of influential Jewish-Americans to be taken to Abu Dhabi to meet with Emirati officials and establish an intelligence-sharing relationship.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...ons-with-gulf/
ReplyAnother update
Israel seeks US help it normalise relations with Gulf
Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz said that he had asked the American Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin to help Israel normalise ties with Gulf states.
Taking to Twitter, Katz wrote on Monday: “I asked the American secretary of the Treasury to help Israel build economic relations with the Gulf States in the light of the continuous normalisation wave, mainly with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.”
He added: “In light of the Iranian threats and the alliance between America, Israel and the Sunni Gulf states, there is a historical opportunity being evolved that we must not lose. The goal of this opportunity is to reach a non-aggression deal.”
His calls come as there has been an increase in the number of meetings between officials from Gulf states and Israel.
Israel’s Labor party leader Avi Gabbay has visited a number of Arab state, including the UAE. According to the Times of Israel, the Moroccan national involved in arranging the December meeting had “previously arranged other meetings for Gabbay with senior Arab officials”.
Gabbay was not the first Israeli establishment figure to visit the UAE in 2018, with Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister visiting the Gulf state in October. Miri Regev attended the Abu Dhabi Grand Slam Judo tournament after being invited to support the Israeli national team that had been granted permission to participate, despite the fact that the two countries do not hold formal diplomatic relations and Israeli passports are not valid for travel to the UAE.
Just days after Regev’s visit to Abu Dhabi, Israel’s Communication Minister Ayoub Kara spoke at a conference in Dubai. Kara told the audience – which had gathered for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) conference – that “peace and security in every state […] with economic and scientific progress is what guarantees a future for the coming generations”. In a tweet following the event Kara wrote: “It is amazing and heartwarming to receive thunderous applause at the ITU conference in Dubai. I would like to thank the Government and people of the United Arab Emirates of Dubai for their warm hospitality.”
Israeli-Emirati relations reached new heights in 2018, against the backdrop of Israel’s efforts to foster normalisation with a number of Arab countries. In August, Israeli journalist Edy Cohen claimed that an Emirati pilot participated in the bombing of Palestinian targets in the besieged Gaza Strip during his training on Israeli Air Force F-35 fighters in July. Cohen also accused Dubai’s Deputy Chairman of Police and Public Security, General Dhahi Khalfan, of being complicit in assassinating Hamas leader Mahmoud Mabhouh in Dubai in 2010.
READ: The PA’s support for international agendas shuns the Palestinian right of return
In June, an exposé by the New Yorker revealed that Israel and the UAE have been engaged in secret normalisation talks since as early as the 1990s. The report disclosed that “the secret relationship between Israel and the UAE can be traced back to a series of meetings in a nondescript office in Washington D.C. after the signing of the Oslo Accords.” These meetings discussed the possibility of the UAE purchasing F-16 fighter jets from the US, which are known to be comprised of Israeli technology. The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed Bin Zayed, also gave his blessing for delegations of influential Jewish-Americans to be taken to Abu Dhabi to meet with Emirati officials and establish an intelligence-sharing relationship.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...ons-with-gulf/
سيف الله
11-04-2019, 05:00 PM
Salaam
Interesting but only the most gullible will fall for their crocodile tears.
ISRAEL'S FM KATZ BUTTS IN ON IRAQI PROTESTS, BUT NOT LEBANON
First official comments by an Israeli minister come hours after commander of a powerful Iranian-backed Iraqi militia accuses Israel of exacerbating unrest
Foreign Minister Israel Katz slammed Iran on Monday, accusing the Islamic Republic of murdering demonstrators in Iraq, hours after the commander of Iraq’s Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia accused Israel of exacerbating the unrest in the country.
“We sympathize with the Iraqi people’s protest for freedom & dignity. We condemn their repression and murder led by Qassem Suleimani & Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Iraqi people have a long & glorious history. Many Israelis from Iraq fondly remember years of living together,” Katz tweeted in English, Arabic and Hebrew.
Three protesters were shot dead by Iraqi security forces who opened fire on a crowd trying to storm the Iranian consulate in the Shi’ite holy city of Karbala overnight. While another five people were said to have been killed by security forces today.
While it was the first comment by an Israeli official regarding the ongoing protests in Iraq, a country with which Israel does not have formal diplomatic relations, Katz did not mention Lebanon.
His comment was criticized by many on Twitter, who suggested that Israel “should sit this one out.”
On Sunday, the leader of the Iranian-backed Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq Iraqi militia group, Qais Khazali, said Israel and the United Arab Emirates are playing “a bigger role than the US and Saudi Arabia” in the protests which have gripped the country.
“Israel plays a more powerful role than the US in the unrest – and the Persian Gulf Arab littoral states are also a part of this plot against Iraq, and the UAE is playing a more powerful role than Saudi Arabia in hatching plots against Iraq,” Khazali told the Arabic-language al-Iraqiyah news channel.
Khazali said that Israel’s Mossad is operating in several provinces in northern Iraq, the city of Sulaimaniyeh and running a “joint base” with the CIA and Mossad at Baghdad Airport.
The “Mossad is attempting to use some defectors of certain Iraqi parties to increase clashes, and the Ba’athis are also one of the main pivots to provoke unrest in Iraq,” he said.
During a funeral for a leading commander of the group in late October, Khazali warned that he would “take revenge” for the deaths of militia members killed in the protests.
“His blood is on America and Israel’s hands, but I will take revenge – many times over,” Khazali told mourners. “This blood is proof to all our people of the size of the conspiracy that is targeting us.”
Millions of people have taken to the streets of Iraq and Lebanon since October to protest the Iranian-allied governments and political elites who they have accused of corruption and mismanagement of state finances.
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Is...freedom-606788
'Freedom' and 'dignity'? Surely they practice what they preach?
ReplyInteresting but only the most gullible will fall for their crocodile tears.
ISRAEL'S FM KATZ BUTTS IN ON IRAQI PROTESTS, BUT NOT LEBANON
First official comments by an Israeli minister come hours after commander of a powerful Iranian-backed Iraqi militia accuses Israel of exacerbating unrest
Foreign Minister Israel Katz slammed Iran on Monday, accusing the Islamic Republic of murdering demonstrators in Iraq, hours after the commander of Iraq’s Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia accused Israel of exacerbating the unrest in the country.
“We sympathize with the Iraqi people’s protest for freedom & dignity. We condemn their repression and murder led by Qassem Suleimani & Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Iraqi people have a long & glorious history. Many Israelis from Iraq fondly remember years of living together,” Katz tweeted in English, Arabic and Hebrew.
Three protesters were shot dead by Iraqi security forces who opened fire on a crowd trying to storm the Iranian consulate in the Shi’ite holy city of Karbala overnight. While another five people were said to have been killed by security forces today.
While it was the first comment by an Israeli official regarding the ongoing protests in Iraq, a country with which Israel does not have formal diplomatic relations, Katz did not mention Lebanon.
His comment was criticized by many on Twitter, who suggested that Israel “should sit this one out.”
On Sunday, the leader of the Iranian-backed Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq Iraqi militia group, Qais Khazali, said Israel and the United Arab Emirates are playing “a bigger role than the US and Saudi Arabia” in the protests which have gripped the country.
“Israel plays a more powerful role than the US in the unrest – and the Persian Gulf Arab littoral states are also a part of this plot against Iraq, and the UAE is playing a more powerful role than Saudi Arabia in hatching plots against Iraq,” Khazali told the Arabic-language al-Iraqiyah news channel.
Khazali said that Israel’s Mossad is operating in several provinces in northern Iraq, the city of Sulaimaniyeh and running a “joint base” with the CIA and Mossad at Baghdad Airport.
The “Mossad is attempting to use some defectors of certain Iraqi parties to increase clashes, and the Ba’athis are also one of the main pivots to provoke unrest in Iraq,” he said.
During a funeral for a leading commander of the group in late October, Khazali warned that he would “take revenge” for the deaths of militia members killed in the protests.
“His blood is on America and Israel’s hands, but I will take revenge – many times over,” Khazali told mourners. “This blood is proof to all our people of the size of the conspiracy that is targeting us.”
Millions of people have taken to the streets of Iraq and Lebanon since October to protest the Iranian-allied governments and political elites who they have accused of corruption and mismanagement of state finances.
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Is...freedom-606788
'Freedom' and 'dignity'? Surely they practice what they preach?
سيف الله
12-01-2019, 10:36 AM
Salaam
Like to share.
Blurb
Guest speaker and political scientist Norman Finkelstein GS '87 addressed Jacob Katz '23, a veteran of the Israeli Defense Forces, at a panel discussion on Thursday, Oct. 10, called "Fighting for Justice: From Gaza to Ferguson."
ReplyLike to share.
Blurb
Guest speaker and political scientist Norman Finkelstein GS '87 addressed Jacob Katz '23, a veteran of the Israeli Defense Forces, at a panel discussion on Thursday, Oct. 10, called "Fighting for Justice: From Gaza to Ferguson."
سيف الله
12-08-2019, 09:16 AM
Salaam
Like to share.
Blurb
#America’s support for Israel is seldom ever questioned but how is it that the world’s most powerful nation puts the interests of #Israel before its own?
Ethnic-minority interest groups have played an increasingly important role in the affairs of Washington since the early 20th century. One faction that stands out in terms of influence is the collection of pro-Israel pressure groups. America’s support for such bodies has been a fixed truth for decades but one that is seldom ever questioned. So, how is it that the world’s most powerful nation puts the interests of Israel before its own?
Some conspiracy theories would have you believe that secret deals are made in dark-lit rooms, but the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt reveal that the opposite is true. There is no conspiracy, the Israel lobby not only operates in full publicity, but its operations are part of the fabric of modern democracies, all revealing just how powerful it is.
ReplyLike to share.
Blurb
#America’s support for Israel is seldom ever questioned but how is it that the world’s most powerful nation puts the interests of #Israel before its own?
Ethnic-minority interest groups have played an increasingly important role in the affairs of Washington since the early 20th century. One faction that stands out in terms of influence is the collection of pro-Israel pressure groups. America’s support for such bodies has been a fixed truth for decades but one that is seldom ever questioned. So, how is it that the world’s most powerful nation puts the interests of Israel before its own?
Some conspiracy theories would have you believe that secret deals are made in dark-lit rooms, but the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt reveal that the opposite is true. There is no conspiracy, the Israel lobby not only operates in full publicity, but its operations are part of the fabric of modern democracies, all revealing just how powerful it is.
سيف الله
12-16-2019, 12:22 PM
Salaam
Another update.
At long last
The question of whether Jews are a nation or a religion has been definitively and officially settled, at least for the people of the United States:
RamZPaul reaches the obvious conclusion:
Which, of course, has always been the case, despite the various self-serving attempts by immigrants to redefine Americans as some sort of walking, talking manifestations of an ideological Platonic ideation.
And, of course, it tends to raise the question of where in the Constitution the executive branch is empowered to create an "Education Department", much less play economic and speech police for the institutions of higher education across the country.
Anyhow, it is nice to have this age-old debate resolved once and for all.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/12/at-long-last.html
ReplyAnother update.
At long last
The question of whether Jews are a nation or a religion has been definitively and officially settled, at least for the people of the United States:
President Trump will sign an executive order defining Judaism as a nationality, not just a religion, thus bolstering the Education Department's efforts to stamp out "Boycott Israel" movements on college campuses.
I guess this means that the United States government’s position is that Jews are not Russians, Germans, Swedes or Americans, but they are a separate nation and a separate people.
And, of course, it tends to raise the question of where in the Constitution the executive branch is empowered to create an "Education Department", much less play economic and speech police for the institutions of higher education across the country.
Anyhow, it is nice to have this age-old debate resolved once and for all.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/12/at-long-last.html
Delphi
12-20-2019, 05:17 PM
Ah, so George Soros isn't JUST funding a plot to destroy western culture. He's ALSO funding a counterplot to make arabs queer *SIGH*. Damn, he gets around a lot. Too bad we're ignoring all those WASP rich financiers in the name of blame-a-jew.
Replyسيف الله
12-27-2019, 11:45 AM
Salaam
Another update. Enemies of our faith don't even bother to mask their intentions.
UAE foreign minister tweets article about Israel, Arab alliance
“Israel is being seen by moderate Arab governments as a trade and security partner,” Ed Husain wrote at The Spectator.
Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation for the United Arab Emirates, tweeted an article supporting an emerging alliance of Arab states with Israel. He tweeted from his personal account to his 4.6 million followers. The tweet repeated the headline of the article: “Islam’s reformation, an Arab-Israeli alliance is taking shape in the Middle East.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded that he welcomed closer readings between Israel and many Arab states. “The time has come for normalization and peace.”
“A new narrative is emerging in the Middle East,” wrote Ed Husain in an article on Saturday in The Spectator arguing that an Arab-Israeli alliance is taking shape in the Middle East. “Sunni Arab neighbors are changing course,” he wrote, contrasting this year with the 1960s when Israel’s neighbors sought to destroy the country. “Islamist leaders are losing their appeal, at a time when Iran, with its brand of theological fascism, poses a threat to Israel and the Arab world alike.”
The article argued that polls show that while religious extremism is falling in the region, young people are open to new ideas. They want prosperity and some are open to build new alliances, including with Israel. The author of the article is currently on a visit to Israel, and tweeted photos from Tel Aviv on Friday. “In Tel Aviv today with Ibn Sina, Maimonides and Aquinas,” he wrote, referencing historic Jewish, Islamic and Christian philosophers. Husain has worked at influential think tanks, including Civitas and the Wilson Center’s Middle East program. He is an author and advisor.
By retweeting the article, the UAE’s influential minister gave wind to it and spotlighted it to his four million followers. Many of the comments were positive. The UAE has been a key ally of Saudi Arabia in recent years and has also been leading the region to confront extremism, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Tehran’s regime. However, the UAE is also in a complex position because it wants to support tolerance but knows that Iran is a neighbor across the Gulf. The US has Al Dhafra air base in the UAE and the French are basing a force to help with maritime security in the wake of Iranian attacks on tankers in May and June this year. The UAE has generally been seen as having shared interests with Israel in recent years.
Husain’s article noted that Abu Dhabi is pushing for coexistence in the region. “In Dubai, Jews have been worshiping at a synagogue for several years now. Rabbis from Israel, America, Australia and Europe have been attending annual international Muslim peace conferences.” There has been talk about a US-supported non-aggression pact between Israel, the UAE and several other states in the region. Israel will participate in an expo in Dubai in 2020. Israeli Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar attended an interfaith gathering in Bahrain recently. Israeli minister for Culture Miri Regev went to the UAE in 2018 during the same period that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to Oman. “King Hamad of Bahrain has also led a path towards more open relations between Islam and Judaism,” Husain wrote.
There are signs of a “religious glasnost” with Saudi Arabia as well. “Several Saudi bloggers, Youtubers and Twitter personalities have been praising Israel in Arabic.” Husain said he has noticed a change in mood in the region. Part of this is shared interests against Iran’s threat and heavy hand in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria. “Israel is being seen by moderate Arab governments as a trade and security partner.” Israel and many Arab states were united in an uproar over the Obama administration’s Iran deal. He even notes that an Arab prince recently asked, “Who else will fly in joint missions against Iranian targets with us?” Husain argued that now is the time for a rebirth of tolerance after seven decades of antisemitism in the region. He says that the Quran can also point the way because of respect for Jews in Islam. “There are enough historical and scriptural narratives of Muslim-Jewish fraternity to form the basis for rapprochement.” It can lead to decades of peace.
For Israel, the Gulf and neighbors such as Jordan and Egypt, there are many shared interests. For instance, concerns about energy in the Mediterranean are drawing Israel and Egypt closer. The UAE recently met with Greek officials to express concern about Turkey’s role, and also the Libya crisis. Israel, Greece, Egypt and Cyprus have shared interests in energy and natural gas issues off their coasts.
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/UA...lliance-611660
ReplyAnother update. Enemies of our faith don't even bother to mask their intentions.
UAE foreign minister tweets article about Israel, Arab alliance
“Israel is being seen by moderate Arab governments as a trade and security partner,” Ed Husain wrote at The Spectator.
Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation for the United Arab Emirates, tweeted an article supporting an emerging alliance of Arab states with Israel. He tweeted from his personal account to his 4.6 million followers. The tweet repeated the headline of the article: “Islam’s reformation, an Arab-Israeli alliance is taking shape in the Middle East.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded that he welcomed closer readings between Israel and many Arab states. “The time has come for normalization and peace.”
“A new narrative is emerging in the Middle East,” wrote Ed Husain in an article on Saturday in The Spectator arguing that an Arab-Israeli alliance is taking shape in the Middle East. “Sunni Arab neighbors are changing course,” he wrote, contrasting this year with the 1960s when Israel’s neighbors sought to destroy the country. “Islamist leaders are losing their appeal, at a time when Iran, with its brand of theological fascism, poses a threat to Israel and the Arab world alike.”
The article argued that polls show that while religious extremism is falling in the region, young people are open to new ideas. They want prosperity and some are open to build new alliances, including with Israel. The author of the article is currently on a visit to Israel, and tweeted photos from Tel Aviv on Friday. “In Tel Aviv today with Ibn Sina, Maimonides and Aquinas,” he wrote, referencing historic Jewish, Islamic and Christian philosophers. Husain has worked at influential think tanks, including Civitas and the Wilson Center’s Middle East program. He is an author and advisor.
By retweeting the article, the UAE’s influential minister gave wind to it and spotlighted it to his four million followers. Many of the comments were positive. The UAE has been a key ally of Saudi Arabia in recent years and has also been leading the region to confront extremism, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Tehran’s regime. However, the UAE is also in a complex position because it wants to support tolerance but knows that Iran is a neighbor across the Gulf. The US has Al Dhafra air base in the UAE and the French are basing a force to help with maritime security in the wake of Iranian attacks on tankers in May and June this year. The UAE has generally been seen as having shared interests with Israel in recent years.
Husain’s article noted that Abu Dhabi is pushing for coexistence in the region. “In Dubai, Jews have been worshiping at a synagogue for several years now. Rabbis from Israel, America, Australia and Europe have been attending annual international Muslim peace conferences.” There has been talk about a US-supported non-aggression pact between Israel, the UAE and several other states in the region. Israel will participate in an expo in Dubai in 2020. Israeli Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar attended an interfaith gathering in Bahrain recently. Israeli minister for Culture Miri Regev went to the UAE in 2018 during the same period that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to Oman. “King Hamad of Bahrain has also led a path towards more open relations between Islam and Judaism,” Husain wrote.
There are signs of a “religious glasnost” with Saudi Arabia as well. “Several Saudi bloggers, Youtubers and Twitter personalities have been praising Israel in Arabic.” Husain said he has noticed a change in mood in the region. Part of this is shared interests against Iran’s threat and heavy hand in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria. “Israel is being seen by moderate Arab governments as a trade and security partner.” Israel and many Arab states were united in an uproar over the Obama administration’s Iran deal. He even notes that an Arab prince recently asked, “Who else will fly in joint missions against Iranian targets with us?” Husain argued that now is the time for a rebirth of tolerance after seven decades of antisemitism in the region. He says that the Quran can also point the way because of respect for Jews in Islam. “There are enough historical and scriptural narratives of Muslim-Jewish fraternity to form the basis for rapprochement.” It can lead to decades of peace.
For Israel, the Gulf and neighbors such as Jordan and Egypt, there are many shared interests. For instance, concerns about energy in the Mediterranean are drawing Israel and Egypt closer. The UAE recently met with Greek officials to express concern about Turkey’s role, and also the Libya crisis. Israel, Greece, Egypt and Cyprus have shared interests in energy and natural gas issues off their coasts.
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/UA...lliance-611660
HanjarSS
01-04-2020, 11:34 AM
Salaam. I guess I should be more straight forward. I’m National Socialist. I like Hitler and want Europe to go closer in that direction. I see that the Arab world has problems with Zionism as do we.
National Socialists aren’t like libertarians at all. For us, our state is subordinate to the race. Everything is geared towards serving the race, so it’s very collective. Right now libertarian views are popular in the west, but it’s changing because Jews have pumping us with poison and subversion. People are waking up.
I’m interested in how Islam can and will respond to something of neo-nazi friendly version of Islam. Just trying to test the waters please don’t take offense. Is there a sect or community that already does this? Is it blasphemous to say, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was white? To what extent could we change Islamic practices so they look and feel more western? Surely If a people such as the Aryans came to take the Shahada, be devout and sincere about it, then Allah will protect them and their race, rather than deny them over more trivial aspects.
My theory is that the West doesn’t have nearly as much of a problem with Islam as it does with foreign races. From my view, It’s not impossible to keep Islam in the West, while ensuring European demographic security. And I see a new sect of white racialist Islam as being a good intermediary. Also as a political catalyst to unite the Islamic world and Europe against Zionism. As well as to help support the rise of ethnostates in Europe.
Would it rise unanimously to the level of blasphemy? Or be seen as merely an odd or weird sect. Thanks.
ReplyNational Socialists aren’t like libertarians at all. For us, our state is subordinate to the race. Everything is geared towards serving the race, so it’s very collective. Right now libertarian views are popular in the west, but it’s changing because Jews have pumping us with poison and subversion. People are waking up.
I’m interested in how Islam can and will respond to something of neo-nazi friendly version of Islam. Just trying to test the waters please don’t take offense. Is there a sect or community that already does this? Is it blasphemous to say, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was white? To what extent could we change Islamic practices so they look and feel more western? Surely If a people such as the Aryans came to take the Shahada, be devout and sincere about it, then Allah will protect them and their race, rather than deny them over more trivial aspects.
My theory is that the West doesn’t have nearly as much of a problem with Islam as it does with foreign races. From my view, It’s not impossible to keep Islam in the West, while ensuring European demographic security. And I see a new sect of white racialist Islam as being a good intermediary. Also as a political catalyst to unite the Islamic world and Europe against Zionism. As well as to help support the rise of ethnostates in Europe.
Would it rise unanimously to the level of blasphemy? Or be seen as merely an odd or weird sect. Thanks.
سيف الله
01-05-2020, 12:43 PM
Salaam
Another update
Jordanians come out in droves to protest gas import from Israel
Protesters in the Jordanian capital chant 'no to normalization' after Israel announces the country's newly opened Leviathan field is now supplying gas to the Hashemite Kingdom
Hundreds of locals in the Jordanian capital of Amman protested over the weekend a government agreement to import natural gas from Israel, labeling the deal as "normalization" with the Jewish state.
Protesters carried signs calling the gas deal "an occupation of the Jordanian people" and chanted "no to normalization," as well as "the Jordanian people are not for sale."
The demonstrations took place a week after Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz announced that Israel's newly opened Leviathan field is now supplying gas to Jordan.
One protester strongly condemned the Jordanian government for signing the deal and even accused the administration of committing treason.
"The Jordanian government has betrayed the Jordanian people, who oppose this deal," said the protester. "This government stands against the Jordanian people and we must stop this deal, even if the transfer of gas had already begun."
"And thus Israel has become an energy exporter for the first time in its history," Steinitz told Ynet. "It is happening right now at this moment and I am announcing it here for the first time that Israel is becoming a gas exporter to Jordan. We will also start exporting gas to Egypt within a week to 10 days," Steinitz said.
Despite the courage, however, Israel's Tamar natural gas reservoir has been exporting gas to private Jordanian companies, Jordan Bromine and Arab Potash, for the past two years.
Additionally, the leaders of Israel, Greece and Cyprus last week signed a deal in Athens for an undersea pipeline that would carry gas from new offshore deposits in the southeastern Mediterranean to continental Europe.
The 1,900-kilometer (1,300-mile) EastMed pipeline is intended to provide an alternative gas source for energy-hungry Europe, which is largely dependent on supplies from Russia and the Caucasus region.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who attended the signing ceremony with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades, said the pipeline will offer Europe "better flexibility and independence in its energy sources."
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/BkMSTW1eU
ReplyAnother update
Jordanians come out in droves to protest gas import from Israel
Protesters in the Jordanian capital chant 'no to normalization' after Israel announces the country's newly opened Leviathan field is now supplying gas to the Hashemite Kingdom
Hundreds of locals in the Jordanian capital of Amman protested over the weekend a government agreement to import natural gas from Israel, labeling the deal as "normalization" with the Jewish state.
Protesters carried signs calling the gas deal "an occupation of the Jordanian people" and chanted "no to normalization," as well as "the Jordanian people are not for sale."
The demonstrations took place a week after Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz announced that Israel's newly opened Leviathan field is now supplying gas to Jordan.
One protester strongly condemned the Jordanian government for signing the deal and even accused the administration of committing treason.
"The Jordanian government has betrayed the Jordanian people, who oppose this deal," said the protester. "This government stands against the Jordanian people and we must stop this deal, even if the transfer of gas had already begun."
"And thus Israel has become an energy exporter for the first time in its history," Steinitz told Ynet. "It is happening right now at this moment and I am announcing it here for the first time that Israel is becoming a gas exporter to Jordan. We will also start exporting gas to Egypt within a week to 10 days," Steinitz said.
Despite the courage, however, Israel's Tamar natural gas reservoir has been exporting gas to private Jordanian companies, Jordan Bromine and Arab Potash, for the past two years.
Additionally, the leaders of Israel, Greece and Cyprus last week signed a deal in Athens for an undersea pipeline that would carry gas from new offshore deposits in the southeastern Mediterranean to continental Europe.
The 1,900-kilometer (1,300-mile) EastMed pipeline is intended to provide an alternative gas source for energy-hungry Europe, which is largely dependent on supplies from Russia and the Caucasus region.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who attended the signing ceremony with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades, said the pipeline will offer Europe "better flexibility and independence in its energy sources."
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/BkMSTW1eU
سيف الله
01-16-2020, 03:37 PM
Salaam
A look at internal Jewish politics.
The New York Jewish Times
There’s a big brouhaha over at the N.Y. Times. One of their regular Jewish supremacist columnists, Bret Stephens, wrote a meditation on “The Secrets of Jewish Genius” (27 December 2019) that effectively posits the genetic superiority of Jews.
Stephens came under attack for his political incorrectness so the Times had to publish a half-hearted “correction.” Honestly, I can’t fathom what’s the big deal. First, Stephens is the former editor of the Jerusalem Post, house organ of Israel’s uber Jewish supremacists. Surely the Times knew what it was getting when Stephens was taken on board. Second, I’ve never met a Jew who didn’t believe Jews benefited from superior intellectual endowments. (My close comrade Jamie Stern-Weiner swears never harboring this sentiment, but that’s just proof positive he’s a self-hating Jew.)
Stephens’ transgression was saying out loud what every other Jew thinks. Third, can it really surprise that none of the Times’ editors spotted Stephens’ “slip”? The paper might as well be christened The New York Jewish Times. Not a single week, literally, passes without a Holocaust story featured on the homepage (“New Recipe for Cheese Blintzes Found Buried in Auschwitz Barracks”).
In part, the Times is just pandering to its readership base of alte kaker billionaire Jews on the Upper East Side. But it’s also true that the Times truly believes Jewish life is inherently more sacred, its loss more tragic—which is why the Nazi holocaust is still newsworthy after 75 years, unlike, for example, the several million Vietnamese killed by Americans less than 50 years ago. Fourth, consider this passage from a recent book:
We are a people descended from slaves who brought the world ideas that changed the course of history. One God. Human dignity. The sanctity of life. Freedom itself. That is our inheritance. That is our legacy. We are the people commanded to bring light into this world.
Only a flea’s hop separates this paean from Stephens’ genetic lucubrations. It was written by Stephens’ Jewish supremacist colleague on the op-ed page, Bari Weiss, in her widely lauded How to Fight Anti-Semitism.
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2020/01...-jewish-times/
Related.
'Contemptible': outrage as Rudy Giuliani attacks George Soros as 'hardly a Jew'
Trump lawyer claims he is ‘more of a Jew than Soros’
ADL denounces ‘dog whistle to hardcore antisemites’
Jewish groups intensified criticism on Tuesday of Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor turned president’s lawyer and freelancing Ukrainian envoy, after he attacked the Jewish financier, philanthropist and Holocaust survivor George Soros for being “hardly a Jew” and failing to attend synagogue.
Giuliani also asserted he was “more of a Jew than Soros” and repeated a claim that the former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who testified in Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry, was controlled by the financier.
The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, furiously rebuked Giuliani, who is of Italian descent and was raised Roman Catholic, describing his comments as “baffling and offensive” and a “dog whistle to hardcore antisemites and white supremacists who believe this garbage”.
Greenblatt called on Giuliani to “apologize and retract his comments immediately”.
The central thrust and larger offense caused by Giuliani’s comments, which were made during an interview with New York magazine, the group argued, was to repeat a trope about the financier controlling political appointments and events.
Soros is widely recognized for funding progressive political and social causes.
To those accusations Greenblatt tweeted: “Opposing Soros isn’t what’s #antiSemitic. Saying that he controls ambassadors, employs FBI agents and isn’t ‘Jewish enough’ to be demonized is.”
In an article published on its website in October, the ADL said: “In far-right circles worldwide, Soros’ philanthropy often is recast as fodder for outsized conspiracy theories, including claims that he masterminds specific global plots or manipulates particular events to further his goals.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...semitic-jewish
ReplyA look at internal Jewish politics.
The New York Jewish Times
There’s a big brouhaha over at the N.Y. Times. One of their regular Jewish supremacist columnists, Bret Stephens, wrote a meditation on “The Secrets of Jewish Genius” (27 December 2019) that effectively posits the genetic superiority of Jews.
Stephens came under attack for his political incorrectness so the Times had to publish a half-hearted “correction.” Honestly, I can’t fathom what’s the big deal. First, Stephens is the former editor of the Jerusalem Post, house organ of Israel’s uber Jewish supremacists. Surely the Times knew what it was getting when Stephens was taken on board. Second, I’ve never met a Jew who didn’t believe Jews benefited from superior intellectual endowments. (My close comrade Jamie Stern-Weiner swears never harboring this sentiment, but that’s just proof positive he’s a self-hating Jew.)
Stephens’ transgression was saying out loud what every other Jew thinks. Third, can it really surprise that none of the Times’ editors spotted Stephens’ “slip”? The paper might as well be christened The New York Jewish Times. Not a single week, literally, passes without a Holocaust story featured on the homepage (“New Recipe for Cheese Blintzes Found Buried in Auschwitz Barracks”).
In part, the Times is just pandering to its readership base of alte kaker billionaire Jews on the Upper East Side. But it’s also true that the Times truly believes Jewish life is inherently more sacred, its loss more tragic—which is why the Nazi holocaust is still newsworthy after 75 years, unlike, for example, the several million Vietnamese killed by Americans less than 50 years ago. Fourth, consider this passage from a recent book:
We are a people descended from slaves who brought the world ideas that changed the course of history. One God. Human dignity. The sanctity of life. Freedom itself. That is our inheritance. That is our legacy. We are the people commanded to bring light into this world.
Only a flea’s hop separates this paean from Stephens’ genetic lucubrations. It was written by Stephens’ Jewish supremacist colleague on the op-ed page, Bari Weiss, in her widely lauded How to Fight Anti-Semitism.
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2020/01...-jewish-times/
Related.
'Contemptible': outrage as Rudy Giuliani attacks George Soros as 'hardly a Jew'
Trump lawyer claims he is ‘more of a Jew than Soros’
ADL denounces ‘dog whistle to hardcore antisemites’
Jewish groups intensified criticism on Tuesday of Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor turned president’s lawyer and freelancing Ukrainian envoy, after he attacked the Jewish financier, philanthropist and Holocaust survivor George Soros for being “hardly a Jew” and failing to attend synagogue.
Giuliani also asserted he was “more of a Jew than Soros” and repeated a claim that the former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who testified in Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry, was controlled by the financier.
The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, furiously rebuked Giuliani, who is of Italian descent and was raised Roman Catholic, describing his comments as “baffling and offensive” and a “dog whistle to hardcore antisemites and white supremacists who believe this garbage”.
Greenblatt called on Giuliani to “apologize and retract his comments immediately”.
The central thrust and larger offense caused by Giuliani’s comments, which were made during an interview with New York magazine, the group argued, was to repeat a trope about the financier controlling political appointments and events.
Soros is widely recognized for funding progressive political and social causes.
To those accusations Greenblatt tweeted: “Opposing Soros isn’t what’s #antiSemitic. Saying that he controls ambassadors, employs FBI agents and isn’t ‘Jewish enough’ to be demonized is.”
In an article published on its website in October, the ADL said: “In far-right circles worldwide, Soros’ philanthropy often is recast as fodder for outsized conspiracy theories, including claims that he masterminds specific global plots or manipulates particular events to further his goals.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...semitic-jewish
سيف الله
01-20-2020, 03:26 PM
Salaam
Hmmmm.
The 'Oman File': Inside the Mossad's Alliance With Muscat, Israel's Window Into Iran
For more than half a century, a powerful convergence of interests has united Israel and Oman, the third Arab country after Lebanon and Jordan to maintain secret ties with the Mossad
Oman rushed to crown its new leader after the death of Sultan Qaboos Bin Said al Said, its ruler for fifty years. It was a clear sign of the Gulf state's determination to ensure a smooth transfer of power and inject a sense of stability after the passing of the longest serving leader in the Arab world.
The big question for Israel is whether Qaboos' successor, Haithman Bin Tarik al Said, 65 years old and a cousin of the late Sultan, will follow in his predecessor's footsteps in terms of Oman's foreign policy in general, and its close relations with Israel in particular. Those relations, forged in war, were cultivated in great secrecy and managed for decades by Israel's spy agency Mossad. Qaboos had good reason to value those ties: Israeli forces had helped save his place on the throne.
Oman, with a population of 4.5 million people and significant land mass -15 times the size of Israel - has crucial geostrategic importance. It overlooks the Straits of Hormuz, gatekeeping the Persian Gulf, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows. Oman shares borders with Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and less than 200km, over the Gulf of Oman, separates Muscat, the capital, from the Iranian mainland.
Its particular location and history were among the reasons which led Oman to reach out to Israel – back in the 1960s. Qaboos had taken power in a bloodless a coup d’état after overthrowing his father Sultan Said bin Taimur, with the support of the British government. Qaboos was a graduate of Britain's Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, and had served in the British army.
The first connection paving the way for Omani-Israeli ties was formed by a team of former British spies and Special Forces commanders – and it all started in Yemen.
In 1963, a group of young Yemeni officers toppled Yemen’s monarchy and declared the country as a republic; they were backed by Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser. As a result, civil war broke out. The Egyptian army entered the war on the side of the republicans, using chemical weapons against the royalists.
The Yemeni royalists were assisted by Saudi Arabia and the British team led by the legendary Second World War colonel David Sterling, founder of the Special Air Service (SAS), a model for many special forces around the globe, including Israel's Sayeret Matkal. Sterling worked alongside Col. David Smiley, a veteran of various secret British operations during WWII, including missions in Palestine and Syria.
At a certain stage during Yemen’s civil war, Smiley asked Nahum Admoni - then a young Mossad operative - and then-Israeli Air Force commander Ezer Weizmann - to lend a hand to the British war efforts in support of the royalists. Both agreed. Admoni would later rise to become the head of Mossad, and Weizman to become Israel's seventh president.
Mossad agent and the Israeli air force colonel Zeev Liron was sent to Smiley’s headquarters in Yemen to survey the land. Liron traveled by air and land to Yemen under a false identity - an arduous trip which included riding mules - and on his return, he recommended Israel's participation in the operation. IAF pilots flew 14 highly dangerous missions in a Stratocruiser transporter and dropped weapons and ammunition from the air to the royalist forces.
The civil war ended in early 1967, and the royalists were defeated.. Nevertheless, the Egyptian army didn’t celebrate its victory. It had performed poorly, its morale was low and the Yemen misadventure was one of the reasons why Israel won the Six Day War in June 1967.
But the war did result in closer ties between Britain's Smiley and the Mossad's Admoni – that led the way to Muscat. Smiley, who had served as a military adviser to the Sultan of Oman, advised Qaboos to get in touch with Israel. Qaboos was interested, and representatives from the Mossad’s Tevel department (in charge of clandestine relations with Arab and Muslim states with no diplomatic relations with Israel) would occasionally meet with their Omani counterparts.
Oman became the third Arab country - after Lebanon and Jordan - to maintain secret ties with the Mossad.
In Jordan, those ties were with King Hussein; in Lebanon, with President Camille Chamoun who, during his retirement, was even given permission by Israeli military intelligence to go hunting for pleasure near the Israeli border.
In 1975, relations between Israel and Oman reached a new level. Forces from the radical socialist South Yemen had invaded Oman’s Dhofar region, in the south of the sultanate in support of a long-running insurgency. Britain and Iran, then ruled by the Shah, tried to quell the revolt but in vain. Israeli military advisers, coordinated by Mossad’s operative Ephraim Halevy, later also head of the agency, rushed to Oman to help end the revolt.
The episode was a classic and propitious example of the convergence of national interests between Israel and Oman. Muscat had to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty. For Israel, South Yemen a hostile state and key training ground for Palestinian terrorists, including the Entebbe hijackers, and overlooked one of Israel's key oil supply routes.
Away from the battlefield, the Mossad was also instrumental in assisting Oman improve its water resources to irrigate its arid land. The water plan was design by Haim Tsaban, the engineer brother of Yair, a former MK from the Meretz party.
For the next two decades the Mossad continued to play a role maintaining the Omani "file." In 1994, following Israel's signing of the Oslo Accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization, which resulted in a major extension of Israel's diplomatic, military and economic relations with Non Aligned Bloc states, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, accompanied by Ephraim Halevy, flew to Oman and met with Qaboos. Rabin flew directly from Tel Aviv to Muscat. It was the first publicly-announced encounter between Israel and Oman, but nearly 30 years since they'd initiated undercover contact.
Two years later Shimon Peres, who became prime minister after Rabin's murder, also visited Oman. Immediately following his meeting with Qaboos, Israel opened an official mission in Muscat, the capital of Oman.
Even after Benjamin Netanyahu defeated Peres in the 1996 elections and became prime minister, Oman continued to play an important role in its efforts to improve Israel's standing – if not normalization - in the Arab world. The Sultan decided to try and remove one specific obstacle: the state of hostilities between Israel and Syria.
Qaboos instructed his foreign minister Yusuf bin Alawi to broker a peace deal between President Hafez Assad of Syria and Netanyahu. Uzi Arad, a former senior Mossad operative and a diplomatic adviser to Netanyahu, met with Alawi three times from 1996 to 1998 in Europe.
No peace treaty with Syria resulted, but the meetings reflected an important element of Omani foreign policy: to ease tensions in the Middle East, be it between Iran and the U.S. (Oman helped broker the Obama administration's nuclear deal in 2015) or between Israel and Palestine.
In 2000, with the outbreak of the second Intifada and the bloody clashes between the IDF and Palestinians, Oman - together with other Arab countries such as Qatar, UAE, and Morocco - severed official ties with Israel.
Yet Oman would not let its ties drop completely. Once again, Israel-Oman relations went underground, maintained via the Mossad. Open ties surfaced again in 2008. That year, Oman's Foreign Minister Alawi met publicly with his counterpart Tzipi Livni in Qatar.
Ten years later, Netanyahu, escorted by Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, flew over Saudi airspace to Oman (with a face-saving two-minute "stop-off" in Amman to prevent the formal appearance that Saudi Arabia had allowed a direct flight from Israel to overfly its airspace) and met with Sultan Qaboos.
Netanyahu and Cohen tried to portray the visit as a unique historic event. That convenient piece of storytelling conveniently forgot that two other Israeli prime ministers had made it to Muscat decades earlier - not to mention practically all the Mossad heads since 1970.
For Israel, there have clearly been benefits to the ties with Oman – diplomatic, strategic, trade and public image – but one of the more significant benefits is the fact that Oman has also good relations with Iran, Israel’s most bitter enemy. Through its close contact with Omani officials, Israel was offered a window into Iran’s thinking.
Israeli officials with long experience in the Omani game tend to think that the new Sultan, who served under Alawi as Director General of the Omani foreign ministry, will maintain Qaboos' longstanding foreign policy and strategy, meaning a continuation of the Gulf state's long history of both open and clandestine ties with Israel.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...iran-1.8414861
ReplyHmmmm.
The 'Oman File': Inside the Mossad's Alliance With Muscat, Israel's Window Into Iran
For more than half a century, a powerful convergence of interests has united Israel and Oman, the third Arab country after Lebanon and Jordan to maintain secret ties with the Mossad
Oman rushed to crown its new leader after the death of Sultan Qaboos Bin Said al Said, its ruler for fifty years. It was a clear sign of the Gulf state's determination to ensure a smooth transfer of power and inject a sense of stability after the passing of the longest serving leader in the Arab world.
The big question for Israel is whether Qaboos' successor, Haithman Bin Tarik al Said, 65 years old and a cousin of the late Sultan, will follow in his predecessor's footsteps in terms of Oman's foreign policy in general, and its close relations with Israel in particular. Those relations, forged in war, were cultivated in great secrecy and managed for decades by Israel's spy agency Mossad. Qaboos had good reason to value those ties: Israeli forces had helped save his place on the throne.
Oman, with a population of 4.5 million people and significant land mass -15 times the size of Israel - has crucial geostrategic importance. It overlooks the Straits of Hormuz, gatekeeping the Persian Gulf, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows. Oman shares borders with Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and less than 200km, over the Gulf of Oman, separates Muscat, the capital, from the Iranian mainland.
Its particular location and history were among the reasons which led Oman to reach out to Israel – back in the 1960s. Qaboos had taken power in a bloodless a coup d’état after overthrowing his father Sultan Said bin Taimur, with the support of the British government. Qaboos was a graduate of Britain's Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, and had served in the British army.
The first connection paving the way for Omani-Israeli ties was formed by a team of former British spies and Special Forces commanders – and it all started in Yemen.
In 1963, a group of young Yemeni officers toppled Yemen’s monarchy and declared the country as a republic; they were backed by Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser. As a result, civil war broke out. The Egyptian army entered the war on the side of the republicans, using chemical weapons against the royalists.
The Yemeni royalists were assisted by Saudi Arabia and the British team led by the legendary Second World War colonel David Sterling, founder of the Special Air Service (SAS), a model for many special forces around the globe, including Israel's Sayeret Matkal. Sterling worked alongside Col. David Smiley, a veteran of various secret British operations during WWII, including missions in Palestine and Syria.
At a certain stage during Yemen’s civil war, Smiley asked Nahum Admoni - then a young Mossad operative - and then-Israeli Air Force commander Ezer Weizmann - to lend a hand to the British war efforts in support of the royalists. Both agreed. Admoni would later rise to become the head of Mossad, and Weizman to become Israel's seventh president.
Mossad agent and the Israeli air force colonel Zeev Liron was sent to Smiley’s headquarters in Yemen to survey the land. Liron traveled by air and land to Yemen under a false identity - an arduous trip which included riding mules - and on his return, he recommended Israel's participation in the operation. IAF pilots flew 14 highly dangerous missions in a Stratocruiser transporter and dropped weapons and ammunition from the air to the royalist forces.
The civil war ended in early 1967, and the royalists were defeated.. Nevertheless, the Egyptian army didn’t celebrate its victory. It had performed poorly, its morale was low and the Yemen misadventure was one of the reasons why Israel won the Six Day War in June 1967.
But the war did result in closer ties between Britain's Smiley and the Mossad's Admoni – that led the way to Muscat. Smiley, who had served as a military adviser to the Sultan of Oman, advised Qaboos to get in touch with Israel. Qaboos was interested, and representatives from the Mossad’s Tevel department (in charge of clandestine relations with Arab and Muslim states with no diplomatic relations with Israel) would occasionally meet with their Omani counterparts.
Oman became the third Arab country - after Lebanon and Jordan - to maintain secret ties with the Mossad.
In Jordan, those ties were with King Hussein; in Lebanon, with President Camille Chamoun who, during his retirement, was even given permission by Israeli military intelligence to go hunting for pleasure near the Israeli border.
In 1975, relations between Israel and Oman reached a new level. Forces from the radical socialist South Yemen had invaded Oman’s Dhofar region, in the south of the sultanate in support of a long-running insurgency. Britain and Iran, then ruled by the Shah, tried to quell the revolt but in vain. Israeli military advisers, coordinated by Mossad’s operative Ephraim Halevy, later also head of the agency, rushed to Oman to help end the revolt.
The episode was a classic and propitious example of the convergence of national interests between Israel and Oman. Muscat had to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty. For Israel, South Yemen a hostile state and key training ground for Palestinian terrorists, including the Entebbe hijackers, and overlooked one of Israel's key oil supply routes.
Away from the battlefield, the Mossad was also instrumental in assisting Oman improve its water resources to irrigate its arid land. The water plan was design by Haim Tsaban, the engineer brother of Yair, a former MK from the Meretz party.
For the next two decades the Mossad continued to play a role maintaining the Omani "file." In 1994, following Israel's signing of the Oslo Accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization, which resulted in a major extension of Israel's diplomatic, military and economic relations with Non Aligned Bloc states, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, accompanied by Ephraim Halevy, flew to Oman and met with Qaboos. Rabin flew directly from Tel Aviv to Muscat. It was the first publicly-announced encounter between Israel and Oman, but nearly 30 years since they'd initiated undercover contact.
Two years later Shimon Peres, who became prime minister after Rabin's murder, also visited Oman. Immediately following his meeting with Qaboos, Israel opened an official mission in Muscat, the capital of Oman.
Even after Benjamin Netanyahu defeated Peres in the 1996 elections and became prime minister, Oman continued to play an important role in its efforts to improve Israel's standing – if not normalization - in the Arab world. The Sultan decided to try and remove one specific obstacle: the state of hostilities between Israel and Syria.
Qaboos instructed his foreign minister Yusuf bin Alawi to broker a peace deal between President Hafez Assad of Syria and Netanyahu. Uzi Arad, a former senior Mossad operative and a diplomatic adviser to Netanyahu, met with Alawi three times from 1996 to 1998 in Europe.
No peace treaty with Syria resulted, but the meetings reflected an important element of Omani foreign policy: to ease tensions in the Middle East, be it between Iran and the U.S. (Oman helped broker the Obama administration's nuclear deal in 2015) or between Israel and Palestine.
In 2000, with the outbreak of the second Intifada and the bloody clashes between the IDF and Palestinians, Oman - together with other Arab countries such as Qatar, UAE, and Morocco - severed official ties with Israel.
Yet Oman would not let its ties drop completely. Once again, Israel-Oman relations went underground, maintained via the Mossad. Open ties surfaced again in 2008. That year, Oman's Foreign Minister Alawi met publicly with his counterpart Tzipi Livni in Qatar.
Ten years later, Netanyahu, escorted by Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, flew over Saudi airspace to Oman (with a face-saving two-minute "stop-off" in Amman to prevent the formal appearance that Saudi Arabia had allowed a direct flight from Israel to overfly its airspace) and met with Sultan Qaboos.
Netanyahu and Cohen tried to portray the visit as a unique historic event. That convenient piece of storytelling conveniently forgot that two other Israeli prime ministers had made it to Muscat decades earlier - not to mention practically all the Mossad heads since 1970.
For Israel, there have clearly been benefits to the ties with Oman – diplomatic, strategic, trade and public image – but one of the more significant benefits is the fact that Oman has also good relations with Iran, Israel’s most bitter enemy. Through its close contact with Omani officials, Israel was offered a window into Iran’s thinking.
Israeli officials with long experience in the Omani game tend to think that the new Sultan, who served under Alawi as Director General of the Omani foreign ministry, will maintain Qaboos' longstanding foreign policy and strategy, meaning a continuation of the Gulf state's long history of both open and clandestine ties with Israel.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...iran-1.8414861
سيف الله
01-24-2020, 01:30 PM
Salaam
George Soros doing what he does best.
Soros gives $1bn to fund universities 'and stop drift towards authoritarianism'
Philanthropist unveils plan for global network of institutions at Davos and attacks Trump as ‘ultimate narcissist’
The philanthropist and former financier George Soros has announced that he is to donate $1bn to fund a new global network of universities designed to promote liberal values and his vision of an open society.
In what he hailed as the “most important and enduring project of my life”, Soros said it was important to fund institutions that would help resist the drift towards growing authoritarianism in the US, Russia and China. He also launched a fresh attack on Donald Trump, calling the US president “the ultimate narcissist”.
Soros, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said his new Open Society University Network would build on his Central European University, set up after the collapse of communism 30 years ago.
The CEU has been forced to move from Hungary to Vienna after Hungary’s rightwing leader, Viktor Orban, stripped it of the ability to issue US degrees.
Soros – the man responsible for the run on the pound that led to sterling leaving the European exchange rate mechanism on Black Wednesday in September 1992 – said the CEU had not been strong enough by itself to become the educational institution the world requires. “That requires a new kind of global educational network.”
He added that the time had come for his Open Society Foundation – the vehicle for his philanthropy – to embark on an ambitious project that would build on the CEU and develop “a new and innovative educational network that the world really needs”.
Soros said: “OSUN will be unique. It will offer an international platform for teaching and research. In the first phase it will connect closer together an existing network. In the second phase, we shall open up this network to other institutions who want to join and are eager and qualified to do so.
“To demonstrate our commitment to OSUN, we are contributing one billion dollars to it. But we can’t build a global network on our own; we will need partner institutions and supporters from all around the world to join us in this enterprise.”
Soros said that while the political situation was quite grim, it would be a mistake to give in to despair. He attacked Trump, who he said was a “con man and the ultimate narcissist who wants the world to revolve around him”.
He said: “When his fantasy of becoming president came true, his narcissism developed a pathological dimension. Indeed, he has transgressed the limits imposed on the presidency by the constitution and has been impeached for it.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business...thoritarianism
ReplyGeorge Soros doing what he does best.
Soros gives $1bn to fund universities 'and stop drift towards authoritarianism'
Philanthropist unveils plan for global network of institutions at Davos and attacks Trump as ‘ultimate narcissist’
The philanthropist and former financier George Soros has announced that he is to donate $1bn to fund a new global network of universities designed to promote liberal values and his vision of an open society.
In what he hailed as the “most important and enduring project of my life”, Soros said it was important to fund institutions that would help resist the drift towards growing authoritarianism in the US, Russia and China. He also launched a fresh attack on Donald Trump, calling the US president “the ultimate narcissist”.
Soros, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said his new Open Society University Network would build on his Central European University, set up after the collapse of communism 30 years ago.
The CEU has been forced to move from Hungary to Vienna after Hungary’s rightwing leader, Viktor Orban, stripped it of the ability to issue US degrees.
Soros – the man responsible for the run on the pound that led to sterling leaving the European exchange rate mechanism on Black Wednesday in September 1992 – said the CEU had not been strong enough by itself to become the educational institution the world requires. “That requires a new kind of global educational network.”
He added that the time had come for his Open Society Foundation – the vehicle for his philanthropy – to embark on an ambitious project that would build on the CEU and develop “a new and innovative educational network that the world really needs”.
Soros said: “OSUN will be unique. It will offer an international platform for teaching and research. In the first phase it will connect closer together an existing network. In the second phase, we shall open up this network to other institutions who want to join and are eager and qualified to do so.
“To demonstrate our commitment to OSUN, we are contributing one billion dollars to it. But we can’t build a global network on our own; we will need partner institutions and supporters from all around the world to join us in this enterprise.”
Soros said that while the political situation was quite grim, it would be a mistake to give in to despair. He attacked Trump, who he said was a “con man and the ultimate narcissist who wants the world to revolve around him”.
He said: “When his fantasy of becoming president came true, his narcissism developed a pathological dimension. Indeed, he has transgressed the limits imposed on the presidency by the constitution and has been impeached for it.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business...thoritarianism
سيف الله
01-30-2020, 02:32 PM
taha_
01-30-2020, 02:34 PM
Astagfirullah. But translated quran is not Quran. The original Quran is Arabic, when it was revealed 1400 years ago.
Allah knows best
jazakAllah khair
ReplyAllah knows best
jazakAllah khair
سيف الله
01-31-2020, 01:53 PM
Salaam
Like to share, a wider look at the current situation.
Blurb
In the following video Dr. Olsi Jazexhi discusses with Dr. Michael Jones from Culture Wars the conflict between the United States and Israel and Iran. They discuss the impact that this conflict is having in Albania, a country that hosts the Mojaheden el-Halk organization. At the end they discuss the future of the American Empire: will it survive China's advance or will the 21st century be a Chinese century?
ReplyLike to share, a wider look at the current situation.
Blurb
In the following video Dr. Olsi Jazexhi discusses with Dr. Michael Jones from Culture Wars the conflict between the United States and Israel and Iran. They discuss the impact that this conflict is having in Albania, a country that hosts the Mojaheden el-Halk organization. At the end they discuss the future of the American Empire: will it survive China's advance or will the 21st century be a Chinese century?
سيف الله
02-03-2020, 02:25 AM
Salaam
Another update on the Holy Quran translation controversy. Questions the claims made by the accusers.
I agree but we have to remain vigilant now that the Americans are transferring ownership of the Arab regimes to the Zionists, wouldn't put anything past them :hmm:
ReplyAnother update on the Holy Quran translation controversy. Questions the claims made by the accusers.
I agree but we have to remain vigilant now that the Americans are transferring ownership of the Arab regimes to the Zionists, wouldn't put anything past them :hmm:
سيف الله
02-04-2020, 01:21 PM
Salaam
Like to share, another discussion on the development of Zionism.
Blurb
Today on TruNews, Dr. E. Michael Jones joins us to talk about the influence of modern Christian Zionism upon the American Church, and how that has led to a dramatic radicalization of US foreign policy in favor of one nation, Israel.
ReplyLike to share, another discussion on the development of Zionism.
Blurb
Today on TruNews, Dr. E. Michael Jones joins us to talk about the influence of modern Christian Zionism upon the American Church, and how that has led to a dramatic radicalization of US foreign policy in favor of one nation, Israel.
سيف الله
04-20-2020, 08:26 AM
Salaam
Another update
How top Labour officials plotted to bring down Jeremy Corbyn
Leaked report shows that staff worked relentlessly to damage the party’s leader, including by exploiting antisemitism
Investigated for antisemitism
In short, Labour’s own party bosses not only secretly preferred a Conservative government, but actually worked hard to bring one about.
The efforts to destroy Corbyn from 2015 through 2018 are the context for understanding the evolution of a widely accepted narrative about Labour becoming “institutionally antisemitic” under Corbyn’s leadership.
The chief purpose of the report is to survey this period and its relation to the antisemitism claims. As far as is known, the report was an effort to assess allegations that Labour had an identifiable “antisemitism problem” under Corbyn, currently the subject of an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
In a highly unusual move, the commission launched an investigation of Labour last year. The only other political party ever to be investigated is the neo-Nazi British National Party a decade ago.
The Labour report shows that party officials who helped the Tories to victory in 2017 were also the same people making sure antisemitism became a dark stain on Corbyn for most of his leadership.
No antisemitic intent
Confusingly, the report’s authors hedge their bets on the antisemitism claims.
One the one hand, they argue that antisemitism complaints were handled no differently from other complaints in Labour, and could find no evidence that current or former staff were “motivated by antisemitic intent”.
But at the same time, the report accepts that Labour had an antisemitism problem beyond the presence of a few “bad apples”, despite the known statistical evidence refuting this.
A Home Affairs Select Committee – a forum that was entirely unsympathetic to Corbyn – found in late 2016 that there was “no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party”.
Even that assessment was unfair to Labour. Various surveys have suggested that Labour and the left have less of a problem with all forms of racism than the ruling Conservative Party.
For those reasons alone, it was highly improper for the equalities commission to agree to investigate Labour. It smacks of the organisation’s politicisation.
Nonetheless, the decision of the report’s authors to work within the parameters of the equalities watchdog’s investigation is perhaps understandable. One of the successes of Corbyn’s opponents has been to label any effort to challenge the claim that Labour has an antisemitism problem as “denialism” – and then cite this purported denialism as proof of antisemitism.
Such self-rationalising proofs are highly effective, and a technique familiar from witch-hunts and the McCarthy trials of the 1950s in the United States.
‘Litany of mistakes’
The report highlights correspondence between senior staff showing that, insofar as Labour had an “antisemitism problem”, it actually came from the Blairites in head office, not Corbyn or his team. It was party officials deeply hostile to Corbyn, after all, who were responsible for handling antisemitism complaints.
These officials, the report notes, oversaw “a litany of errors” and delays in the handling of complaints – not because they were antisemitic, but because they knew this was an effective way to further damage Corbyn.
They intentionally expanded the scope of antisemitism investigations to catch out not only real antisemites in the party, but also members, including Jews, who shared Corbyn’s support for Palestinian rights and were harshly critical of Israel.
Later, this approach would be formalised with the party’s adoption of a new definition of antisemitism, proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), that shifted the focus from hatred of Jews to criticism of Israel.
The complaints system was quickly overwhelmed, and delays worsened as officials hostile to Corbyn cynically dragged their heels to avoid resolving outstanding cases. Or, as the report stiffly describes it, there was “abundant evidence of a hyper-factional atmosphere prevailing in Party HQ” against Corbyn that “affected the expeditious and resolute handling of disciplinary complaints”.
The report accuses McNicol of intentionally misleading Corbyn about the number of cases so that “the scale of the problem was not appreciated” by his team – though the scale of the problem had, in fact, also been inflated by party officials.
The report concludes that Sam Matthews, who oversaw the complaints procedure under McNicol, “rarely replied or took any action, and the vast majority of times where action did occur, it was prompted by other Labour staff directly chasing this themselves”.
Amplified by the media
Both McNicol and Matthews have denied the claims to Sky News. McNicol called it a “petty attempt to divert attention away from the real issue”. Matthews said the report was “a highly selective, retrospective review of the party’s poor record” and that a “proper examination of the full evidence will show that as Head of Disputes and Acting Director, I did my level best to tackle the poison of anti-Jewish racism which was growing under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.”
But there is too much detail in the report to be so easily dismissed and there remain very serious questions to be answered. For example, once Matthews and McNicol had departed, Labour rapidly increased the resolution of antisemitism cases, dramatically stepping up the suspension and expulsion of accused party members.
The earlier delays appear to have had one purpose only: to embarrass Corbyn, creating an impression the party – and by implication, Corbyn himself – was not taking the issue of antisemitism seriously. Anyone who tried to point out what was really going on – such as, for example, MP Chris Williamson – was denounced as an antisemitism “denier” and suspended or expelled.
The media happily amplified whatever messages party officials disseminated against Corbyn. That included even the media’s liberal elements, such as the Guardian, whose political sympathies lay firmly with the Blairite faction.
That was all too evident during a special hour-length edition of Panorama, the BBC’s flagship news investigations programme, on Labour and antisemitism last year. It gave an uncritical platform to ex-staff turned supposed “whistleblowers” who claimed that Corbyn and his team had stymied efforts to root out antisemitism.
But as the report shows, it was actually these very “whistleblowers” who were the culpable ones.
‘Set up left, right and centre’
The media’s drumbeat against Corbyn progressively frightened wider sections of the Jewish community, who assumed there could be no smoke without fire.
It was a perfect, manufactured, moral panic. And once it was unleashed, it could survive the clear-out in 2018 of the Blairite ringleaders of the campaign against Corbyn.
Ever since, the antisemitism furore has continued to be regularly stoked into life by the media, by conservative Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies, and by Israel partisans inside the Labour Party.
“We were being sabotaged and set up left, right and centre by McNicol’s team, and we didn’t even know. It’s so important that the truth comes out,” one party source told Sky News.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2020-0...-antisemitism/
Related.
Keir Starmer received £50K from pro-Israel lobbyist
New Labour Party leader Keir Starmer received a £50,000 donation from a pro-Israel lobbyist, parliamentary data shows.
The Register of Members’ Interests reveals that Starmer received a £50,000 donation from Trevor Chinn, a member of the executive committee of the Israel lobby group the British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM).
From 1973 to 1993 Chinn was Chairman of the Joint Israel Appeal (now United Jewish Israel Appeal), the major fund-raising organisation for Israel.
Chinn, who is also a Vice President of the Jewish Leadership Council, has enjoyed a long and lucrative business career and was awarded a knighthood in 1990 for his charitable activities.
He has also previously donated to former Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) chair Joan Ryan and former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson, as well as Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy on numerous occasions.
Starmer consistently refused to name the full list of those who donated to his ultimately successful campaign, despite being challenged by fellow candidates to do so.
He stated that he was following “Labour Party process” and that: I’ve got a compliance team in place who are checking every donation is in accordance with the rules. Once they’ve done that they pass it to the Parliamentary authorities for them to publish it. So two lots have gone up, another lot is with the Parliamentary authorities as of today, I’m following the rules.”
During the Labour leadership campaign Starmer said: “I support Zionism without qualification.”
https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/04/17/ke...rael-lobbyist/
More comment.
Subversion may bankrupt Labour
The recent ascendance of the philosemitic wing of the Labour Party may be very short-lived:
I've read the report. It's very damning, although not necessarily in the way one might think. Basically, the report is a put-up job written to support the false narrative being pushed by the (((Blairites))) who recently unseated the Corbynites and took over the party leadership. It turns out that more than HALF of the anti-semitism complaints were filed by a single invididual; the whole thing is little more than an amplified variant on the rabbi painting swastikas on the synagogue.
It appears that the Corbynites have decided that if they're going to be pushed out of the party, they're going to leave their successors with nothing but scorched earth. To put it in American terms, it's as if the John Birch Society burned down the Republican Party instead of permitting the neocons to take it over.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/04/s...pt-labour.html
He was right.
In this extract from the 'Labouring Under Anti-Semitism’ episode of Renegade Inc, Norman Finkelstein addresses the claims of anti-semitism against the UK Labour Party.
ReplyAnother update
How top Labour officials plotted to bring down Jeremy Corbyn
Leaked report shows that staff worked relentlessly to damage the party’s leader, including by exploiting antisemitism
Investigated for antisemitism
In short, Labour’s own party bosses not only secretly preferred a Conservative government, but actually worked hard to bring one about.
The efforts to destroy Corbyn from 2015 through 2018 are the context for understanding the evolution of a widely accepted narrative about Labour becoming “institutionally antisemitic” under Corbyn’s leadership.
The chief purpose of the report is to survey this period and its relation to the antisemitism claims. As far as is known, the report was an effort to assess allegations that Labour had an identifiable “antisemitism problem” under Corbyn, currently the subject of an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
In a highly unusual move, the commission launched an investigation of Labour last year. The only other political party ever to be investigated is the neo-Nazi British National Party a decade ago.
The Labour report shows that party officials who helped the Tories to victory in 2017 were also the same people making sure antisemitism became a dark stain on Corbyn for most of his leadership.
No antisemitic intent
Confusingly, the report’s authors hedge their bets on the antisemitism claims.
One the one hand, they argue that antisemitism complaints were handled no differently from other complaints in Labour, and could find no evidence that current or former staff were “motivated by antisemitic intent”.
But at the same time, the report accepts that Labour had an antisemitism problem beyond the presence of a few “bad apples”, despite the known statistical evidence refuting this.
A Home Affairs Select Committee – a forum that was entirely unsympathetic to Corbyn – found in late 2016 that there was “no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party”.
Even that assessment was unfair to Labour. Various surveys have suggested that Labour and the left have less of a problem with all forms of racism than the ruling Conservative Party.
For those reasons alone, it was highly improper for the equalities commission to agree to investigate Labour. It smacks of the organisation’s politicisation.
Nonetheless, the decision of the report’s authors to work within the parameters of the equalities watchdog’s investigation is perhaps understandable. One of the successes of Corbyn’s opponents has been to label any effort to challenge the claim that Labour has an antisemitism problem as “denialism” – and then cite this purported denialism as proof of antisemitism.
Such self-rationalising proofs are highly effective, and a technique familiar from witch-hunts and the McCarthy trials of the 1950s in the United States.
‘Litany of mistakes’
The report highlights correspondence between senior staff showing that, insofar as Labour had an “antisemitism problem”, it actually came from the Blairites in head office, not Corbyn or his team. It was party officials deeply hostile to Corbyn, after all, who were responsible for handling antisemitism complaints.
These officials, the report notes, oversaw “a litany of errors” and delays in the handling of complaints – not because they were antisemitic, but because they knew this was an effective way to further damage Corbyn.
They intentionally expanded the scope of antisemitism investigations to catch out not only real antisemites in the party, but also members, including Jews, who shared Corbyn’s support for Palestinian rights and were harshly critical of Israel.
Later, this approach would be formalised with the party’s adoption of a new definition of antisemitism, proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), that shifted the focus from hatred of Jews to criticism of Israel.
The complaints system was quickly overwhelmed, and delays worsened as officials hostile to Corbyn cynically dragged their heels to avoid resolving outstanding cases. Or, as the report stiffly describes it, there was “abundant evidence of a hyper-factional atmosphere prevailing in Party HQ” against Corbyn that “affected the expeditious and resolute handling of disciplinary complaints”.
The report accuses McNicol of intentionally misleading Corbyn about the number of cases so that “the scale of the problem was not appreciated” by his team – though the scale of the problem had, in fact, also been inflated by party officials.
The report concludes that Sam Matthews, who oversaw the complaints procedure under McNicol, “rarely replied or took any action, and the vast majority of times where action did occur, it was prompted by other Labour staff directly chasing this themselves”.
Amplified by the media
Both McNicol and Matthews have denied the claims to Sky News. McNicol called it a “petty attempt to divert attention away from the real issue”. Matthews said the report was “a highly selective, retrospective review of the party’s poor record” and that a “proper examination of the full evidence will show that as Head of Disputes and Acting Director, I did my level best to tackle the poison of anti-Jewish racism which was growing under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.”
But there is too much detail in the report to be so easily dismissed and there remain very serious questions to be answered. For example, once Matthews and McNicol had departed, Labour rapidly increased the resolution of antisemitism cases, dramatically stepping up the suspension and expulsion of accused party members.
The earlier delays appear to have had one purpose only: to embarrass Corbyn, creating an impression the party – and by implication, Corbyn himself – was not taking the issue of antisemitism seriously. Anyone who tried to point out what was really going on – such as, for example, MP Chris Williamson – was denounced as an antisemitism “denier” and suspended or expelled.
The media happily amplified whatever messages party officials disseminated against Corbyn. That included even the media’s liberal elements, such as the Guardian, whose political sympathies lay firmly with the Blairite faction.
That was all too evident during a special hour-length edition of Panorama, the BBC’s flagship news investigations programme, on Labour and antisemitism last year. It gave an uncritical platform to ex-staff turned supposed “whistleblowers” who claimed that Corbyn and his team had stymied efforts to root out antisemitism.
But as the report shows, it was actually these very “whistleblowers” who were the culpable ones.
‘Set up left, right and centre’
The media’s drumbeat against Corbyn progressively frightened wider sections of the Jewish community, who assumed there could be no smoke without fire.
It was a perfect, manufactured, moral panic. And once it was unleashed, it could survive the clear-out in 2018 of the Blairite ringleaders of the campaign against Corbyn.
Ever since, the antisemitism furore has continued to be regularly stoked into life by the media, by conservative Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies, and by Israel partisans inside the Labour Party.
“We were being sabotaged and set up left, right and centre by McNicol’s team, and we didn’t even know. It’s so important that the truth comes out,” one party source told Sky News.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2020-0...-antisemitism/
Related.
Keir Starmer received £50K from pro-Israel lobbyist
New Labour Party leader Keir Starmer received a £50,000 donation from a pro-Israel lobbyist, parliamentary data shows.
The Register of Members’ Interests reveals that Starmer received a £50,000 donation from Trevor Chinn, a member of the executive committee of the Israel lobby group the British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM).
From 1973 to 1993 Chinn was Chairman of the Joint Israel Appeal (now United Jewish Israel Appeal), the major fund-raising organisation for Israel.
Chinn, who is also a Vice President of the Jewish Leadership Council, has enjoyed a long and lucrative business career and was awarded a knighthood in 1990 for his charitable activities.
He has also previously donated to former Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) chair Joan Ryan and former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson, as well as Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy on numerous occasions.
Starmer consistently refused to name the full list of those who donated to his ultimately successful campaign, despite being challenged by fellow candidates to do so.
He stated that he was following “Labour Party process” and that: I’ve got a compliance team in place who are checking every donation is in accordance with the rules. Once they’ve done that they pass it to the Parliamentary authorities for them to publish it. So two lots have gone up, another lot is with the Parliamentary authorities as of today, I’m following the rules.”
During the Labour leadership campaign Starmer said: “I support Zionism without qualification.”
https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/04/17/ke...rael-lobbyist/
More comment.
Subversion may bankrupt Labour
The recent ascendance of the philosemitic wing of the Labour Party may be very short-lived:
Labour faces multi-millionpound lawsuits over a leaked antisemitism report that could 'bankrupt' the party.
Sources close to whistleblowers and complainants whose identities were revealed by the leak say Labour could face a legal bill as high as £8million – effectively putting it out of business.
They say more than 30 individuals, including general secretary Jennie Formby, may sue the party over breach of privacy and for putting their safety at risk. The dire warning came as Labour officials were hastily forced to delete addresses from party membership databases to protect some people now apparently receiving death threats after their identities were made public....
The threat of massive legal bills has sparked panic among senior party figures that they could be personally liable.
Sources close to whistleblowers and complainants whose identities were revealed by the leak say Labour could face a legal bill as high as £8million – effectively putting it out of business.
They say more than 30 individuals, including general secretary Jennie Formby, may sue the party over breach of privacy and for putting their safety at risk. The dire warning came as Labour officials were hastily forced to delete addresses from party membership databases to protect some people now apparently receiving death threats after their identities were made public....
The threat of massive legal bills has sparked panic among senior party figures that they could be personally liable.
It appears that the Corbynites have decided that if they're going to be pushed out of the party, they're going to leave their successors with nothing but scorched earth. To put it in American terms, it's as if the John Birch Society burned down the Republican Party instead of permitting the neocons to take it over.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/04/s...pt-labour.html
He was right.
In this extract from the 'Labouring Under Anti-Semitism’ episode of Renegade Inc, Norman Finkelstein addresses the claims of anti-semitism against the UK Labour Party.
سيف الله
05-01-2020, 10:19 AM
Salaam
Another update.
Ramadan TV dramas signal shift in Arab-Israeli relations
Two popular Middle Eastern series stir surprise with pro-Israel messages backed by Saudi Arabia
Nightfall during Ramadan in the Middle East is drama time, when Arab soap operas accompany evening feasts with fare of feuds, historical heroes and villains and forbidden love. This year though, programmers have broached new ground using the popular shows to highlight a normalisation with Israel.
Two series broadcast across the region in the first three days of the Muslim holy month have stirred both surprise and contention – one by daring to explore the Jewish history of the Gulf, the other by suggesting that Israel may not be an enemy and that Palestinians have been ungrateful for Saudi Arabia’s support.
The unusually pointed messages have both aired on the Saudi-controlled satellite channel MBC, offering little doubt that they had been sanctioned by the country’s leaders. The broadcasts have left some viewers reeling at the spectre of Ramadan becoming a forum to showcase political shifts and others claiming they belatedly addressed issues that had been airbrushed from Saudi culture.
When satellite TV took hold across the Middle East from the early 1990s, the appeal of Ramadan TV drama shows as a forum to project soft power soon became apparent. Leaders recognised their potential to shape debate as the popularity of the soaps surged.
The Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, has included the dramas in his clampdown on free expression, putting pressure on filmmakers to emphasise approved themes such as the glory of the military and perfidy of the banned Muslim Brotherhood. A 2016 series lauded as the first “political drama” produced in the United Arab Emirates also focused on the “evils” of the Brotherhood.
Judaism has received warmer treatment in recent years, even as Israel was still portrayed with hostility. A 2015 drama sympathetically depicted Egypt’s Jewish community while emphasising them as staunchly opposed to Israel’s creation.
If the first days of this year’s Ramadan are any guide, 2020 breaks new ground. The characters in both series, Exit 7 and Umm Haroun, are depicted debating not whether Israel should exist but whether doing business with Israelis should override concerns.
The stances taken in both shows are aligned with Saudi government positions, which have drawn the two countries closer than at any time since the state of Israel was formed in 1948. Mutual security concerns about Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood have been instrumental in the shift, which have also led to ties with Saudis Gulf allies thawing to the point that Israelis can now enter the UAE, and previously undisclosed trade ties are public.
The Israeli prime minister’s approach has been to promote relations with the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, while at the same time marginalising the Palestinians. “What is happening with Arab states has never happened in our history, even when we signed peace agreements,” Benjamin Netanyahu has said on more than one occasion. “Cooperation in different ways and at different levels isn’t necessarily visible above the surface, but what is below the surface is far greater than at any other period.”
Israeli media reported in January that Riyadh was formally allowing Israeli citizens to visit the kingdom for the first time, provided they were Muslims performing pilgrimages to Mecca or invited by the government and looking to do business.
That month, the US president, Donald Trump, unveiled his peace plan for the region in Washington in front of diplomats from Oman, Bahrain and the UAE. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, a friend of the heir to the Saudi throne, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was instrumental in drafting the plan, which offered a markedly reduced deal to the Palestinians than any earlier package and has since gone nowhere. Riyadh was officially non-committal, though some former Saudi officials sharply criticised the plan’s outline.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...aeli-relations
ReplyAnother update.
Ramadan TV dramas signal shift in Arab-Israeli relations
Two popular Middle Eastern series stir surprise with pro-Israel messages backed by Saudi Arabia
Nightfall during Ramadan in the Middle East is drama time, when Arab soap operas accompany evening feasts with fare of feuds, historical heroes and villains and forbidden love. This year though, programmers have broached new ground using the popular shows to highlight a normalisation with Israel.
Two series broadcast across the region in the first three days of the Muslim holy month have stirred both surprise and contention – one by daring to explore the Jewish history of the Gulf, the other by suggesting that Israel may not be an enemy and that Palestinians have been ungrateful for Saudi Arabia’s support.
The unusually pointed messages have both aired on the Saudi-controlled satellite channel MBC, offering little doubt that they had been sanctioned by the country’s leaders. The broadcasts have left some viewers reeling at the spectre of Ramadan becoming a forum to showcase political shifts and others claiming they belatedly addressed issues that had been airbrushed from Saudi culture.
When satellite TV took hold across the Middle East from the early 1990s, the appeal of Ramadan TV drama shows as a forum to project soft power soon became apparent. Leaders recognised their potential to shape debate as the popularity of the soaps surged.
The Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, has included the dramas in his clampdown on free expression, putting pressure on filmmakers to emphasise approved themes such as the glory of the military and perfidy of the banned Muslim Brotherhood. A 2016 series lauded as the first “political drama” produced in the United Arab Emirates also focused on the “evils” of the Brotherhood.
Judaism has received warmer treatment in recent years, even as Israel was still portrayed with hostility. A 2015 drama sympathetically depicted Egypt’s Jewish community while emphasising them as staunchly opposed to Israel’s creation.
If the first days of this year’s Ramadan are any guide, 2020 breaks new ground. The characters in both series, Exit 7 and Umm Haroun, are depicted debating not whether Israel should exist but whether doing business with Israelis should override concerns.
The stances taken in both shows are aligned with Saudi government positions, which have drawn the two countries closer than at any time since the state of Israel was formed in 1948. Mutual security concerns about Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood have been instrumental in the shift, which have also led to ties with Saudis Gulf allies thawing to the point that Israelis can now enter the UAE, and previously undisclosed trade ties are public.
The Israeli prime minister’s approach has been to promote relations with the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, while at the same time marginalising the Palestinians. “What is happening with Arab states has never happened in our history, even when we signed peace agreements,” Benjamin Netanyahu has said on more than one occasion. “Cooperation in different ways and at different levels isn’t necessarily visible above the surface, but what is below the surface is far greater than at any other period.”
Israeli media reported in January that Riyadh was formally allowing Israeli citizens to visit the kingdom for the first time, provided they were Muslims performing pilgrimages to Mecca or invited by the government and looking to do business.
That month, the US president, Donald Trump, unveiled his peace plan for the region in Washington in front of diplomats from Oman, Bahrain and the UAE. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, a friend of the heir to the Saudi throne, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was instrumental in drafting the plan, which offered a markedly reduced deal to the Palestinians than any earlier package and has since gone nowhere. Riyadh was officially non-committal, though some former Saudi officials sharply criticised the plan’s outline.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...aeli-relations
CuriousonTruth
05-04-2020, 01:44 AM
Arabs are just showing their true face and the reality of their faith. They've destroyed the religion on Pakistan, Bangladesh, India. Filled our countries with extremist salafi madrasahs, trained terrorists, bombed our graves, dragged islam through the mud.
Not a day goes by that the followers of Arabism in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh bicker about Tawheed, murtad, kafir, mushrik. Bicker, fight and takfir those who they don't like and constantly engage in sectarian nonsense. All because of Saudi Arabian funded madrasahs.
What a wonderful fate it is, that the followers of Tawheed are the quickest ones who sold off Jerusalem to the Jews. This is just the beginning, the show must go on.
ReplyNot a day goes by that the followers of Arabism in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh bicker about Tawheed, murtad, kafir, mushrik. Bicker, fight and takfir those who they don't like and constantly engage in sectarian nonsense. All because of Saudi Arabian funded madrasahs.
What a wonderful fate it is, that the followers of Tawheed are the quickest ones who sold off Jerusalem to the Jews. This is just the beginning, the show must go on.
سيف الله
05-05-2020, 07:42 AM
Salaam
Another update, don't think this will make much of a difference, still. . . . . .
127 MPs demand UK impose sanctions on Israel if it annexes Palestinian land
One hundred and twenty seven British MPs have written to the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary urging them to make clear publicly to Israel that any annexation of Occupied Palestinian territory “will have severe consequences including sanctions.”
The politicians, including former cabinet members, ministers and senior diplomats, demanded actions not words in opposing any Israeli annexation.
They said this would be “a mortal blow to chances of peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on any viable two-state solution.”
The letter came after the new Israeli coalition government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz, pledged to annex around a third of the West Bank, starting in July.
The Council for Arab-British Understanding organised the letter and its director, Chris Doyle, said: “Annexation has the potential to be a watershed moment. On the ground Israel will gobble up ever more Palestinian territory and ride roughshod over international law. Internationally major European powers like Britain, who as these leading politicians show, will have to have the courage to go far further than anyone might have imagined to defend the international rules-based order.
“Sanctions should not be entered into lightly but such an action would more than warrant it, just as we did with Russia over Crimea. For too long we have stood and watched as Israel violated Palestinian human rights.”
The letter reads:
https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/05/04/12...estinian-land/
ReplyAnother update, don't think this will make much of a difference, still. . . . . .
127 MPs demand UK impose sanctions on Israel if it annexes Palestinian land
One hundred and twenty seven British MPs have written to the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary urging them to make clear publicly to Israel that any annexation of Occupied Palestinian territory “will have severe consequences including sanctions.”
The politicians, including former cabinet members, ministers and senior diplomats, demanded actions not words in opposing any Israeli annexation.
They said this would be “a mortal blow to chances of peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on any viable two-state solution.”
The letter came after the new Israeli coalition government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz, pledged to annex around a third of the West Bank, starting in July.
The Council for Arab-British Understanding organised the letter and its director, Chris Doyle, said: “Annexation has the potential to be a watershed moment. On the ground Israel will gobble up ever more Palestinian territory and ride roughshod over international law. Internationally major European powers like Britain, who as these leading politicians show, will have to have the courage to go far further than anyone might have imagined to defend the international rules-based order.
“Sanctions should not be entered into lightly but such an action would more than warrant it, just as we did with Russia over Crimea. For too long we have stood and watched as Israel violated Palestinian human rights.”
The letter reads:
We are writing to you to express our outrage at the new Israeli Government’s declared plan to annex areas of territories it occupied in June 1967. This action is the key plank of the agreed Israeli coalition platform. It states that the Government can advance legislation on annexation after 1 July. It is already clear that the Israeli Government will use the cover of the Covid-19 pandemic to seek to implement this egregious plan. It is vital that the UK does everything in its power to prevent this.
Annexation of occupied territory violates several UN Security Council Resolutions including UNSCR 242 and 2334. It is a mortal blow to chances of peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on any viable two-state solution. The joint statement by the UK Government, together with France, Germany, Italy and Spain, on 12 September last year could not have been clearer. Unilateral annexation of any part of the West Bank would be “a serious breach of international law.”
International law is crystal clear. The acquisition of territory through war is prohibited. The Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 is a recent example where Britain quite properly opposed such acts with appropriate measures, including robust sanctions.
Britain upholds the international rules-based system, as you as Prime Minister have affirmed repeatedly. If we are to prevent other states with territorial ambitions from copying Israeli illegal behaviour, the UK must take a lead in standing up to this aggression. The international community is duty-bound to protect Palestinians under occupation.
We ask you to take the lead in bringing our international partners together to prevent this illegal action. Our Government has stated that any annexation “cannot go unchallenged”. The Government must now make clear publicly to Israel that any annexation will have severe consequences including sanctions. Words are not enough: Prime Minister Netanyahu has ignored our words. We need to prevent his Government from setting this alarmingly dangerous precedent in international relations.
Annexation of occupied territory violates several UN Security Council Resolutions including UNSCR 242 and 2334. It is a mortal blow to chances of peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on any viable two-state solution. The joint statement by the UK Government, together with France, Germany, Italy and Spain, on 12 September last year could not have been clearer. Unilateral annexation of any part of the West Bank would be “a serious breach of international law.”
International law is crystal clear. The acquisition of territory through war is prohibited. The Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 is a recent example where Britain quite properly opposed such acts with appropriate measures, including robust sanctions.
Britain upholds the international rules-based system, as you as Prime Minister have affirmed repeatedly. If we are to prevent other states with territorial ambitions from copying Israeli illegal behaviour, the UK must take a lead in standing up to this aggression. The international community is duty-bound to protect Palestinians under occupation.
We ask you to take the lead in bringing our international partners together to prevent this illegal action. Our Government has stated that any annexation “cannot go unchallenged”. The Government must now make clear publicly to Israel that any annexation will have severe consequences including sanctions. Words are not enough: Prime Minister Netanyahu has ignored our words. We need to prevent his Government from setting this alarmingly dangerous precedent in international relations.
سيف الله
05-22-2020, 06:52 AM
Salaam
Another update.
Jewish Characters Star in Saudi TV Show, Igniting an Arab Debate
Fans have praised a hit TV series for promoting religious diversity. Critics say it encourages “normalization” with Israel and betrays the Palestinian cause.
In a mud-walled village in the Persian Gulf, a Christian woman sheds tears of love for a Muslim merchant. But he is stuck in a miserable marriage to a woman who longs for another Muslim man. But she can’t have him, because he is crazy about the local rabbi’s daughter.
These tangles of interreligious intrigue unspool in a new blockbuster television series that has set off heated debates across the Arab world about the region’s historical relationships with Jewish communities and the shifting stances of some of its current leaders toward Israel.
Fans laud the program, set in the 1940s and 1950s, for highlighting an often overlooked aspect of the region’s past — Jewish communities in the Persian Gulf — while providing a much-needed example of coexistence among different faiths.
But critics have blasted it as a blatant effort to reshape Arab views of Israel to pave the way for formal relations, or what many in the Arab world call “normalization.”
With the coronavirus shuttering mosques and the holy city of Mecca, this year’s Ramadan, which began last week, was already bound for the history books.
But the virus’s effect on the Islamic holy month is just one aspect that will be long remembered, a prominent Palestinian journalist, Abdel Bari Atwan, wrote this week.
The other reason this Ramadan won’t soon be forgotten is because “it witnessed the largest normalization campaign, driven by the Saudi media, with help from the government, and coordinated with the Israeli occupation state,” Mr. Atwan said.
Suspicions that the historical TV drama, “Um Haroun,” or “Mother of Aaron,” is part of a state-sponsored push to sway opinions are widespread. The show airs on MBC, the Arab world’s largest private broadcaster, but one ultimately controlled by the Saudi state.
The same network is also broadcasting a comedy program that has made light of Arab attitudes toward Israel, further fueling a sense that both shows are mixing entertainment with propaganda.
The two shows will run through Ramadan, when television viewership skyrockets as families binge-watch programs over the evening meals that break the dawn-to-dusk fast.
While MBC denied that including positive depictions of Jews was part of any government mandate, this year’s shows do coincide with a quiet but clear warming toward Israel among governments in the Persian Gulf.
Historically, animosity toward Israel and sympathy for the Palestinians were some of the few sentiments able to unite Arabs across the Middle East. But in recent years, wars, insurgencies and economic crises have left many Arab governments focused on domestic issues, pushing the Palestinian cause down the priority list.
At the same time, some Persian Gulf leaders have come to see Israel not as an eternal enemy, but as a potential ally against the shared threats of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia has spoken of overlapping trade and security interests between the kingdom and Israel, and an Israeli delegation is expected to participate in a world expo in the United Arab Emirates next year, although both Saudi Arabia and the Emirates lack formal diplomatic relations with the country.
Michael Stephens, who studies Gulf politics at the Royal United Services Institute, said the shows appeared to be part of that shift by countering a history of anti-Jewish rhetoric and showing a new openness toward the possibility of official ties with Israel.
Given the level of state control in Gulf countries, he was confident that the show’s messaging must have been officially sanctioned.
“They would not have done this unless there was some guidance from the top that it was OK,” Mr. Stephens said.
The comedy show, Makhraj 7, or “Exit 7,” a Saudi slang term used to avoid unwanted conversation, pokes fun at contemporary views of Israel in Saudi society.
In one episode, a father discovers his son playing an online video game with an Israeli child and fumes about his offspring fraternizing with “the enemy.” In other scenes, one relative suggests using the boy’s new connection for spy work while another wants to exploit it for Israeli business contacts and accuses the Palestinians of being ungrateful for the support received from Saudi Arabia over the years.
Those scenes have enraged Palestinians, who long counted on Saudi backing.
“Even in my political nightmares, I did not expect an Arab to dare to speak so openly and comfortably about normalization with Israel,” said Ziad Khaddash, a Palestinian writer and journalist in the West Bank. “It is frightening, shameful and strange that this is happening.”
“Um Haroun,” which is drawing a huge audience, centers on an elderly Jewish nurse in an imaginary village in the Gulf around the time of the creation of Israel in 1948.
The show, all of whose actors are Arab, chronicles the lives and intrigues of the community’s Muslim, Christian and Jewish families, who run shops next to each other in the market, visit each other’s homes, and attend each other’s weddings and funerals.
In one scene, a Muslim man gets engaged and his Jewish friends wish him “mazel tov,” or congratulations in Hebrew. In another, a group of Muslim, Christian and Jewish women cook together before the start of the Jewish Sabbath.
Religious tensions flare now and then, for example, when a Muslim declines to drink tea from the same glass as a Jew, or when a group of children taunt the rabbi. And some incidents play off Jewish stereotypes.
But in general, the show lays itself out as an idealistic, fictional prequel to the last seven decades of Middle Eastern history, during which Israel was created, most Jews fled or were kicked out of Arab states, and a string of regional wars followed.
The village’s idyllic and largely ahistoric life is shaken early in the series, however, when the news of Israel’s creation is broadcast on the radio and a Jewish man is murdered by an unknown assailant. Interreligious tensions mount, which will play out for the rest of the show’s episodes, airing one per night throughout Ramadan.
The show’s creators and distributors insist it has no relation to contemporary Arab politics.
In a statement, MBC, the Saudi-controlled channel, said the show focused on “tolerance, moderation, openness and coexistence, showcasing a region before sectarianism.”
In an interview, Ali Shams, the Bahraini who co-wrote the script with his brother, Mohammed, said its main character was inspired by a Jewish nurse known as Um Jan who worked in Bahrain in the middle of the last century.
The show, he said, was “as far as possible from what people have said about Zionist politics. Our goal was to bring people together on the idea of mutual acceptance.”
Reactions around the region have been fierce and varied.
Writing in the Saudi-owned Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper, Hussein Shobokshi, a Saudi, described the show as a “qualitative shock” to Arab audiences who were unaccustomed to seeing Jewish symbols such as the Star of David and the menorah, not to mention hearing Hebrew monologues.
He praised the show as “daring” by talking about the history of Jewish presence in the Arab world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/w...roun-jews.html
ReplyAnother update.
Jewish Characters Star in Saudi TV Show, Igniting an Arab Debate
Fans have praised a hit TV series for promoting religious diversity. Critics say it encourages “normalization” with Israel and betrays the Palestinian cause.
In a mud-walled village in the Persian Gulf, a Christian woman sheds tears of love for a Muslim merchant. But he is stuck in a miserable marriage to a woman who longs for another Muslim man. But she can’t have him, because he is crazy about the local rabbi’s daughter.
These tangles of interreligious intrigue unspool in a new blockbuster television series that has set off heated debates across the Arab world about the region’s historical relationships with Jewish communities and the shifting stances of some of its current leaders toward Israel.
Fans laud the program, set in the 1940s and 1950s, for highlighting an often overlooked aspect of the region’s past — Jewish communities in the Persian Gulf — while providing a much-needed example of coexistence among different faiths.
But critics have blasted it as a blatant effort to reshape Arab views of Israel to pave the way for formal relations, or what many in the Arab world call “normalization.”
With the coronavirus shuttering mosques and the holy city of Mecca, this year’s Ramadan, which began last week, was already bound for the history books.
But the virus’s effect on the Islamic holy month is just one aspect that will be long remembered, a prominent Palestinian journalist, Abdel Bari Atwan, wrote this week.
The other reason this Ramadan won’t soon be forgotten is because “it witnessed the largest normalization campaign, driven by the Saudi media, with help from the government, and coordinated with the Israeli occupation state,” Mr. Atwan said.
Suspicions that the historical TV drama, “Um Haroun,” or “Mother of Aaron,” is part of a state-sponsored push to sway opinions are widespread. The show airs on MBC, the Arab world’s largest private broadcaster, but one ultimately controlled by the Saudi state.
The same network is also broadcasting a comedy program that has made light of Arab attitudes toward Israel, further fueling a sense that both shows are mixing entertainment with propaganda.
The two shows will run through Ramadan, when television viewership skyrockets as families binge-watch programs over the evening meals that break the dawn-to-dusk fast.
While MBC denied that including positive depictions of Jews was part of any government mandate, this year’s shows do coincide with a quiet but clear warming toward Israel among governments in the Persian Gulf.
Historically, animosity toward Israel and sympathy for the Palestinians were some of the few sentiments able to unite Arabs across the Middle East. But in recent years, wars, insurgencies and economic crises have left many Arab governments focused on domestic issues, pushing the Palestinian cause down the priority list.
At the same time, some Persian Gulf leaders have come to see Israel not as an eternal enemy, but as a potential ally against the shared threats of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia has spoken of overlapping trade and security interests between the kingdom and Israel, and an Israeli delegation is expected to participate in a world expo in the United Arab Emirates next year, although both Saudi Arabia and the Emirates lack formal diplomatic relations with the country.
Michael Stephens, who studies Gulf politics at the Royal United Services Institute, said the shows appeared to be part of that shift by countering a history of anti-Jewish rhetoric and showing a new openness toward the possibility of official ties with Israel.
Given the level of state control in Gulf countries, he was confident that the show’s messaging must have been officially sanctioned.
“They would not have done this unless there was some guidance from the top that it was OK,” Mr. Stephens said.
The comedy show, Makhraj 7, or “Exit 7,” a Saudi slang term used to avoid unwanted conversation, pokes fun at contemporary views of Israel in Saudi society.
In one episode, a father discovers his son playing an online video game with an Israeli child and fumes about his offspring fraternizing with “the enemy.” In other scenes, one relative suggests using the boy’s new connection for spy work while another wants to exploit it for Israeli business contacts and accuses the Palestinians of being ungrateful for the support received from Saudi Arabia over the years.
Those scenes have enraged Palestinians, who long counted on Saudi backing.
“Even in my political nightmares, I did not expect an Arab to dare to speak so openly and comfortably about normalization with Israel,” said Ziad Khaddash, a Palestinian writer and journalist in the West Bank. “It is frightening, shameful and strange that this is happening.”
“Um Haroun,” which is drawing a huge audience, centers on an elderly Jewish nurse in an imaginary village in the Gulf around the time of the creation of Israel in 1948.
The show, all of whose actors are Arab, chronicles the lives and intrigues of the community’s Muslim, Christian and Jewish families, who run shops next to each other in the market, visit each other’s homes, and attend each other’s weddings and funerals.
In one scene, a Muslim man gets engaged and his Jewish friends wish him “mazel tov,” or congratulations in Hebrew. In another, a group of Muslim, Christian and Jewish women cook together before the start of the Jewish Sabbath.
Religious tensions flare now and then, for example, when a Muslim declines to drink tea from the same glass as a Jew, or when a group of children taunt the rabbi. And some incidents play off Jewish stereotypes.
But in general, the show lays itself out as an idealistic, fictional prequel to the last seven decades of Middle Eastern history, during which Israel was created, most Jews fled or were kicked out of Arab states, and a string of regional wars followed.
The village’s idyllic and largely ahistoric life is shaken early in the series, however, when the news of Israel’s creation is broadcast on the radio and a Jewish man is murdered by an unknown assailant. Interreligious tensions mount, which will play out for the rest of the show’s episodes, airing one per night throughout Ramadan.
The show’s creators and distributors insist it has no relation to contemporary Arab politics.
In a statement, MBC, the Saudi-controlled channel, said the show focused on “tolerance, moderation, openness and coexistence, showcasing a region before sectarianism.”
In an interview, Ali Shams, the Bahraini who co-wrote the script with his brother, Mohammed, said its main character was inspired by a Jewish nurse known as Um Jan who worked in Bahrain in the middle of the last century.
The show, he said, was “as far as possible from what people have said about Zionist politics. Our goal was to bring people together on the idea of mutual acceptance.”
Reactions around the region have been fierce and varied.
Writing in the Saudi-owned Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper, Hussein Shobokshi, a Saudi, described the show as a “qualitative shock” to Arab audiences who were unaccustomed to seeing Jewish symbols such as the Star of David and the menorah, not to mention hearing Hebrew monologues.
He praised the show as “daring” by talking about the history of Jewish presence in the Arab world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/w...roun-jews.html
سيف الله
05-28-2020, 08:40 AM
Salaam
Another update. The new narrative is being created.
Death of a dogma? After annexation, world likely to abandon two-state paradigm
Process may take years, but officials and analysts accusing Israel of killing option for future Palestinian state have started calling for a unitary state with equal rights for all
For years, Israeli officials have insisted that reports of the death of the two-state solution are greatly exaggerated, and that the option of a Palestinian state is still alive, despite ongoing settlement expansions.
Now, many proponents of a two-state solution are worried that Israel’s planned unilateral annexation of large parts of the West Bank would bury that possibility once and for all. Advocates of an Israeli annexation, on the other hand, say the move, if carried out in accordance to the US peace plan, would actually advance a “realistic two-state solution.”
Either way, an Israeli annexation as envisioned by the deal of the century is likely to erode the international consensus behind the two-state paradigm, and may cause the world to start backing the idea of a unitary state in which Israelis and Palestinians enjoy equal rights.
“Annexation will end the debate about Israel’s borders. It will also start a debate on a one-state outcome,” posited Evan Gottesman, the associate director of policy and communications at the Israel Policy Forum, a dovish think tank based in the US, on Wednesday.
How one assesses the fallout of a possible annexation, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to advance this summer, depends to a large extent on one’s pre-existing politics: right-wingers dreaming of Greater Israel are convinced that the sky will not fall, while doves in favor of territorial concessions and Palestinian statehood argue that it would the beginning of the end of the Zionist project.
Advocates of annexation predict very little to change. An assertive Israel, they argue, can easily weather the international opprobrium, which they expect to fade away quickly, just like the world eventually forgot about Israel’s annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
Critics, by contrast, anticipate not only condemnations but sanctions, and not only from Europe but also from 50 percent of the American body politic. They also worry about further alienating Diaspora Jewry, fear for the peace agreement with and the internal stability of Jordan, fret over the recent rapprochement with the Gulf states, and predict increased wrath from the International Criminal Court.
Some have argued that the plan will make a future separation from the Palestinians nearly impossible in the long-run, which eventually would turn Israel into an apartheid state in which Israelis and Palestinians share the same space but have unequal rights.
One counterargument is that the currently envisioned annexation — which the Israeli government agreed would only occur in full coordination with the US administration and along the lines of President Donald Trump’s peace proposal — would apply Israeli sovereignty to about 30 percent of the West Bank.
The rest remains reserved for a future Palestinian state — hence, in this thesis, annexation in the framework of the plan would not presage the end of the two-state solution but rather a step toward a “realistic two-state solution.” Indeed, the so-called deal of the century mentions the term “two-state solution” a whopping 86 times.
But rather than embracing the plan as an outline to reach a two-state solution, many in the international community consider it the final nail in the coffin of a two-state solution. And while few officials are currently ready to depart from the decade-old diplomatic dogma sanctifying the two-state solution, there are growing indications that sooner or later they will embrace a one-state outcome.
Because once the world determines that the old “two states for two peoples” paradigm is no longer relevant, it will likely draw the logical conclusion and start advocating for one bi-national state, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, with equal rights for all.
“We agree that the annexation of the Jordan Valley would mean the end of the two-state solution,” European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said on April 30 after speaking to Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi.
If annexation kills all prospects for a Palestinian state next to Israel — then what’s the alternative?
For now, most governments cling to the two-state doctrine, which has been affirmed as the “best and the only realistic chance for peace” in countless resolutions and declarations. But some officials have started saying the hitherto unthinkable.
“The principle of ‘two states for two people’ was the motto and official condition of the peace process. Let’s face it, time is running out and the situation has changed,” Radek Vondráček, the speaker of Czech Republic’s Chamber of Deputies, wrote Monday in an op-ed. The world, he added, should not force its “old schemes and the frustration that results from not fulfilling them” on the parties on the ground if they want to explore new ideas.
“The existence of the state of Israel shows that the realization of the human dream of freedom is extremely difficult,” Vondráček wrote. “The dream was not based on the dogma of a two-state solution. It is therefore time to revive the idea of the coexistence of all in one common state.”
As opposed to Vondráček — who is known as a friend of Israel — even those critical of the Israeli government say annexation would make any other outcome impossible.
“This decision will kill the two-state solution, making a one-state solution inevitable,” Safadi, the Jordanian foreign minister, said Wednesday.
“Right now, the two-state solution is dead… Wouldn’t it be great if we actually had a democratic state for Jews and Palestinians between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean?” Irish member of the European Parliament Mike Wallace asked Borrell this week.
Earlier this month, dovish Israeli columnist Gideon Levy endorsed annexation as “the only way out of the deadlock, the only possible shake---up that could end this status quo of despair we’ve gotten stuck in, which can no longer lead anywhere good.”
“Maybe,” responded Nick Westcott, the former director of the EU’s Middle East department. “But only as part of a coherent one-state solution with equal rights for all citizens.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/death-...tate-paradigm/
Before everybody forgets.
Blurb
Palestinian peace offensives
I'd go as far as saying Israel fears peace.
ReplyAnother update. The new narrative is being created.
Death of a dogma? After annexation, world likely to abandon two-state paradigm
Process may take years, but officials and analysts accusing Israel of killing option for future Palestinian state have started calling for a unitary state with equal rights for all
For years, Israeli officials have insisted that reports of the death of the two-state solution are greatly exaggerated, and that the option of a Palestinian state is still alive, despite ongoing settlement expansions.
Now, many proponents of a two-state solution are worried that Israel’s planned unilateral annexation of large parts of the West Bank would bury that possibility once and for all. Advocates of an Israeli annexation, on the other hand, say the move, if carried out in accordance to the US peace plan, would actually advance a “realistic two-state solution.”
Either way, an Israeli annexation as envisioned by the deal of the century is likely to erode the international consensus behind the two-state paradigm, and may cause the world to start backing the idea of a unitary state in which Israelis and Palestinians enjoy equal rights.
“Annexation will end the debate about Israel’s borders. It will also start a debate on a one-state outcome,” posited Evan Gottesman, the associate director of policy and communications at the Israel Policy Forum, a dovish think tank based in the US, on Wednesday.
How one assesses the fallout of a possible annexation, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to advance this summer, depends to a large extent on one’s pre-existing politics: right-wingers dreaming of Greater Israel are convinced that the sky will not fall, while doves in favor of territorial concessions and Palestinian statehood argue that it would the beginning of the end of the Zionist project.
Advocates of annexation predict very little to change. An assertive Israel, they argue, can easily weather the international opprobrium, which they expect to fade away quickly, just like the world eventually forgot about Israel’s annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
Critics, by contrast, anticipate not only condemnations but sanctions, and not only from Europe but also from 50 percent of the American body politic. They also worry about further alienating Diaspora Jewry, fear for the peace agreement with and the internal stability of Jordan, fret over the recent rapprochement with the Gulf states, and predict increased wrath from the International Criminal Court.
Some have argued that the plan will make a future separation from the Palestinians nearly impossible in the long-run, which eventually would turn Israel into an apartheid state in which Israelis and Palestinians share the same space but have unequal rights.
One counterargument is that the currently envisioned annexation — which the Israeli government agreed would only occur in full coordination with the US administration and along the lines of President Donald Trump’s peace proposal — would apply Israeli sovereignty to about 30 percent of the West Bank.
The rest remains reserved for a future Palestinian state — hence, in this thesis, annexation in the framework of the plan would not presage the end of the two-state solution but rather a step toward a “realistic two-state solution.” Indeed, the so-called deal of the century mentions the term “two-state solution” a whopping 86 times.
But rather than embracing the plan as an outline to reach a two-state solution, many in the international community consider it the final nail in the coffin of a two-state solution. And while few officials are currently ready to depart from the decade-old diplomatic dogma sanctifying the two-state solution, there are growing indications that sooner or later they will embrace a one-state outcome.
Because once the world determines that the old “two states for two peoples” paradigm is no longer relevant, it will likely draw the logical conclusion and start advocating for one bi-national state, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, with equal rights for all.
“We agree that the annexation of the Jordan Valley would mean the end of the two-state solution,” European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said on April 30 after speaking to Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi.
If annexation kills all prospects for a Palestinian state next to Israel — then what’s the alternative?
For now, most governments cling to the two-state doctrine, which has been affirmed as the “best and the only realistic chance for peace” in countless resolutions and declarations. But some officials have started saying the hitherto unthinkable.
“The principle of ‘two states for two people’ was the motto and official condition of the peace process. Let’s face it, time is running out and the situation has changed,” Radek Vondráček, the speaker of Czech Republic’s Chamber of Deputies, wrote Monday in an op-ed. The world, he added, should not force its “old schemes and the frustration that results from not fulfilling them” on the parties on the ground if they want to explore new ideas.
“The existence of the state of Israel shows that the realization of the human dream of freedom is extremely difficult,” Vondráček wrote. “The dream was not based on the dogma of a two-state solution. It is therefore time to revive the idea of the coexistence of all in one common state.”
As opposed to Vondráček — who is known as a friend of Israel — even those critical of the Israeli government say annexation would make any other outcome impossible.
“This decision will kill the two-state solution, making a one-state solution inevitable,” Safadi, the Jordanian foreign minister, said Wednesday.
“Right now, the two-state solution is dead… Wouldn’t it be great if we actually had a democratic state for Jews and Palestinians between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean?” Irish member of the European Parliament Mike Wallace asked Borrell this week.
Earlier this month, dovish Israeli columnist Gideon Levy endorsed annexation as “the only way out of the deadlock, the only possible shake---up that could end this status quo of despair we’ve gotten stuck in, which can no longer lead anywhere good.”
“Maybe,” responded Nick Westcott, the former director of the EU’s Middle East department. “But only as part of a coherent one-state solution with equal rights for all citizens.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/death-...tate-paradigm/
Before everybody forgets.
Blurb
Palestinian peace offensives
I'd go as far as saying Israel fears peace.
سيف الله
06-14-2020, 12:59 PM
Salaam
Like to share.
Douglas Reed started writing his book “The Controversy of Zion” in 1951 and completed in 1956 but it remained unpublished until two years after the author's death in 1986. Despite being a top selling author, he could not find a publisher.
But why?
The author traces the origin of Zionism back to 458 BC when the tribe of Judah produced a racial creed, “disruptive effect of which on human affairs may have exceeded that of explosives or epidemics”.
It's important to understand the difference between Israelites and Judah.
The Hebrew people who took possession of the Land of Canaan (Palestine) under the leadership of Yusha after Prophet Moses and his tribes were exiled from Egypt are known as the twelve tribes of Israel including Judah.
After Prophet Solomon's death, the Kingdom was split.
In 930 BC the 10 Tribes formed the independent Kingdom of Israel in the north and tribes of Judah and Benjamin formed the Kingdom of Judah which later became identified with the landless tribe of the Levites.
The racial creed which was given force of daily law in Judah in 458 BC was then and still unique in the world. It rested on the assertion, attributed to the tribal deity (Jehovah), that ― (the Judahites) were his chosen people who, if they did all his judgments would be...
...set over all other peoples and be established in a ―promised land. The hereditary priests of Judah established the worship of Jehovah as the god of racialism, hatred and revenge. In the two centuries leading up to 458 BC, Judah had been disavowed by the Israelites.
The Israelites (the northern confederation of ten tribes established by King Jeroboam) from all the evidence, never knew this racial creed which was to come down through the centuries as the Jewish religion, or Judaism. It stands, for all time, as the product of Judah.
In 721 BC, Northern Kingdom of Israel was attacked and conquered by Assyria, the Israelites were carried into captivity and later disappeared. Judah was spared for that moment and for another century remained an insignificant vassal, first of Assyria and then of Egypt.
The Judaist claim, on the other hand, is that Israel was totally and deservedly lost, because it rejected the Levitical creed and chose rapprochement with neighbouring peoples. Today‘s Zionists do not believe that the Israelites vanished without leaving a trace.
As Dr. Kastein says that the Israelites were pronounced dead, in the way that a Jew marrying out of the fold today is pronounced dead (for instance, Dr. John Goldstein); they were excommunicated and only in that sense ―vanished.
Peoples do not become extinct; the North American Indians, the Australian Blackfellows, the New Zealand Maoris, the South African Bantu and others are the proofs of that. For that matter, the Israelites could not have been taken away captive, had they been physically......exterminated. Their blood and thought survive in mankind, somewhere, today. The true meaning of the assertion that Israel ―disappeared is to be found in the later Talmud, which says:
“The ten tribes have no share in the world to come.
Thus, the children of Israel are banned from heaven by the ruling sect of Judah because they refused to exclude themselves from mankind on earth”
Chief Rabbi of the British Empire in 1918, the Very Rev. J.H. Hertz, in answer to an enquiry on this point said explicitly:
“The people known at present as Jews are descendants of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with a certain number of descendants of the tribe of Levi”
This statement makes perfectly clear that Israel had no part in what has become Judaism
Therefore the use of the name Israel by the Zionist state which was created in Palestine in this century is in the nature of a forgery.
More on this topic some other day.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...694045184.html
ReplyLike to share.
Douglas Reed started writing his book “The Controversy of Zion” in 1951 and completed in 1956 but it remained unpublished until two years after the author's death in 1986. Despite being a top selling author, he could not find a publisher.
But why?
The author traces the origin of Zionism back to 458 BC when the tribe of Judah produced a racial creed, “disruptive effect of which on human affairs may have exceeded that of explosives or epidemics”.
It's important to understand the difference between Israelites and Judah.
The Hebrew people who took possession of the Land of Canaan (Palestine) under the leadership of Yusha after Prophet Moses and his tribes were exiled from Egypt are known as the twelve tribes of Israel including Judah.
After Prophet Solomon's death, the Kingdom was split.
In 930 BC the 10 Tribes formed the independent Kingdom of Israel in the north and tribes of Judah and Benjamin formed the Kingdom of Judah which later became identified with the landless tribe of the Levites.
The racial creed which was given force of daily law in Judah in 458 BC was then and still unique in the world. It rested on the assertion, attributed to the tribal deity (Jehovah), that ― (the Judahites) were his chosen people who, if they did all his judgments would be...
...set over all other peoples and be established in a ―promised land. The hereditary priests of Judah established the worship of Jehovah as the god of racialism, hatred and revenge. In the two centuries leading up to 458 BC, Judah had been disavowed by the Israelites.
The Israelites (the northern confederation of ten tribes established by King Jeroboam) from all the evidence, never knew this racial creed which was to come down through the centuries as the Jewish religion, or Judaism. It stands, for all time, as the product of Judah.
In 721 BC, Northern Kingdom of Israel was attacked and conquered by Assyria, the Israelites were carried into captivity and later disappeared. Judah was spared for that moment and for another century remained an insignificant vassal, first of Assyria and then of Egypt.
The Judaist claim, on the other hand, is that Israel was totally and deservedly lost, because it rejected the Levitical creed and chose rapprochement with neighbouring peoples. Today‘s Zionists do not believe that the Israelites vanished without leaving a trace.
As Dr. Kastein says that the Israelites were pronounced dead, in the way that a Jew marrying out of the fold today is pronounced dead (for instance, Dr. John Goldstein); they were excommunicated and only in that sense ―vanished.
Peoples do not become extinct; the North American Indians, the Australian Blackfellows, the New Zealand Maoris, the South African Bantu and others are the proofs of that. For that matter, the Israelites could not have been taken away captive, had they been physically......exterminated. Their blood and thought survive in mankind, somewhere, today. The true meaning of the assertion that Israel ―disappeared is to be found in the later Talmud, which says:
“The ten tribes have no share in the world to come.
Thus, the children of Israel are banned from heaven by the ruling sect of Judah because they refused to exclude themselves from mankind on earth”
Chief Rabbi of the British Empire in 1918, the Very Rev. J.H. Hertz, in answer to an enquiry on this point said explicitly:
“The people known at present as Jews are descendants of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with a certain number of descendants of the tribe of Levi”
This statement makes perfectly clear that Israel had no part in what has become Judaism
Therefore the use of the name Israel by the Zionist state which was created in Palestine in this century is in the nature of a forgery.
More on this topic some other day.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...694045184.html
سيف الله
06-23-2020, 06:18 AM
Salaam
Another update. Busy selling out.
Top UAE official urges greater cooperation with Israel
The Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates has called for increased cooperation with Israel, saying the UAE wants to separate disagreements with Tel Aviv over the Palestinian issue from the mutual benefits of cooperation in other fields.
Addressing a major U.S.-Jewish online conference on Tuesday, Anwar Gargash advocated for “open lines of communications” and increased liaison with Tel Aviv in various areas, such as technology and health.
The conference was organised by AJC, which is a leading global Jewish, pro-Israel advocacy organisation.
During his address Gargash did reiterate Abu Dhabi’s opposition to Israel’s planned unilateral annexation of parts of the West Bank, but underlined his country’s policy of “decoupling the political from the non-political.”
“Can I have a political disagreement with Israel but at the same time try and bridge other areas of the relationship? I think I can. I think that is fundamentally where we are,” Gargash said.
He added there was no reason not to cooperate with Israel on efforts to bring medical aid to Palestinians suffering from the coronavirus pandemic.
Such collaboration, which last week led to the second of two Emirati airliners landing in Tel Aviv, does not affect his country’s opposition to Israel’s planned annexation, he stressed.
Gargash noted that decades of Arab hostility toward Israel has only bred animosity that now makes it harder to work together for the common good.
“The UAE is clearly against any annexation as is being proposed by the current Israeli government. Having said that, that is the political domain. Do I have to really look at all the other domains and make them almost static because of the political domain? We have tried that, as a group of Arab countries, over many years, and I don’t think it has really led to what we want in terms of bringing stability to the region,” he told the interviewer.
“I think we can come to a point where we come to a given Israeli government… and say, we disagree with you on this [annexation], we don’t think it’s a good idea, but at the same time there are areas, such a COVID, technology and other things, where we can actually work together.”
“What we see today is that negotiations, and having lines of communications open, actually will yield better results for us and for the Israelis,” he added.
The traditional Arab policy of “stonewalling and closed lines of communications” has only radicalised the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the senior diplomat opined.
“The idea of demonising Arabs by radicals on the Israeli side, or the idea of demonising Jews by radicals on the Arab side, has not helped anybody. We need to take that element out and we need to come and say we do have lines of communications.”
In March 2019, Gargash publicly called for a “strategic shift” in Israel-Arab ties, saying the Arab world’s decades-old decision to boycott the Jewish state had been a mistake.
The Palestinians oppose any attempts by the Arab world to normalise ties with Israel, saying it amounts to treachery. The Palestinian Authority has also refused to accept the UAE supplies on the planes.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/06/17/to...n-with-israel/
Their minds are so colonised this statement wouldnt look out of place if it was released by the UK government.
ReplyAnother update. Busy selling out.
Top UAE official urges greater cooperation with Israel
The Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates has called for increased cooperation with Israel, saying the UAE wants to separate disagreements with Tel Aviv over the Palestinian issue from the mutual benefits of cooperation in other fields.
Addressing a major U.S.-Jewish online conference on Tuesday, Anwar Gargash advocated for “open lines of communications” and increased liaison with Tel Aviv in various areas, such as technology and health.
The conference was organised by AJC, which is a leading global Jewish, pro-Israel advocacy organisation.
During his address Gargash did reiterate Abu Dhabi’s opposition to Israel’s planned unilateral annexation of parts of the West Bank, but underlined his country’s policy of “decoupling the political from the non-political.”
“Can I have a political disagreement with Israel but at the same time try and bridge other areas of the relationship? I think I can. I think that is fundamentally where we are,” Gargash said.
He added there was no reason not to cooperate with Israel on efforts to bring medical aid to Palestinians suffering from the coronavirus pandemic.
Such collaboration, which last week led to the second of two Emirati airliners landing in Tel Aviv, does not affect his country’s opposition to Israel’s planned annexation, he stressed.
Gargash noted that decades of Arab hostility toward Israel has only bred animosity that now makes it harder to work together for the common good.
“The UAE is clearly against any annexation as is being proposed by the current Israeli government. Having said that, that is the political domain. Do I have to really look at all the other domains and make them almost static because of the political domain? We have tried that, as a group of Arab countries, over many years, and I don’t think it has really led to what we want in terms of bringing stability to the region,” he told the interviewer.
“I think we can come to a point where we come to a given Israeli government… and say, we disagree with you on this [annexation], we don’t think it’s a good idea, but at the same time there are areas, such a COVID, technology and other things, where we can actually work together.”
“What we see today is that negotiations, and having lines of communications open, actually will yield better results for us and for the Israelis,” he added.
The traditional Arab policy of “stonewalling and closed lines of communications” has only radicalised the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the senior diplomat opined.
“The idea of demonising Arabs by radicals on the Israeli side, or the idea of demonising Jews by radicals on the Arab side, has not helped anybody. We need to take that element out and we need to come and say we do have lines of communications.”
In March 2019, Gargash publicly called for a “strategic shift” in Israel-Arab ties, saying the Arab world’s decades-old decision to boycott the Jewish state had been a mistake.
The Palestinians oppose any attempts by the Arab world to normalise ties with Israel, saying it amounts to treachery. The Palestinian Authority has also refused to accept the UAE supplies on the planes.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/06/17/to...n-with-israel/
Their minds are so colonised this statement wouldnt look out of place if it was released by the UK government.
سيف الله
06-28-2020, 07:22 AM
Salaam
Like to share.
Blurb
Meet our new friend, Dr Norman Finkelstein, as he opens up to Salman and Ahmed to speak about a range of juicy topics including his upbringing and politics, his friend and mentor Noam Chomsky, and anti-semitism to Israel's proposed annexation and MORE.
Related.
ReplyLike to share.
Blurb
Meet our new friend, Dr Norman Finkelstein, as he opens up to Salman and Ahmed to speak about a range of juicy topics including his upbringing and politics, his friend and mentor Noam Chomsky, and anti-semitism to Israel's proposed annexation and MORE.
Related.
سيف الله
06-30-2020, 09:04 AM
Salaam
More antisemitism. How quickly they ditch you when you dont follow the approved script. Comment from an American nationalist perspective.
Palestinian Lives Matter
And in a blink of an eye, all that massive funding for Black Lives Matter suddenly began to disappear:
Notice the way the juxtaposition of their definitions exposes their word spells:
Denying Americans the universal right of self-determination = anti-racism.
Denying Jews the universal right of self-determination = anti-Semitism
The movement for the self-determination of Jews = Zionism
The movement for the self-determination of Americans = White Supremacy
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/06/p...es-matter.html
ReplyMore antisemitism. How quickly they ditch you when you dont follow the approved script. Comment from an American nationalist perspective.
Palestinian Lives Matter
And in a blink of an eye, all that massive funding for Black Lives Matter suddenly began to disappear:
UK Jewish activists have lashed out at the British chapter of Black Lives Matter over its pro-Palestinian tweets. They say the anti-racist movement's criticism had anti-Semitic undertones.
BLM UK posted a series of tweets on Sunday, criticizing Israel over its plans to annex occupied Palestinian territories and calling for solidarity with the Palestinian cause. One of the earlier posts stated that “mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits”.
As Israel moves forward with the annexation of the West Bank, and mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits, we loudly and clearly stand beside our Palestinian comrades. FREE PALESTINE.
#BlackLivesMatterUK
That particular part prompted a furious backlash from the British NGO Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). “Zionism is the movement for the self-determination of Jews,” CAA tweeted in response. “So-called ‘anti-Zionism’ exclusively denies Jews that universal right and is therefore anti-Semitic.”
BLM UK posted a series of tweets on Sunday, criticizing Israel over its plans to annex occupied Palestinian territories and calling for solidarity with the Palestinian cause. One of the earlier posts stated that “mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits”.
As Israel moves forward with the annexation of the West Bank, and mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits, we loudly and clearly stand beside our Palestinian comrades. FREE PALESTINE.
#BlackLivesMatterUK
That particular part prompted a furious backlash from the British NGO Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). “Zionism is the movement for the self-determination of Jews,” CAA tweeted in response. “So-called ‘anti-Zionism’ exclusively denies Jews that universal right and is therefore anti-Semitic.”
Denying Americans the universal right of self-determination = anti-racism.
Denying Jews the universal right of self-determination = anti-Semitism
The movement for the self-determination of Jews = Zionism
The movement for the self-determination of Americans = White Supremacy
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/06/p...es-matter.html
سيف الله
07-16-2020, 06:54 AM
Salaam
Another update. The new narrative is being created.
Saudi academic cites Prophet Muhammad in bid to normalise ties with Israel
Small gestures have hinted at the development of a closer affinity between Saudi Arabia and Israel, but an academic article on the Prophet Muhammad confirms it further.
As Saudi Arabia’s relationship with Israel warms up, its people-to-people ties are supplementing its diplomatic gestures. Now, for the first time in history a Saudi academic has published a paper in an Israeli journal, with the aim to 'bring the two nations closer'.
Professor Mohammed Ibrahim Alghbban from King Saud University in Riyadh, published a Hebrew article in Kesher, the journal of the Shalom Rosenfeld Institute for Research of Jewish Media and Communication, at Tel Aviv University.
Professor Raanan Rein, head of the Shalom Rosenfeld Institute, said the move was unprecedented and was driven by Alghbban’s aim to improve relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
The Jerusalem post writes, "The Saudi professor said he wrote the article to improve Muhammad’s image among Israelis."
“I hope that this academic cooperation is another step towards economic and political cooperation,” Rein added.
Alghbban’s article, “Contribution to Prophet Muhammad’s Image Improvement in the Eyes of the Israeli Public: Muhammad’s Alliances and Mail Exchanges with Jews from the Arabian Peninsula,” argued that the prophet had good relations with the Jewish people, and his clashes with them were political, not religious.
Islam, Judaism and Christianity have historically co-existed in synergy with each other and according to Rabbi Ben Abrahmson of the Al Sadiqin Institute, there is a clear process that can lead the way to reclaiming that historic synergy.
The normalising of ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel show no signs of a deeper process of mediation which requires forming credible bodies of mediation that all parties (including Palestinians) can trust and establishing a just judicial system and clear definition of citizenship.
Palestinians have so far not been a factor in the warming of ties between the two countries.
A wave
The Saudi academic’s paper comes after an increasing volume of calls in Saudi Arabia, along with those from other Gulf countries, to improve relations with Israel. Despite the fact that the Gulf States and Israel have no official diplomatic ties, the relationship between them has grown closer recently, mostly over their common enemy: Iran.
Another indication of the warming association, is the cooperation between Israeli and Emirati companies in the fight against coronavirus.
In June, reports emerged that Israel and Saudi Arabia met secretly last December regarding various issues, including Saudi representatives in the Islamic Waqf Council at the Al Aqsa Compound in Jerusalem.
The Islamic Waqf Council is a Jordanian-appointed body, which oversees Muslim sites in Jerusalem and claims exclusive authority over the Al Aqsa Compound - not subject to Israeli jurisdiction.
The talks took place following US President Donald Trump’s controversial Israel-Palestine plan, the so-called “deal of the century”.
Talking to Israel Hayom, senior Saudi diplomats said; “These are sensitive and secret discussions conducted with ambiguity and low intensity with a small team of diplomats and senior security officials from Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia as part of negotiations to progress the Deal of the Century.”
Although Saudi Arabia opposed the formation of Israel in 1947, and voted against the UN Partition Plan, in the last few years, the country has sought to achieve better relations with Israel.
In the spring of 2018, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) said, "There are a lot of interests we share with Israel and if there is peace, there would be a lot of interest between Israel and the GCC."
February 2019 saw the leaking of a video by Netanyahu’s office during the Warsaw Mideast Summit. It was of a closed session in which the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates can be seen defending Israel's right to exist and defend itself, and in one case saying that confronting Iran is more pressing than solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, praised the summit organised by Trump, defining it as a "historical turning point" in the region's history regarding the evolving nature of the Israeli-Gulf relationship.
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/sa...h-israel-38148
Some comment.
ReplyAnother update. The new narrative is being created.
Saudi academic cites Prophet Muhammad in bid to normalise ties with Israel
Small gestures have hinted at the development of a closer affinity between Saudi Arabia and Israel, but an academic article on the Prophet Muhammad confirms it further.
As Saudi Arabia’s relationship with Israel warms up, its people-to-people ties are supplementing its diplomatic gestures. Now, for the first time in history a Saudi academic has published a paper in an Israeli journal, with the aim to 'bring the two nations closer'.
Professor Mohammed Ibrahim Alghbban from King Saud University in Riyadh, published a Hebrew article in Kesher, the journal of the Shalom Rosenfeld Institute for Research of Jewish Media and Communication, at Tel Aviv University.
Professor Raanan Rein, head of the Shalom Rosenfeld Institute, said the move was unprecedented and was driven by Alghbban’s aim to improve relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
The Jerusalem post writes, "The Saudi professor said he wrote the article to improve Muhammad’s image among Israelis."
“I hope that this academic cooperation is another step towards economic and political cooperation,” Rein added.
Alghbban’s article, “Contribution to Prophet Muhammad’s Image Improvement in the Eyes of the Israeli Public: Muhammad’s Alliances and Mail Exchanges with Jews from the Arabian Peninsula,” argued that the prophet had good relations with the Jewish people, and his clashes with them were political, not religious.
Islam, Judaism and Christianity have historically co-existed in synergy with each other and according to Rabbi Ben Abrahmson of the Al Sadiqin Institute, there is a clear process that can lead the way to reclaiming that historic synergy.
The normalising of ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel show no signs of a deeper process of mediation which requires forming credible bodies of mediation that all parties (including Palestinians) can trust and establishing a just judicial system and clear definition of citizenship.
Palestinians have so far not been a factor in the warming of ties between the two countries.
A wave
The Saudi academic’s paper comes after an increasing volume of calls in Saudi Arabia, along with those from other Gulf countries, to improve relations with Israel. Despite the fact that the Gulf States and Israel have no official diplomatic ties, the relationship between them has grown closer recently, mostly over their common enemy: Iran.
Another indication of the warming association, is the cooperation between Israeli and Emirati companies in the fight against coronavirus.
In June, reports emerged that Israel and Saudi Arabia met secretly last December regarding various issues, including Saudi representatives in the Islamic Waqf Council at the Al Aqsa Compound in Jerusalem.
The Islamic Waqf Council is a Jordanian-appointed body, which oversees Muslim sites in Jerusalem and claims exclusive authority over the Al Aqsa Compound - not subject to Israeli jurisdiction.
The talks took place following US President Donald Trump’s controversial Israel-Palestine plan, the so-called “deal of the century”.
Talking to Israel Hayom, senior Saudi diplomats said; “These are sensitive and secret discussions conducted with ambiguity and low intensity with a small team of diplomats and senior security officials from Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia as part of negotiations to progress the Deal of the Century.”
Although Saudi Arabia opposed the formation of Israel in 1947, and voted against the UN Partition Plan, in the last few years, the country has sought to achieve better relations with Israel.
In the spring of 2018, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) said, "There are a lot of interests we share with Israel and if there is peace, there would be a lot of interest between Israel and the GCC."
February 2019 saw the leaking of a video by Netanyahu’s office during the Warsaw Mideast Summit. It was of a closed session in which the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates can be seen defending Israel's right to exist and defend itself, and in one case saying that confronting Iran is more pressing than solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, praised the summit organised by Trump, defining it as a "historical turning point" in the region's history regarding the evolving nature of the Israeli-Gulf relationship.
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/sa...h-israel-38148
Some comment.
سيف الله
08-14-2020, 12:20 AM
Salaam
the mask continues to come off.
Blurb
Israel and the United Arab Emirates announced a peace deal to normalise diplomatic ties. Palestinians criticised the agreement and called it a ‘conspiracy against the Palestinian people’ while Israelis in #Jerusalem praises.
Israel signs historic deal with UAE that will 'suspend' West Bank annexation
Trump hails US-brokered pact as ‘peace agreement’ but cracks quickly appear as Netanyahu denies change of plan
Israel and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to establish full diplomatic ties in a historic Washington-brokered deal under which Israel will “suspend” its plans to annex parts of the Palestinian territories.
However, cracks in the deal became quickly apparent after its announcement on Thursday, with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, saying there was “no change” to his annexation plans, while the UAE insisted that it “immediately stops annexation”.
After Jordan and Egypt, the UAE is only the third Arab country to announce formal diplomatic relations with Israel, and the announcement will reverberate across the Middle East, which has a turbulent history with the Jewish state.
Donald Trump, who is facing a tough presidential election on 3 November, played up the deal as a significant foreign policy win.
“Everybody said this would be impossible,” the US president told reporters at the White House. “After 49 years, Israel and the United Arab Emirates will fully normalise their diplomatic relations. They will exchange embassies and ambassadors and begin cooperation across the board and on a broad range of areas including tourism, education, healthcare, trade and security.”
He said the tenor of the three-way phone call he had with Israeli and UAE leaders “was like love”. Similar agreements were being discussed with other countries in the region, he added, without giving details.
Israel has also cultivated ties with Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain. Asked about who might be next in line to establish diplomatic relations, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, said: “We have a couple who are upset that they weren’t first.
“I do think that this makes it more inevitable, but it’s going to take hard work and it’s going to take trust being built and dialogue being facilitated in order for people to cross that line as well,” Kushner told journalists. “So hopefully this makes it easier for others; many are watching to see how this goes.”
Surrounded by his top aides in the Oval Office, Trump described the pact as a “peace agreement”. However, the UAE’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan later tweeted that the country had agreed instead to “cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship”.
For Netanyahu, Israel’s hardline and longest-serving prime minister, the announcement is also a significant boost. For years, Netanyahu has attempted to build relationships in the Middle East while at the same time entrenching Israel’s control over Palestinians. Now, despite having threatened to permanently seize occupied land, he has won a hugely symbolic victory. “A historic day,” the 70-year-old leader wrote on Twitter.
Even Israel’s opposition leader, Yair Lapid, congratulated the prime minister.
For the Palestinians, who have long relied on Arab backing in their struggle for independence, the development will be seen as a big setback in their attempts to increase international pressure on Israel until a full peace deal has been agreed.
The official Palestinian news agency reported the Palestinian ambassador to the UAE was being recalled.
The Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi accused the UAE of abandoning the Palestinians. “May you never experience the agony of having your country stolen; may you never feel the pain of living in captivity under occupation; may you never witness the demolition of your home or murder of your loved ones. May you never be sold out by your ‘friends’,” she wrote on Twitter.
Announced in a joint statement by Israel, the UAE and the US, the deal will see Israeli and Emirati delegations meet in the coming weeks. The statement said they would sign agreements on investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, the establishment of reciprocal embassies, and “other areas of mutual benefit”.
At Trump’s request, Israel “will suspend declaring sovereignty” over parts of the West Bank, it said.
The UAE’s ambassador to Washington, Yousef Al Otaiba, said in a statement: “The agreement immediately stops annexation and the potential for violent escalation. It maintains the viability of a two-state solution as endorsed by the Arab League and international community.”
In contrast, Netanyahu said in a Hebrew-language televised announcement there was “no change in my plans for annexation, with full coordination with the US”, suggesting it was only temporarily on hold.
Despite the UAE not formally recognising Israel, the two countries have increased ties significantly over the years, in part due to their shared enmity towards Iran, but also because Abu Dhabi craves Israeli security and intelligence technology.
The UAE ambassador to the US infuriated Palestinians when he attended Trump’s unveiling of his vision for Middle East peace at the White House in January. It granted Israel a wishlist of its long-held demands and was rejected by the Palestinians, who were promised a broken-up “state”.
Palestinian leaders and several other Arab countries have watched the budding alliance with concern it could fragment a once-unified voice. The deal came as a surprise even to some countries with a clear stake in the Israel-Palestine issue. And while diplomatic ties with its neighbours have long been argued to be an incentive for Israel to end the occupation, that theory is now being tested.
The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said the deal was a long time coming. “So it’s been many years obviously that this has been in the works, but certainly over the last few months we’ve been working diligently to find a place where everyone could get comfortable that this was the right way to move forward,” he told reporters.
In his Oval Office announcement, Trump repeatedly stressed the political significance of the agreement for the US, contrasting his achievements with the shortcomings of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and his Democratic challenger in the November election, Joe Biden.
His aides took turns to praise Trump for his role in sealing the agreement, beginning with Kushner, who said his father-in-law worked to “unite people”.
Robert O’Brien, the national security adviser, claimed Trump had transformed the region. “You came into office with a region that was really aflame, and you brought peace to that region and there’s more to come,” O’Brien said. “So it’s an honour to be part of your team and to serve under your leadership.”
Trump’s aides then broke into sustained applause.
Biden welcomed the agreement as historic. “The UAE’s offer to publicly recognise the state of Israel is a welcome, brave, and badly needed act of statesmanship,” the presidential contender said.
The announcement was equally lauded by several pro-Israel voices, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), an influential US-based lobby group, which described it as a “breakthrough”.
However, IfNotNow, a more progressive, anti-occupation movement of American Jews, said there was “nothing to celebrate”.
Its political director, Emily Mayer, said the deal was an attempt by Trump and Netanyahu “to distract from their catastrophic failures in leadership as they face an ongoing pandemic, economic crisis, civil unrest, and plummeting support from the public in the US and Israel”.
She added: “Once again, Palestinians, who are not mentioned in this document, are treated as political pawns and excluded from decision-making about their own future.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-donald-trump
More comment.
Israel will continue to demolish, confiscate and annex - without having to announce it on a megaphone. The UAE merely normalizes the status quo.
Abbas is probably throwing things around his office at the Muqata at the moment, swearing at his arch nemesis Mohd Dahlan, who most probably had a hand in this.
In the meantime, Netanyahu gets a way out of the whole annexation quagmire he threw himself into - while Trump pats himself on the back for getting at least one peace deal right.
Palestinians on social media are already wondering how long it will take Saudi to follow suit?
So the UAE will have to open an embassy now in Israel. Will it open one in Jerusalem (the “eternal capital”?) Will cars with Emirati license plates become a mainstay of Tel Aviv’s streets?
Annnndddd of course Egypt’s Sisi lauds the UAE-Israel normalization deal
Like so many moves on the ground, this makes the Arab Peace Initiative moot and the two-state solution more irrelevant and unattainable as ever. A Palestinian state is not even mentioned. The charade is over.
I simply must add that my phone autocorrected “charade” to “shatafeh” and I am dead.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...362499072.html
Israel didn't "halt" the annexation for the West Bank (annexation is ALREADY a de facto reality on the ground). Israel merely "suspended" its announcement of a reality it has already illegally imposed on Palestinians. It is FALSE to say Israel suspended it at the UAE's request
Israel suspended (put off) its annexation announcement after realizing it was going to be costly to Israel, with many US Democrats threatening for the first time to cut off military aid to Israel. The suspension came long before this UAE deal was reached.
The claim that the UAE deal is responsible for halting Israel's annexation announcement is merely a PR stunt for the UAE government, which knows full well that normalization with Israel WHILE Israel continues to brutalize Palestinians is extremely unpopular in the region.
The Arab Peace Initiative already promised full normalization of relations between Israel and all Arab countries in exchange for ending Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories to allow a tiny Palestinian state to exist. Israel rejected this generous offer.
Some Arab governments see "the Palestinian cause" as a burden, feigning concern for their human rights while secretly working with Israel on "more important" partnerships: economic, intelligence, undermining Iran's influences in the region...etc.
Israel may be able to normalize w/these dictatorial governments w/out treating Palestinian like human beings who deserve basic rights, but Israel will never be truly accepted by the PEOPLE of the region so long as Palestinians live without freedom under the boot of occupation.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...698389508.html
Zios are pleased.
More comment.
MBZ bootlickers spring into action.
And what better way to commemorate the new relationship between UAE and the Zios
Replythe mask continues to come off.
Blurb
Israel and the United Arab Emirates announced a peace deal to normalise diplomatic ties. Palestinians criticised the agreement and called it a ‘conspiracy against the Palestinian people’ while Israelis in #Jerusalem praises.
Israel signs historic deal with UAE that will 'suspend' West Bank annexation
Trump hails US-brokered pact as ‘peace agreement’ but cracks quickly appear as Netanyahu denies change of plan
Israel and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to establish full diplomatic ties in a historic Washington-brokered deal under which Israel will “suspend” its plans to annex parts of the Palestinian territories.
However, cracks in the deal became quickly apparent after its announcement on Thursday, with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, saying there was “no change” to his annexation plans, while the UAE insisted that it “immediately stops annexation”.
After Jordan and Egypt, the UAE is only the third Arab country to announce formal diplomatic relations with Israel, and the announcement will reverberate across the Middle East, which has a turbulent history with the Jewish state.
Donald Trump, who is facing a tough presidential election on 3 November, played up the deal as a significant foreign policy win.
“Everybody said this would be impossible,” the US president told reporters at the White House. “After 49 years, Israel and the United Arab Emirates will fully normalise their diplomatic relations. They will exchange embassies and ambassadors and begin cooperation across the board and on a broad range of areas including tourism, education, healthcare, trade and security.”
He said the tenor of the three-way phone call he had with Israeli and UAE leaders “was like love”. Similar agreements were being discussed with other countries in the region, he added, without giving details.
Israel has also cultivated ties with Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain. Asked about who might be next in line to establish diplomatic relations, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, said: “We have a couple who are upset that they weren’t first.
“I do think that this makes it more inevitable, but it’s going to take hard work and it’s going to take trust being built and dialogue being facilitated in order for people to cross that line as well,” Kushner told journalists. “So hopefully this makes it easier for others; many are watching to see how this goes.”
Surrounded by his top aides in the Oval Office, Trump described the pact as a “peace agreement”. However, the UAE’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan later tweeted that the country had agreed instead to “cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship”.
For Netanyahu, Israel’s hardline and longest-serving prime minister, the announcement is also a significant boost. For years, Netanyahu has attempted to build relationships in the Middle East while at the same time entrenching Israel’s control over Palestinians. Now, despite having threatened to permanently seize occupied land, he has won a hugely symbolic victory. “A historic day,” the 70-year-old leader wrote on Twitter.
Even Israel’s opposition leader, Yair Lapid, congratulated the prime minister.
For the Palestinians, who have long relied on Arab backing in their struggle for independence, the development will be seen as a big setback in their attempts to increase international pressure on Israel until a full peace deal has been agreed.
The official Palestinian news agency reported the Palestinian ambassador to the UAE was being recalled.
The Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi accused the UAE of abandoning the Palestinians. “May you never experience the agony of having your country stolen; may you never feel the pain of living in captivity under occupation; may you never witness the demolition of your home or murder of your loved ones. May you never be sold out by your ‘friends’,” she wrote on Twitter.
Announced in a joint statement by Israel, the UAE and the US, the deal will see Israeli and Emirati delegations meet in the coming weeks. The statement said they would sign agreements on investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, the establishment of reciprocal embassies, and “other areas of mutual benefit”.
At Trump’s request, Israel “will suspend declaring sovereignty” over parts of the West Bank, it said.
The UAE’s ambassador to Washington, Yousef Al Otaiba, said in a statement: “The agreement immediately stops annexation and the potential for violent escalation. It maintains the viability of a two-state solution as endorsed by the Arab League and international community.”
In contrast, Netanyahu said in a Hebrew-language televised announcement there was “no change in my plans for annexation, with full coordination with the US”, suggesting it was only temporarily on hold.
Despite the UAE not formally recognising Israel, the two countries have increased ties significantly over the years, in part due to their shared enmity towards Iran, but also because Abu Dhabi craves Israeli security and intelligence technology.
The UAE ambassador to the US infuriated Palestinians when he attended Trump’s unveiling of his vision for Middle East peace at the White House in January. It granted Israel a wishlist of its long-held demands and was rejected by the Palestinians, who were promised a broken-up “state”.
Palestinian leaders and several other Arab countries have watched the budding alliance with concern it could fragment a once-unified voice. The deal came as a surprise even to some countries with a clear stake in the Israel-Palestine issue. And while diplomatic ties with its neighbours have long been argued to be an incentive for Israel to end the occupation, that theory is now being tested.
The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said the deal was a long time coming. “So it’s been many years obviously that this has been in the works, but certainly over the last few months we’ve been working diligently to find a place where everyone could get comfortable that this was the right way to move forward,” he told reporters.
In his Oval Office announcement, Trump repeatedly stressed the political significance of the agreement for the US, contrasting his achievements with the shortcomings of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and his Democratic challenger in the November election, Joe Biden.
His aides took turns to praise Trump for his role in sealing the agreement, beginning with Kushner, who said his father-in-law worked to “unite people”.
Robert O’Brien, the national security adviser, claimed Trump had transformed the region. “You came into office with a region that was really aflame, and you brought peace to that region and there’s more to come,” O’Brien said. “So it’s an honour to be part of your team and to serve under your leadership.”
Trump’s aides then broke into sustained applause.
Biden welcomed the agreement as historic. “The UAE’s offer to publicly recognise the state of Israel is a welcome, brave, and badly needed act of statesmanship,” the presidential contender said.
The announcement was equally lauded by several pro-Israel voices, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), an influential US-based lobby group, which described it as a “breakthrough”.
However, IfNotNow, a more progressive, anti-occupation movement of American Jews, said there was “nothing to celebrate”.
Its political director, Emily Mayer, said the deal was an attempt by Trump and Netanyahu “to distract from their catastrophic failures in leadership as they face an ongoing pandemic, economic crisis, civil unrest, and plummeting support from the public in the US and Israel”.
She added: “Once again, Palestinians, who are not mentioned in this document, are treated as political pawns and excluded from decision-making about their own future.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-donald-trump
More comment.
Israel will continue to demolish, confiscate and annex - without having to announce it on a megaphone. The UAE merely normalizes the status quo.
Abbas is probably throwing things around his office at the Muqata at the moment, swearing at his arch nemesis Mohd Dahlan, who most probably had a hand in this.
In the meantime, Netanyahu gets a way out of the whole annexation quagmire he threw himself into - while Trump pats himself on the back for getting at least one peace deal right.
Palestinians on social media are already wondering how long it will take Saudi to follow suit?
So the UAE will have to open an embassy now in Israel. Will it open one in Jerusalem (the “eternal capital”?) Will cars with Emirati license plates become a mainstay of Tel Aviv’s streets?
Annnndddd of course Egypt’s Sisi lauds the UAE-Israel normalization deal
Like so many moves on the ground, this makes the Arab Peace Initiative moot and the two-state solution more irrelevant and unattainable as ever. A Palestinian state is not even mentioned. The charade is over.
I simply must add that my phone autocorrected “charade” to “shatafeh” and I am dead.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...362499072.html
Israel didn't "halt" the annexation for the West Bank (annexation is ALREADY a de facto reality on the ground). Israel merely "suspended" its announcement of a reality it has already illegally imposed on Palestinians. It is FALSE to say Israel suspended it at the UAE's request
Israel suspended (put off) its annexation announcement after realizing it was going to be costly to Israel, with many US Democrats threatening for the first time to cut off military aid to Israel. The suspension came long before this UAE deal was reached.
The claim that the UAE deal is responsible for halting Israel's annexation announcement is merely a PR stunt for the UAE government, which knows full well that normalization with Israel WHILE Israel continues to brutalize Palestinians is extremely unpopular in the region.
The Arab Peace Initiative already promised full normalization of relations between Israel and all Arab countries in exchange for ending Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories to allow a tiny Palestinian state to exist. Israel rejected this generous offer.
Some Arab governments see "the Palestinian cause" as a burden, feigning concern for their human rights while secretly working with Israel on "more important" partnerships: economic, intelligence, undermining Iran's influences in the region...etc.
Israel may be able to normalize w/these dictatorial governments w/out treating Palestinian like human beings who deserve basic rights, but Israel will never be truly accepted by the PEOPLE of the region so long as Palestinians live without freedom under the boot of occupation.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...698389508.html
Zios are pleased.
More comment.
MBZ bootlickers spring into action.
And what better way to commemorate the new relationship between UAE and the Zios
سيف الله
08-15-2020, 02:58 PM
Salaam
More opinion.
Gulf’s ‘Little Sparta’ asserts its role with Israel deal
How and why UAE’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed decided to establish diplomatic relations with Israel
When Benjamin Netanyahu began a fifth term as Israel’s prime minister this year pledging to annex nearly a third of the occupied West Bank, his plans drew the time-honoured criticism from the Arab world. But the United Arab Emirates, a powerful Gulf state that has for years been covertly cultivating ties with Israel, was surprisingly outspoken in its condemnation.
Senior Emirati officials, including Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE’s influential ambassador in Washington, warned that claiming Israeli sovereignty over Palestinian land would upend the Jewish state’s hopes of improving relations with Arab nations and spark violence. But with each warning came a carrot: lines of communication with the Jewish state would “yield better results for us”. There would be benefits to normalising relations.
The message resonated in the US and Israel. In the weeks that followed, Israeli and Emirati officials held meetings that led to the US-brokered deal announced on Thursday that the two powers had agreed to establish full diplomatic relations. In return, Mr Netanyahu agreed to “suspend” annexation, although he insists it is still his policy.
The Israeli prime minister is hailing it as a victory of his diplomacy; Emirati officials are selling the deal as a bold decision that has put a brake on annexation and kept alive the notion of a viable Palestinian state.
But analysts say the Palestinian issue is a secondary factor for Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, Abu Dhabi’s crown prince and the UAE’s de facto leader whose assertive foreign policy has earned the Gulf state the nickname “Little Sparta”. The UAE wants to solidify its role as a leading regional power, strengthen alliances at a time of increasing competition, notably from Turkey, and earn credit with both the Trump administration and the Democratic party as the US heads towards elections, analysts said.
Both Israel and the UAE have long shared the view that Iran and Islamist extremism pose grave threats to regional stability but, during the coronavirus outbreak, co-operation between the two has become more public.
“I never thought it would get to this point, this soon at least. But if there’s one trigger, it’s the last six months of coronavirus. It’s caused a grand rethink of many, many issues,” said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a prominent Emirati commentator. “The UAE wants to make sure, loud and clear, that it’s a major league player, it’s a regional leader. And this will keep the UAE momentum [going].”
In July, it was announced that an Abu Dhabi technology company, Group 42, would collaborate with two Israeli companies, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, on research related to Covid-19. It was the first time the UAE — widely suspected of using Israeli security equipment — had openly admitted working with Israeli companies.
In the background, Israeli and Emirati officials held talks on broader regional issues. In July, Israeli officials were hosted at the US state department for three-way talks with Emirati envoys, a follow-up to a US-sponsored security conference in Warsaw last year on countering Iran’s influence, a former Israeli official with knowledge of the talks said. Sheikh Mohammed, and his ambassador to the US, Mr Otaiba, both developed strong ties to Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, who spearheaded the Middle East plan.
The talks between Israel and the UAE were handled directly by Mr Kushner and Avi Berkowitz, his former special adviser who was promoted to presidential adviser to run the Middle East dossier, according to US officials.
“Annexation is not like moving the embassy [from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem],” Mr Otaiba told Mr Kushner and Mr Berkowitz, according to officials briefed on the matter, referring to Mr Trump’s contentious 2017 decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Mr Otaiba instead proposed reinvigorating a 2019 effort to conclude a non-aggression pact with Israel in exchange for holding back on annexation. Israel instead pushed for full normalisation, which it achieved. “I never saw this agreement coming until annexation started happening,” Mr Otaiba said to the FT.
In May, Etihad, Abu Dhabi’s national carrier, made its first flight to Israel, carrying aid for Palestinians. In June Mr Netanyahu said Israel and the UAE would co-operate in the fight against coronavirus.
A small delegation of Israelis have been hosted in the UAE over the past two months. Emirati officials were told that Mr Netanyahu’s plans to annex parts of the West Bank could be delayed if the UAE were able to convince Palestinian officials to engage with Mr Trump’s peace plan.
Palestinian negotiators, who have derided the peace plan as being heavily biased in Israel’s favour, rebuffed the Emirati request, the former Israeli official said. Two Palestinian officials said they did not know their conversations with the UAE were part of a negotiation between the Emiratis and Israel.
Palestinian officials have accused the UAE of betrayal for agreeing to an accord with Israel. The move will be dispiriting for Arab nationalists, including Gulf citizens passionate about the Palestinian cause.
But Sheikh Mohammed is unlikely to be deterred. “It’s full of costs and benefits, and the UAE will try to minimise the costs, which could be huge politically, reputationally among some sections in the Arab world,” Mr Abdulla said. “But there are a lot of gains economically, militarily and strategically.”
The UAE under Sheikh Mohammed is no stranger to foreign policy risks. It intervened in the war in Yemen, is at the forefront of a regional embargo against Qatar that has gone on for more than three years, and has been one of the staunchest backers of Khalifa Haftar, the renegade Libyan general behind its latest civil war. The adventurism has attracted criticism in the US, particularly among Democrats.
It was also the first Gulf state to reopen its embassy in war-torn Syria, giving a boost to President Bashar al-Assad.
“The Israel deal is classic MBZ . . . he will do whatever he thinks is right for him,” said an Arab official. “It will give him a lot in terms of co-operation with Israel and he gets to be back in the good books in the US. It might give him a free pass on certain things in the future.”
Explaining the Israel deal, while also offering an insight into the UAE’s broader policy, Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s state minister of foreign affairs, said: “We have come out and argued that in every difficult trial in the region, when you do have bridges and you do have contacts, you are more important and more influential.”
But the Gulf’s muscular foreign policy, backed by tens of billions of dollars of aid, has put it at odds with some regional powers. In recent months, tensions have become particularly fraught with Turkey, which has intervened in the Libyan war on the opposing side to the UAE and which Abu Dhabi accuses of supporting Islamist groups.
The timing of the Israeli deal “reflects the changing agenda and the changing balance of power in the Middle East”, said Emile Hokayem, senior fellow for Middle East security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Turkey’s intervention in Libya led to a string of humiliating defeats for Gen Haftar, delivering a setback for the UAE, and has escalated tensions in the eastern Mediterranean where a race is on to secure oil and gas resources.
“The competition is much more intense, and this helps them consolidate not only an anti-Iran front, but also a de facto alliance with Israel, Egypt, Greece and Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean,” Mr Hokayem said. The “so-called Israeli concession on annexation” provided political cover for the deal, he said. “The sad reality is the Palestinian issue is secondary.”
https://www.ft.com/content/6d85caa5-...2-b9c956b24448
Zios are celebrating.
Trumps other reason for this move?
ReplyMore opinion.
Gulf’s ‘Little Sparta’ asserts its role with Israel deal
How and why UAE’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed decided to establish diplomatic relations with Israel
When Benjamin Netanyahu began a fifth term as Israel’s prime minister this year pledging to annex nearly a third of the occupied West Bank, his plans drew the time-honoured criticism from the Arab world. But the United Arab Emirates, a powerful Gulf state that has for years been covertly cultivating ties with Israel, was surprisingly outspoken in its condemnation.
Senior Emirati officials, including Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE’s influential ambassador in Washington, warned that claiming Israeli sovereignty over Palestinian land would upend the Jewish state’s hopes of improving relations with Arab nations and spark violence. But with each warning came a carrot: lines of communication with the Jewish state would “yield better results for us”. There would be benefits to normalising relations.
The message resonated in the US and Israel. In the weeks that followed, Israeli and Emirati officials held meetings that led to the US-brokered deal announced on Thursday that the two powers had agreed to establish full diplomatic relations. In return, Mr Netanyahu agreed to “suspend” annexation, although he insists it is still his policy.
The Israeli prime minister is hailing it as a victory of his diplomacy; Emirati officials are selling the deal as a bold decision that has put a brake on annexation and kept alive the notion of a viable Palestinian state.
But analysts say the Palestinian issue is a secondary factor for Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, Abu Dhabi’s crown prince and the UAE’s de facto leader whose assertive foreign policy has earned the Gulf state the nickname “Little Sparta”. The UAE wants to solidify its role as a leading regional power, strengthen alliances at a time of increasing competition, notably from Turkey, and earn credit with both the Trump administration and the Democratic party as the US heads towards elections, analysts said.
Both Israel and the UAE have long shared the view that Iran and Islamist extremism pose grave threats to regional stability but, during the coronavirus outbreak, co-operation between the two has become more public.
“I never thought it would get to this point, this soon at least. But if there’s one trigger, it’s the last six months of coronavirus. It’s caused a grand rethink of many, many issues,” said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a prominent Emirati commentator. “The UAE wants to make sure, loud and clear, that it’s a major league player, it’s a regional leader. And this will keep the UAE momentum [going].”
In July, it was announced that an Abu Dhabi technology company, Group 42, would collaborate with two Israeli companies, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, on research related to Covid-19. It was the first time the UAE — widely suspected of using Israeli security equipment — had openly admitted working with Israeli companies.
In the background, Israeli and Emirati officials held talks on broader regional issues. In July, Israeli officials were hosted at the US state department for three-way talks with Emirati envoys, a follow-up to a US-sponsored security conference in Warsaw last year on countering Iran’s influence, a former Israeli official with knowledge of the talks said. Sheikh Mohammed, and his ambassador to the US, Mr Otaiba, both developed strong ties to Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, who spearheaded the Middle East plan.
The talks between Israel and the UAE were handled directly by Mr Kushner and Avi Berkowitz, his former special adviser who was promoted to presidential adviser to run the Middle East dossier, according to US officials.
“Annexation is not like moving the embassy [from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem],” Mr Otaiba told Mr Kushner and Mr Berkowitz, according to officials briefed on the matter, referring to Mr Trump’s contentious 2017 decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Mr Otaiba instead proposed reinvigorating a 2019 effort to conclude a non-aggression pact with Israel in exchange for holding back on annexation. Israel instead pushed for full normalisation, which it achieved. “I never saw this agreement coming until annexation started happening,” Mr Otaiba said to the FT.
In May, Etihad, Abu Dhabi’s national carrier, made its first flight to Israel, carrying aid for Palestinians. In June Mr Netanyahu said Israel and the UAE would co-operate in the fight against coronavirus.
A small delegation of Israelis have been hosted in the UAE over the past two months. Emirati officials were told that Mr Netanyahu’s plans to annex parts of the West Bank could be delayed if the UAE were able to convince Palestinian officials to engage with Mr Trump’s peace plan.
Palestinian negotiators, who have derided the peace plan as being heavily biased in Israel’s favour, rebuffed the Emirati request, the former Israeli official said. Two Palestinian officials said they did not know their conversations with the UAE were part of a negotiation between the Emiratis and Israel.
Palestinian officials have accused the UAE of betrayal for agreeing to an accord with Israel. The move will be dispiriting for Arab nationalists, including Gulf citizens passionate about the Palestinian cause.
But Sheikh Mohammed is unlikely to be deterred. “It’s full of costs and benefits, and the UAE will try to minimise the costs, which could be huge politically, reputationally among some sections in the Arab world,” Mr Abdulla said. “But there are a lot of gains economically, militarily and strategically.”
The UAE under Sheikh Mohammed is no stranger to foreign policy risks. It intervened in the war in Yemen, is at the forefront of a regional embargo against Qatar that has gone on for more than three years, and has been one of the staunchest backers of Khalifa Haftar, the renegade Libyan general behind its latest civil war. The adventurism has attracted criticism in the US, particularly among Democrats.
It was also the first Gulf state to reopen its embassy in war-torn Syria, giving a boost to President Bashar al-Assad.
“The Israel deal is classic MBZ . . . he will do whatever he thinks is right for him,” said an Arab official. “It will give him a lot in terms of co-operation with Israel and he gets to be back in the good books in the US. It might give him a free pass on certain things in the future.”
Explaining the Israel deal, while also offering an insight into the UAE’s broader policy, Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s state minister of foreign affairs, said: “We have come out and argued that in every difficult trial in the region, when you do have bridges and you do have contacts, you are more important and more influential.”
But the Gulf’s muscular foreign policy, backed by tens of billions of dollars of aid, has put it at odds with some regional powers. In recent months, tensions have become particularly fraught with Turkey, which has intervened in the Libyan war on the opposing side to the UAE and which Abu Dhabi accuses of supporting Islamist groups.
The timing of the Israeli deal “reflects the changing agenda and the changing balance of power in the Middle East”, said Emile Hokayem, senior fellow for Middle East security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Turkey’s intervention in Libya led to a string of humiliating defeats for Gen Haftar, delivering a setback for the UAE, and has escalated tensions in the eastern Mediterranean where a race is on to secure oil and gas resources.
“The competition is much more intense, and this helps them consolidate not only an anti-Iran front, but also a de facto alliance with Israel, Egypt, Greece and Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean,” Mr Hokayem said. The “so-called Israeli concession on annexation” provided political cover for the deal, he said. “The sad reality is the Palestinian issue is secondary.”
https://www.ft.com/content/6d85caa5-...2-b9c956b24448
Zios are celebrating.
Trumps other reason for this move?
سيف الله
08-19-2020, 12:06 PM
Salaam
Another update
Saudi Arabia the big target in US efforts to smooth Israel relations
Despite Kushner’s close ties, Riyadh unlikely to follow UAE in normalising relations with Jewish state
No sooner did the United Arab Emirates make a historic decision to normalise relations with Israel than the US spotlight turned to a more significant — and elusive — target: Saudi Arabia.
Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and the man who helped broker last week’s deal, has set his sights on convincing America’s chief Arab ally to take the landmark step. Yet despite his close relations with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, it remains a much tougher ask.
“Saudi Arabia is the game,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who specialises in the Gulf kingdom. But with King Salman “a true believer in the Palestinian cause”, it is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Since Mr Trump entered the White House, his son-in-law has forged close relations with a new generation of Gulf leaders: the UAE’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince. Mr Kushner has shared long late-night talking sessions with Prince Mohammed, and stood by him after intense personal criticism levelled at him in the wake of the 2018 killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
“I’ve had many discussions now with MBS about . . . [the possible normalisation of relations], and also with King Salman,” Mr Kushner, the US president’s Middle East adviser, told reporters on Monday, and said it would be “very good” for Saudi business and defence. He argued it would also help the Palestinian people.
Prince Mohammed, who is pushing ahead with plans to reform the kingdom’s economy, was perceived to be willing to push the Palestinians to accept the US Middle East peace plan, as part of his efforts to cement his relationship with the Trump administration and with the wider US political establishment, western diplomats and analysts in the region have said.
But he is believed to have been overruled by his father, who is understood to have the final say on some key issues. The king told Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in a phone call in January that the kingdom remained committed to the Palestinian cause and Palestinian rights, according to a readout published by the state news agency.
When Mr Trump in January rolled out his peace plan, which foresees Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and which was rejected by the Palestinians, it was publicly repudiated by King Salman. Even with the close relationship between Mr Kushner and Prince Mohammed, Saudi Arabia was a notable absentee from a flagship economic conference organised by Mr Kushner to support the peace deal.
Saudi leadership in the Islamic world also makes it much less likely the kingdom will follow in the UAE’s footsteps. The kingdom hosts Islam’s two holiest sites and portrays itself as the leader and defender of Sunni Islam. King Salman, whose official title is Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, told the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation last year that the Palestinian cause remained a core issue and that the kingdom “refuses any measures that touch the historical and legal position of East Jerusalem”. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of any future state.
“King Salman has a very strong place in his heart for the Palestinian people and for the cause, and MBS does as well,” Mr Kushner told reporters on Monday. “They do want to see the Palestinian people have a state.”
The Saudi government has yet to publicly express an official position on the UAE-Israel agreement.
A person familiar with Riyadh’s thinking said Saudi Arabia was “very different” to the UAE, despite their close ties.
“It’s smaller and doesn’t have that religious element. What the UAE has to lose is much less than us, and what they have to offer Israel is much less," the person said. “If you ask a 30-year-old Saudi, they may say ‘Why not have relations with Israel? They have great technology and academia.’ But they would care if we actually did because the whole Muslim world would lambast us.”
Two hashtags trending on Saudi Twitter shortly after the UAE announcement reflected polarisation around the decision: opponents of the deal used the hashtag “Gulf citizens against normalisation” while those who support it tweeted under the hashtag “Screw you and your cause”. The latter reflects Saudi nationalism and the perception that Palestinians, some of whom are critical of Saudi policy in the region, are ungrateful for the longstanding support from Riyadh.
Saudi Arabia, like the UAE, is believed to have increased its covert co-operation, particularly in security and intelligence, with Israel in recent years, as it shares the Jewish state’s concerns about Iran’s role in the region. Brian Hook, the US’s Iran envoy, told the Financial Times that “Iranian aggression” had helped unite some countries in the face of a common enemy.
A senior Trump administration official has tipped Bahrain and Oman as most likely to normalise relations with Israel next, with Morocco also on the cards. Israeli foreign minister Gabi Ashkenazi spoke with his Omani counterpart on Monday about the need to strengthen relations between the two countries.
Mike Singh, who led Middle East affairs at the US National Security Council under President George W Bush, said Bahrain, which is dependent on financial assistance from the UAE and Saudi Arabia, would want to negotiate their terms and first gauge regional reaction to the UAE initiative. He said Oman might also hesitate to antagonise Iran.
Other countries outside the region, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, might also consider initiating diplomatic relations with Israel, Mr Singh said. Israeli officials have also touted Sudan as a possible contender.
A senior administration official told the FT that “no one knows” if Saudi Arabia would take the breakthrough step. “Each step increases the confidence this is the direction the region needs to go,” said the official.
Most remain sceptical that the Saudis will follow the UAE’s lead. “There is no incentive to do it with annexation [of occupied territories] already off the table [as part of the UAE/Israel deal],” said Mr Riedel.
https://www.ft.com/content/738e3ee1-...3-e905c572546e
Related
ReplyAnother update
Saudi Arabia the big target in US efforts to smooth Israel relations
Despite Kushner’s close ties, Riyadh unlikely to follow UAE in normalising relations with Jewish state
No sooner did the United Arab Emirates make a historic decision to normalise relations with Israel than the US spotlight turned to a more significant — and elusive — target: Saudi Arabia.
Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and the man who helped broker last week’s deal, has set his sights on convincing America’s chief Arab ally to take the landmark step. Yet despite his close relations with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, it remains a much tougher ask.
“Saudi Arabia is the game,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who specialises in the Gulf kingdom. But with King Salman “a true believer in the Palestinian cause”, it is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Since Mr Trump entered the White House, his son-in-law has forged close relations with a new generation of Gulf leaders: the UAE’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince. Mr Kushner has shared long late-night talking sessions with Prince Mohammed, and stood by him after intense personal criticism levelled at him in the wake of the 2018 killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
“I’ve had many discussions now with MBS about . . . [the possible normalisation of relations], and also with King Salman,” Mr Kushner, the US president’s Middle East adviser, told reporters on Monday, and said it would be “very good” for Saudi business and defence. He argued it would also help the Palestinian people.
Prince Mohammed, who is pushing ahead with plans to reform the kingdom’s economy, was perceived to be willing to push the Palestinians to accept the US Middle East peace plan, as part of his efforts to cement his relationship with the Trump administration and with the wider US political establishment, western diplomats and analysts in the region have said.
But he is believed to have been overruled by his father, who is understood to have the final say on some key issues. The king told Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in a phone call in January that the kingdom remained committed to the Palestinian cause and Palestinian rights, according to a readout published by the state news agency.
When Mr Trump in January rolled out his peace plan, which foresees Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and which was rejected by the Palestinians, it was publicly repudiated by King Salman. Even with the close relationship between Mr Kushner and Prince Mohammed, Saudi Arabia was a notable absentee from a flagship economic conference organised by Mr Kushner to support the peace deal.
Saudi leadership in the Islamic world also makes it much less likely the kingdom will follow in the UAE’s footsteps. The kingdom hosts Islam’s two holiest sites and portrays itself as the leader and defender of Sunni Islam. King Salman, whose official title is Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, told the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation last year that the Palestinian cause remained a core issue and that the kingdom “refuses any measures that touch the historical and legal position of East Jerusalem”. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of any future state.
“King Salman has a very strong place in his heart for the Palestinian people and for the cause, and MBS does as well,” Mr Kushner told reporters on Monday. “They do want to see the Palestinian people have a state.”
The Saudi government has yet to publicly express an official position on the UAE-Israel agreement.
A person familiar with Riyadh’s thinking said Saudi Arabia was “very different” to the UAE, despite their close ties.
“It’s smaller and doesn’t have that religious element. What the UAE has to lose is much less than us, and what they have to offer Israel is much less," the person said. “If you ask a 30-year-old Saudi, they may say ‘Why not have relations with Israel? They have great technology and academia.’ But they would care if we actually did because the whole Muslim world would lambast us.”
Two hashtags trending on Saudi Twitter shortly after the UAE announcement reflected polarisation around the decision: opponents of the deal used the hashtag “Gulf citizens against normalisation” while those who support it tweeted under the hashtag “Screw you and your cause”. The latter reflects Saudi nationalism and the perception that Palestinians, some of whom are critical of Saudi policy in the region, are ungrateful for the longstanding support from Riyadh.
Saudi Arabia, like the UAE, is believed to have increased its covert co-operation, particularly in security and intelligence, with Israel in recent years, as it shares the Jewish state’s concerns about Iran’s role in the region. Brian Hook, the US’s Iran envoy, told the Financial Times that “Iranian aggression” had helped unite some countries in the face of a common enemy.
A senior Trump administration official has tipped Bahrain and Oman as most likely to normalise relations with Israel next, with Morocco also on the cards. Israeli foreign minister Gabi Ashkenazi spoke with his Omani counterpart on Monday about the need to strengthen relations between the two countries.
Mike Singh, who led Middle East affairs at the US National Security Council under President George W Bush, said Bahrain, which is dependent on financial assistance from the UAE and Saudi Arabia, would want to negotiate their terms and first gauge regional reaction to the UAE initiative. He said Oman might also hesitate to antagonise Iran.
Other countries outside the region, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, might also consider initiating diplomatic relations with Israel, Mr Singh said. Israeli officials have also touted Sudan as a possible contender.
A senior administration official told the FT that “no one knows” if Saudi Arabia would take the breakthrough step. “Each step increases the confidence this is the direction the region needs to go,” said the official.
Most remain sceptical that the Saudis will follow the UAE’s lead. “There is no incentive to do it with annexation [of occupied territories] already off the table [as part of the UAE/Israel deal],” said Mr Riedel.
https://www.ft.com/content/738e3ee1-...3-e905c572546e
Related
سيف الله
09-01-2020, 06:45 AM
Salaam
More reaction
'Palestinians consider Pakistan our second homeland': Embassy thanks PM Imran for 'strong response' on Israel
The State of Palestine on Wednesday thanked the premier for his "strong response" on Israel, besides expressing gratitude to the government for extending support to the Palestinian cause.
A statement issued by the Palestine embassy in Islamabad also thanked the government for condemning Israeli aggression towards Palestine.
"Palestinians consider Pakistan as our second homeland and Pakistanis as our dearest brothers, who always supported Palestine on every forum of the world," it said.
The press release comes a day after Prime Minister Imran Khan categorically said that Pakistan could not recognise Israel as a state unless it gave freedom to Palestine.
In a two-hour late-night interview aired on Dunya TV, the prime minister stated: “Quaid-i-Azam had said in 1948 that Pakistan could not recognise Israel unless it gave freedom to Palestinians.
“If we recognise Israel and ignore [the] tyranny faced by Palestinians, we will have to give up [the cause of] Kashmir as well, and this we cannot do.”
In the context of the United Arab Emirates, which has recently established ties with Israel, the prime minister said every state had its own foreign policy.
In a statement issued today, the Palestine embassy noted that the Pakistani government had always supported their cause. "The embassy heartily appreciates the stance of [PM Imran] when answering to a question about Israel."
It is only because of the love of Pakistanis towards Palestine that Israeli and Pakistani relations have never been established, it added.
"The embassy thanks the prime minister for such a strong response and also appreciates every individual of Pakistan, including political parties, media, and civil society, who is observing solidarity with Palestine in any possible way.
"We are hopeful that this support will be with us until we get an independent State of Palestine with Jerusalem Al-Quds as its capital," the statement concluded.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1575282
UAE-Israel deal is a “Zionist occupation”, must be rejected: Kuwait lawmakers
Thirty-seven Kuwaiti lawmakers on Tuesday called on their government to reject a normalization deal between Israel and the UAE.
Thirty-seven Kuwaiti lawmakers on Tuesday called on their government to reject a normalization deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
In a statement, the members of parliament affirmed their solidarity with the Palestinian people, “recalling the parliament’s stable and continuous position against normalization [with Israel] in all its forms”.
Crimes of the Zionist occupation cannot be removed: Kuwaiti MP’s
“The crimes of the Zionist occupation cannot be removed by normalization from the souls of our children,” the statement said.
The statement referred to the incursions of Jerusalem’s flashpoint Al-Aqsa Mosque and Israeli attempts to Judaize the holy city.
The Kuwaiti government has maintained silence regarding the UAE-Israel normalization deal.
More than 30 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Kuwait issued a joint statement Sunday condemning an agreement between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel to normalize relations.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as an “advanced democracy”, days after a deal between the two countries to normalize their relations.
Kuwait. According to Al-Qabas, a Kuwaiti newspaper, government sources affirm that “Kuwait maintains its position and will be the last country to normalize with Israel.” Beyond Kuwaiti officials, analysts and academics, few have addressed Kuwait’s position on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Adam Hoffman and Moran Zaga acknowledged in February that Kuwait is “the only Gulf state that opposes even discrete normalisation with Israel.”
In January 2019, Giorgio Cafiero wrote that “Kuwait has become the one GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] state that refuses to see warmer ties with Israel as prudent.” Even White House senior adviser Jared Kushner said to Reuters that Kuwait is “out there taking a very radical view on the conflict to date in favour of the Palestinians.”
Netanyahu was hosted by the UAE-run Sky News Arabia on Monday to tout the normalization agreement between Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi.
“The deal connects the UAE with Israel; both of them are advanced democracies and their societies are advanced,” Netanyahu was quoted by Haaretz as saying when asked about how the deal will serve regional peace.
https://www.globalvillagespace.com/k...ject-uae-deal/
Malaysia’s Mahathir: UAE-Israel deal divides Muslim world into ‘warring factions’
The two-time prime minister, a long-time defender of the Palestinians, has criticised the US-brokered agreement as a step backwards for peace
Indonesia’s largest Muslim organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama, has warned the deal could trigger terror attacks there and in the Middle East
Malaysia’s former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad on Friday threw cold water on the landmark accord reached by the United Arab Emirates and Israel, warning it was a step backwards for peace and would divide the Muslim world into “warring factions”.
He was joined in his criticism of the United States -brokered agreement – which will see Israel suspend a controversial plan to annex parts of the occupied West Bank in return for full diplomatic ties with the UAE – by Indonesia’s largest Muslim organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama, which said the deal could trigger terror attacks in the Southeast Asian nation and the Middle East
Mahathir, a long-time defender of the Palestinians, who are locked in a decades-old conflict with Israelis, told This Week in Asia the agreement would “divide the Muslim world into warring factions and in this, the Israelis will add fuel to the fire”.
“They will increase the ability of the contestants to fight each other and there will be no peace even between Muslim countries,” said Mahathir, 95, who had two stints as the premier of the Muslim-majority nation, his most recent one ending earlier this year.
“It bolsters the stand taken by Israel that Palestine belongs to Israel. Of course there will be a reaction from the Palestinians and those who are sympathetic towards the Palestinians. This will mean prolonging the war in the Middle East,” he said.
Neither the Indonesian nor the Malaysian government have officially responded to the UAE-Israel accord.
The agreement saw Israel pledge to suspend its annexation of Palestinian land, although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed that did not mean it was abandoning plans to annex the Jordan Valley and Jewish settlements across the occupied West Bank.
The Palestinians, Turkey and Iran have decried it as a “betrayal”, while the UAE defended it as an initiative that gave more time for a peace agreement to be reached.
Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian movement that runs the Gaza Strip, is regarded as a militant group by some countries, including the US. It called the deal “a stab in the back of the Palestinian people and a desperate attempt to negatively affect the resistance path aiming to defeat the Israeli occupation and restore Palestinian rights”.
In Indonesia, Nahdlatul Ulama – which claims more than 60 million followers – warned that Islamic radical groups “clearly hate this agreement”.
“[These groups] may be provoked to launch terror attacks in Muslim countries, especially the Middle East,” said secretary general Yahya Staquf, a Muslim cleric.
In March 1979, Egypt’s then president Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel after fighting four wars with its neighbour, with terms including the normalisation of relations and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops and civilians from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been captured from Egypt in 1967.
In October 1981, Islamic extremists, angered by the treaty, assassinated Sadat at a military victory parade in Cairo.
Staquf said the UAE appeared to be “sufficiently protected” from terror attacks, more so if it had the security backing of the US and Israel.
“Indonesia should always be on the alert because such groups are still here,” said the Muslim cleric and scholar. An advocate of interfaith coexistence, he visited Israel in 2018 to meet with religious leaders there, drawing heavy criticism at home for the trip.
Staquf said the Indonesian government held the view that “the phenomenon of the Israeli state is a phenomenon of colonialism”, and the majority of the people, whether they followed Islam or otherwise, shared the same view.
More than 90 per cent of Indonesia’s population of 270 million identifies as Muslim, making it the world’s most populous Muslim nation.
TIES WITH ASEAN
Only three members – Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei – of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) bloc do not have formal diplomatic relations with Israel, though analysts have pointed out that ties are not as strained as previously thought.
Retired Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan said the city state would likely welcome the “farsighted decision” by the UAE, which becomes the first Gulf state to normalise ties with Israel – one of Singapore’s oldest and most important military partners.
Following Singapore’s split from Malaysia in 1965, Israel helped it build up its defence forces, a role larger powers including India and Egypt chose not to play. The presence of Israelis in Singapore was largely hidden from the public, with the island nation referring to the advisers as “Mexicans” to avoid the anger of its Muslim-majority neighbours.
“In fact, most of the Gulf states have been quietly developing unofficial relations with Israel. Since Israel is now accepted by much of the Middle East, why should Southeast Asia not accept Israel?”
He said he hoped the UAE’s recognition of Israel would lead the three Asean members who did not have formal ties with Israel to reconsider their decision, while acknowledging they would “make their own sovereign decisions”.
On the UAE-Israel accord, which US President Donald Trump has claimed as a foreign policy win, Bilahari said it demonstrated that the US was still “the most influential external power in the Middle East and indeed in other regions as well”, and that talk Washington was retreating from the region was not true.
“China, the EU or Russia could not have brokered this deal between Israel and the UAE,” he said. “Only the US could do it.”
John Langmore, professorial fellow from the University of Melbourne’s school of social and political sciences, was less convinced.
“It doesn’t sound like a deal at all since both sides are saying that it isn’t settled,” he said. “Israel is saying that the settlements will go ahead anyway; and the Emirates that the negotiations aren’t completed. It sounds more like spin in Trump’s election campaign than a decision.”
Mustafa Izzuddin, senior international affairs analyst at management consultancy firm Solaris Strategies Singapore, said Malaysia and Indonesia looked at the Palestinian cause as one of “Muslim brotherhood”.
“They will find this deal makes it more difficult now for the Palestinians to have their own state,” he said, adding that Putrajaya and Jakarta would have to balance their economic ties to the UAE with their support for the Palestinian cause.
Bilahari – who was the Singaporean Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ most senior civil servant before he retired – pointed out that Muslim nations such as Egypt and Jordan had maintained diplomatic relations with Israel for some time.
He added that the UAE’s link to the US was important in protecting it geopolitically, “particularly with Iran in the neighbourhood”.
“The UAE is one of the smaller countries in the Middle East; they are geopolitically vulnerable so they have to have strong alliances,” he said, adding that Abu Dhabi also wanted the technological benefits from joint ventures with Israeli companies.
In Japan, the government welcomed the UAE-Israel agreement as the first step towards easing tensions and stabilising the region.
“The Middle East peace issue should be resolved by negotiations between parties concerned and not through violence or unilateral acts,” said press secretary Tomoyuki Yoshida, who added that Tokyo appreciated Washington’s efforts in brokering the deal.
He reiterated Japan’s stance “to continue to support a two-state solution whereby Israel and a future independent Palestinian state live side by side in peace and security”.
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/polit...-world-warring
ReplyMore reaction
'Palestinians consider Pakistan our second homeland': Embassy thanks PM Imran for 'strong response' on Israel
The State of Palestine on Wednesday thanked the premier for his "strong response" on Israel, besides expressing gratitude to the government for extending support to the Palestinian cause.
A statement issued by the Palestine embassy in Islamabad also thanked the government for condemning Israeli aggression towards Palestine.
"Palestinians consider Pakistan as our second homeland and Pakistanis as our dearest brothers, who always supported Palestine on every forum of the world," it said.
The press release comes a day after Prime Minister Imran Khan categorically said that Pakistan could not recognise Israel as a state unless it gave freedom to Palestine.
In a two-hour late-night interview aired on Dunya TV, the prime minister stated: “Quaid-i-Azam had said in 1948 that Pakistan could not recognise Israel unless it gave freedom to Palestinians.
“If we recognise Israel and ignore [the] tyranny faced by Palestinians, we will have to give up [the cause of] Kashmir as well, and this we cannot do.”
In the context of the United Arab Emirates, which has recently established ties with Israel, the prime minister said every state had its own foreign policy.
In a statement issued today, the Palestine embassy noted that the Pakistani government had always supported their cause. "The embassy heartily appreciates the stance of [PM Imran] when answering to a question about Israel."
It is only because of the love of Pakistanis towards Palestine that Israeli and Pakistani relations have never been established, it added.
"The embassy thanks the prime minister for such a strong response and also appreciates every individual of Pakistan, including political parties, media, and civil society, who is observing solidarity with Palestine in any possible way.
"We are hopeful that this support will be with us until we get an independent State of Palestine with Jerusalem Al-Quds as its capital," the statement concluded.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1575282
UAE-Israel deal is a “Zionist occupation”, must be rejected: Kuwait lawmakers
Thirty-seven Kuwaiti lawmakers on Tuesday called on their government to reject a normalization deal between Israel and the UAE.
Thirty-seven Kuwaiti lawmakers on Tuesday called on their government to reject a normalization deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
In a statement, the members of parliament affirmed their solidarity with the Palestinian people, “recalling the parliament’s stable and continuous position against normalization [with Israel] in all its forms”.
Crimes of the Zionist occupation cannot be removed: Kuwaiti MP’s
“The crimes of the Zionist occupation cannot be removed by normalization from the souls of our children,” the statement said.
The statement referred to the incursions of Jerusalem’s flashpoint Al-Aqsa Mosque and Israeli attempts to Judaize the holy city.
The Kuwaiti government has maintained silence regarding the UAE-Israel normalization deal.
More than 30 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Kuwait issued a joint statement Sunday condemning an agreement between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel to normalize relations.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as an “advanced democracy”, days after a deal between the two countries to normalize their relations.
Kuwait. According to Al-Qabas, a Kuwaiti newspaper, government sources affirm that “Kuwait maintains its position and will be the last country to normalize with Israel.” Beyond Kuwaiti officials, analysts and academics, few have addressed Kuwait’s position on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Adam Hoffman and Moran Zaga acknowledged in February that Kuwait is “the only Gulf state that opposes even discrete normalisation with Israel.”
In January 2019, Giorgio Cafiero wrote that “Kuwait has become the one GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] state that refuses to see warmer ties with Israel as prudent.” Even White House senior adviser Jared Kushner said to Reuters that Kuwait is “out there taking a very radical view on the conflict to date in favour of the Palestinians.”
Netanyahu was hosted by the UAE-run Sky News Arabia on Monday to tout the normalization agreement between Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi.
“The deal connects the UAE with Israel; both of them are advanced democracies and their societies are advanced,” Netanyahu was quoted by Haaretz as saying when asked about how the deal will serve regional peace.
https://www.globalvillagespace.com/k...ject-uae-deal/
Malaysia’s Mahathir: UAE-Israel deal divides Muslim world into ‘warring factions’
The two-time prime minister, a long-time defender of the Palestinians, has criticised the US-brokered agreement as a step backwards for peace
Indonesia’s largest Muslim organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama, has warned the deal could trigger terror attacks there and in the Middle East
Malaysia’s former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad on Friday threw cold water on the landmark accord reached by the United Arab Emirates and Israel, warning it was a step backwards for peace and would divide the Muslim world into “warring factions”.
He was joined in his criticism of the United States -brokered agreement – which will see Israel suspend a controversial plan to annex parts of the occupied West Bank in return for full diplomatic ties with the UAE – by Indonesia’s largest Muslim organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama, which said the deal could trigger terror attacks in the Southeast Asian nation and the Middle East
Mahathir, a long-time defender of the Palestinians, who are locked in a decades-old conflict with Israelis, told This Week in Asia the agreement would “divide the Muslim world into warring factions and in this, the Israelis will add fuel to the fire”.
“They will increase the ability of the contestants to fight each other and there will be no peace even between Muslim countries,” said Mahathir, 95, who had two stints as the premier of the Muslim-majority nation, his most recent one ending earlier this year.
“It bolsters the stand taken by Israel that Palestine belongs to Israel. Of course there will be a reaction from the Palestinians and those who are sympathetic towards the Palestinians. This will mean prolonging the war in the Middle East,” he said.
Neither the Indonesian nor the Malaysian government have officially responded to the UAE-Israel accord.
The agreement saw Israel pledge to suspend its annexation of Palestinian land, although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed that did not mean it was abandoning plans to annex the Jordan Valley and Jewish settlements across the occupied West Bank.
The Palestinians, Turkey and Iran have decried it as a “betrayal”, while the UAE defended it as an initiative that gave more time for a peace agreement to be reached.
Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian movement that runs the Gaza Strip, is regarded as a militant group by some countries, including the US. It called the deal “a stab in the back of the Palestinian people and a desperate attempt to negatively affect the resistance path aiming to defeat the Israeli occupation and restore Palestinian rights”.
In Indonesia, Nahdlatul Ulama – which claims more than 60 million followers – warned that Islamic radical groups “clearly hate this agreement”.
“[These groups] may be provoked to launch terror attacks in Muslim countries, especially the Middle East,” said secretary general Yahya Staquf, a Muslim cleric.
In March 1979, Egypt’s then president Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel after fighting four wars with its neighbour, with terms including the normalisation of relations and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops and civilians from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been captured from Egypt in 1967.
In October 1981, Islamic extremists, angered by the treaty, assassinated Sadat at a military victory parade in Cairo.
Staquf said the UAE appeared to be “sufficiently protected” from terror attacks, more so if it had the security backing of the US and Israel.
“Indonesia should always be on the alert because such groups are still here,” said the Muslim cleric and scholar. An advocate of interfaith coexistence, he visited Israel in 2018 to meet with religious leaders there, drawing heavy criticism at home for the trip.
Staquf said the Indonesian government held the view that “the phenomenon of the Israeli state is a phenomenon of colonialism”, and the majority of the people, whether they followed Islam or otherwise, shared the same view.
More than 90 per cent of Indonesia’s population of 270 million identifies as Muslim, making it the world’s most populous Muslim nation.
TIES WITH ASEAN
Only three members – Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei – of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) bloc do not have formal diplomatic relations with Israel, though analysts have pointed out that ties are not as strained as previously thought.
Retired Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan said the city state would likely welcome the “farsighted decision” by the UAE, which becomes the first Gulf state to normalise ties with Israel – one of Singapore’s oldest and most important military partners.
Following Singapore’s split from Malaysia in 1965, Israel helped it build up its defence forces, a role larger powers including India and Egypt chose not to play. The presence of Israelis in Singapore was largely hidden from the public, with the island nation referring to the advisers as “Mexicans” to avoid the anger of its Muslim-majority neighbours.
“In fact, most of the Gulf states have been quietly developing unofficial relations with Israel. Since Israel is now accepted by much of the Middle East, why should Southeast Asia not accept Israel?”
He said he hoped the UAE’s recognition of Israel would lead the three Asean members who did not have formal ties with Israel to reconsider their decision, while acknowledging they would “make their own sovereign decisions”.
On the UAE-Israel accord, which US President Donald Trump has claimed as a foreign policy win, Bilahari said it demonstrated that the US was still “the most influential external power in the Middle East and indeed in other regions as well”, and that talk Washington was retreating from the region was not true.
“China, the EU or Russia could not have brokered this deal between Israel and the UAE,” he said. “Only the US could do it.”
John Langmore, professorial fellow from the University of Melbourne’s school of social and political sciences, was less convinced.
“It doesn’t sound like a deal at all since both sides are saying that it isn’t settled,” he said. “Israel is saying that the settlements will go ahead anyway; and the Emirates that the negotiations aren’t completed. It sounds more like spin in Trump’s election campaign than a decision.”
Mustafa Izzuddin, senior international affairs analyst at management consultancy firm Solaris Strategies Singapore, said Malaysia and Indonesia looked at the Palestinian cause as one of “Muslim brotherhood”.
“They will find this deal makes it more difficult now for the Palestinians to have their own state,” he said, adding that Putrajaya and Jakarta would have to balance their economic ties to the UAE with their support for the Palestinian cause.
Bilahari – who was the Singaporean Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ most senior civil servant before he retired – pointed out that Muslim nations such as Egypt and Jordan had maintained diplomatic relations with Israel for some time.
He added that the UAE’s link to the US was important in protecting it geopolitically, “particularly with Iran in the neighbourhood”.
“The UAE is one of the smaller countries in the Middle East; they are geopolitically vulnerable so they have to have strong alliances,” he said, adding that Abu Dhabi also wanted the technological benefits from joint ventures with Israeli companies.
In Japan, the government welcomed the UAE-Israel agreement as the first step towards easing tensions and stabilising the region.
“The Middle East peace issue should be resolved by negotiations between parties concerned and not through violence or unilateral acts,” said press secretary Tomoyuki Yoshida, who added that Tokyo appreciated Washington’s efforts in brokering the deal.
He reiterated Japan’s stance “to continue to support a two-state solution whereby Israel and a future independent Palestinian state live side by side in peace and security”.
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/polit...-world-warring
سيف الله
09-01-2020, 04:12 PM
Salaam
More comment.
Israel-UAE deal: Once more the Arab world falls into a trap
Veteran Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan says the U.S. and Israel have once again sprung a trap for the Arab world to the detriment, once again, of the Palestinians.
Israel’s former prime minister Shimon Peres once described the Oslo Accords as Israel’s “greatest invention.” The UAE-Israel agreement due to be formally signed next month can be seen as an equally great and duplicitous invention by its architect Jared Kushner and his mentor Benjamin Netanyahu.
The former agreement, signed in the White House Rose Garden on September 13, 1993, sold the Palestinians the illusion that they would get an independent state on the 1967 borders, and that the Gaza Strip would be turned into the “Singapore of the Middle East.”
The latest deal is designed to sell the Arabs an even more dangerous illusion: the creation of a Sunni Arab bloc led by Israel to confront Iran and Turkey and their regional leadership ambitions — with Abu Dhabi being turned under U.S. and Israeli auspices into the “Sparta” of the Arabian Peninsula, equipped with an arsenal of impressive and expensive weaponry featuring the ultra-sophisticated F-35 combat aircraft, the pride of the U.S. armaments industry.
Paranoia about Iran and Turkey
Israel and the U.S. did not single out the UAE for this role on a whim. They considered the choice carefully and waited for the right conditions and timing. Like other Gulf monarchies, especially Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, the UAE’s regime suffers from severe paranoia about Iran’s growing might and the threat Tehran could pose amid the rise of other regional powers like Turkey.
Israeli and American planners exploited this weakness – just as they exploited the weakness of the PLO, besieged and bankrupt after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to lure it into negotiations leading to the Oslo Accords.
The trap was sprung and we all know what happened next. Twenty-seven years after signing the Oslo agreement, the PLO leadership is even more embattled and isolated than it was then. It did not obtain an independent state or even meaningful self-rule. What it ultimately got was a “Deal of the Century” providing for the annexation of 30% of the West Bank and the entire Jordan Valley along with Jerusalem and the expulsion of most of the Palestinian inhabitants to Jordan where the alternative homeland plan is to be located.
Arab leaders no longer take phone calls from President Mahmoud Abbas. His private plane parked at Amman airport is gathering rust and dust, and is set to continue doing so until further notice.
Emirati officials who claim the new peace agreement is underpinned by U.S. guarantees would do well to remember that such guarantees also accompanied the Oslo Accords. One of Yaser Arafat’s aides at the time, Bassam Abu-Sharif, recalled in a recent article being told by Peres that the late Palestinian leader was mistaken if he thought the agreement would result in the establishment of a Palestinian state, as no Israeli would consent to that. The most he could hope for was autonomy under Israeli sovereignty.
Arafat later realised that Peres was right. His successor, Mahmoud Abbas, eventually realised that even autonomy was no longer attainable. He now sits in his office in Ramallah awaiting two possible outcomes: assassination, like his predecessor, or deportation to Jordan.
Netanyahu has restated that he remains committed to annexation despite his supposed pledge to Abu Dhabi to halt it. One of his aides also confirmed that Israel has vetoed any delivery of any part of any F-35 to the UAE. This should not come as any surprise given the failure of the U.S. and Israel to live up to so many previous promises.
Sunni-Shia tensions
The strategy of Israel and the U.S. is based on on inflaming and deepening sectarian Sunni-Shia tensions in the Middle East. They see their peace agreement with the UAE as the spearhead of this plan.
This is the single gravest threat facing the region at present. It reminds us of the Hussein-McMahon correspondence during the First World War which led to the Great Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire. That century-old game changer promised the Arabs much, but ended up with the Sykes-Picot agreement that placed them under British and French tutelage.
History now seems to be repeating itself in various ways. Most Arab rulers are oblivious to this, either due to their ignorance of history or their inability to learn anything from it — even though some of them were educated at top Western universities and academies.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/09/01/is...s-into-a-trap/
ReplyMore comment.
Israel-UAE deal: Once more the Arab world falls into a trap
Veteran Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan says the U.S. and Israel have once again sprung a trap for the Arab world to the detriment, once again, of the Palestinians.
Israel’s former prime minister Shimon Peres once described the Oslo Accords as Israel’s “greatest invention.” The UAE-Israel agreement due to be formally signed next month can be seen as an equally great and duplicitous invention by its architect Jared Kushner and his mentor Benjamin Netanyahu.
The former agreement, signed in the White House Rose Garden on September 13, 1993, sold the Palestinians the illusion that they would get an independent state on the 1967 borders, and that the Gaza Strip would be turned into the “Singapore of the Middle East.”
The latest deal is designed to sell the Arabs an even more dangerous illusion: the creation of a Sunni Arab bloc led by Israel to confront Iran and Turkey and their regional leadership ambitions — with Abu Dhabi being turned under U.S. and Israeli auspices into the “Sparta” of the Arabian Peninsula, equipped with an arsenal of impressive and expensive weaponry featuring the ultra-sophisticated F-35 combat aircraft, the pride of the U.S. armaments industry.
Paranoia about Iran and Turkey
Israel and the U.S. did not single out the UAE for this role on a whim. They considered the choice carefully and waited for the right conditions and timing. Like other Gulf monarchies, especially Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, the UAE’s regime suffers from severe paranoia about Iran’s growing might and the threat Tehran could pose amid the rise of other regional powers like Turkey.
Israeli and American planners exploited this weakness – just as they exploited the weakness of the PLO, besieged and bankrupt after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to lure it into negotiations leading to the Oslo Accords.
The trap was sprung and we all know what happened next. Twenty-seven years after signing the Oslo agreement, the PLO leadership is even more embattled and isolated than it was then. It did not obtain an independent state or even meaningful self-rule. What it ultimately got was a “Deal of the Century” providing for the annexation of 30% of the West Bank and the entire Jordan Valley along with Jerusalem and the expulsion of most of the Palestinian inhabitants to Jordan where the alternative homeland plan is to be located.
Arab leaders no longer take phone calls from President Mahmoud Abbas. His private plane parked at Amman airport is gathering rust and dust, and is set to continue doing so until further notice.
Emirati officials who claim the new peace agreement is underpinned by U.S. guarantees would do well to remember that such guarantees also accompanied the Oslo Accords. One of Yaser Arafat’s aides at the time, Bassam Abu-Sharif, recalled in a recent article being told by Peres that the late Palestinian leader was mistaken if he thought the agreement would result in the establishment of a Palestinian state, as no Israeli would consent to that. The most he could hope for was autonomy under Israeli sovereignty.
Arafat later realised that Peres was right. His successor, Mahmoud Abbas, eventually realised that even autonomy was no longer attainable. He now sits in his office in Ramallah awaiting two possible outcomes: assassination, like his predecessor, or deportation to Jordan.
Netanyahu has restated that he remains committed to annexation despite his supposed pledge to Abu Dhabi to halt it. One of his aides also confirmed that Israel has vetoed any delivery of any part of any F-35 to the UAE. This should not come as any surprise given the failure of the U.S. and Israel to live up to so many previous promises.
Sunni-Shia tensions
The strategy of Israel and the U.S. is based on on inflaming and deepening sectarian Sunni-Shia tensions in the Middle East. They see their peace agreement with the UAE as the spearhead of this plan.
This is the single gravest threat facing the region at present. It reminds us of the Hussein-McMahon correspondence during the First World War which led to the Great Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire. That century-old game changer promised the Arabs much, but ended up with the Sykes-Picot agreement that placed them under British and French tutelage.
History now seems to be repeating itself in various ways. Most Arab rulers are oblivious to this, either due to their ignorance of history or their inability to learn anything from it — even though some of them were educated at top Western universities and academies.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/09/01/is...s-into-a-trap/
William Wallace
09-01-2020, 07:53 PM
America under Trump heavily favored Israel but that was not the case with Obama.
but my Palestinian friend Muhammad told me that both the Palestinian and Israeli government are very bad... For example interfaith marriages are outlawed in both Palestine and Israel.
The Palestinian leader ship possibly takes bribes from the Israeli government.
America though historically speaking has stood for what is right remember Israel was created in 1948 while the United States was born in 1776 a long time before Israel existed. There’s no comparison between the United States a free country and Israel a country with intolerant theocratic laws
I and many other Americans disagree with the policies of Israel. America’s greatest allies have been France, Britain and more recently Germany and Japan.
سيف الله
09-06-2020, 12:23 AM
سيف الله
09-09-2020, 10:35 PM
Salaam
Another update.
More selling out.
Oops
Good to know
UAE: Israel war on Gaza will not affect ‘warm peace’ with Tel Aviv
A prominent Emirati official said yesterday that the controversial normalisation deal with Israel will not be affected even if Tel Aviv launches a war on the Gaza Strip.
In an interview with Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, Ali Al-Nuaimi, chairman of the Defence, Interior and Foreign Affairs Committee at the UAE’s Federal Council, said that the “warm peace with Israel” can endure such crises as a “war on Gaza”.
In the period between 2008 and 2014, Israel launched three massive offensives against the besieged enclave, causing the deaths of thousands of Palestinians along with unprecedented destruction in Gaza.
Al-Nuaimi said he expected that the normalisation agreement between his country and Israel will be finalised this month.
Al-Nuaimi added that UAE Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Zayed may soon visit Israel.
He also confirmed that direct flights between the two countries will start after the signing of the agreement.
The Emirati official said he expects Israel will remove its objection to the UAE buying US F-35 jets.
Following last month’s announcement of the UAE-Israel normalisation deal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the deal does not include the sale of F-35s to the UAE.
Al-Nuaimi, in the interview, accused the Palestinian leadership of being “stuck in the past” due to its stance towards Israel.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...with-tel-aviv/
ReplyAnother update.
More selling out.
Oops
Good to know
UAE: Israel war on Gaza will not affect ‘warm peace’ with Tel Aviv
A prominent Emirati official said yesterday that the controversial normalisation deal with Israel will not be affected even if Tel Aviv launches a war on the Gaza Strip.
In an interview with Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, Ali Al-Nuaimi, chairman of the Defence, Interior and Foreign Affairs Committee at the UAE’s Federal Council, said that the “warm peace with Israel” can endure such crises as a “war on Gaza”.
In the period between 2008 and 2014, Israel launched three massive offensives against the besieged enclave, causing the deaths of thousands of Palestinians along with unprecedented destruction in Gaza.
Al-Nuaimi said he expected that the normalisation agreement between his country and Israel will be finalised this month.
Al-Nuaimi added that UAE Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Zayed may soon visit Israel.
He also confirmed that direct flights between the two countries will start after the signing of the agreement.
The Emirati official said he expects Israel will remove its objection to the UAE buying US F-35 jets.
Following last month’s announcement of the UAE-Israel normalisation deal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the deal does not include the sale of F-35s to the UAE.
Al-Nuaimi, in the interview, accused the Palestinian leadership of being “stuck in the past” due to its stance towards Israel.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...with-tel-aviv/
سيف الله
09-13-2020, 08:26 AM
Salaam
Another update.
Blurb
Bahrain has become the second Arab Gulf nation in the span of a month to agree to normalise relations with Israel. For decades, most Arab states have boycotted Israel, insisting they'd only establish ties once the Palestinian conflict is resolved. The Bahrain deal comes after the United Arab Emirates signed a normalisation agreement with Israel last month. Natasha Hussain reports.
ReplyAnother update.
Blurb
Bahrain has become the second Arab Gulf nation in the span of a month to agree to normalise relations with Israel. For decades, most Arab states have boycotted Israel, insisting they'd only establish ties once the Palestinian conflict is resolved. The Bahrain deal comes after the United Arab Emirates signed a normalisation agreement with Israel last month. Natasha Hussain reports.
سيف الله
09-27-2020, 08:31 AM
Salaam
Like to share.
Twitter thread by
Ibn Maghreb
@IbnMaghrebi
'Saudi Arabia...will facilitate a pathway to the so‐called ‘China model' or ‘Beijing consensus'. This combines autocratic rule with an embrace of free‐market capitalism, and increasingly, a focus on digital surveillance of the domestic population'
This is a great paper that gets to the heart of the implications around Neom - GCC push to normalise ties with Israel are linked to this next phase of GCC development moving away from hydrocarbon dependency to ensure regime survival. Neom's proposed location sits close to the Israeli town of Eilat and for it to become a regional hub for tourism, cybertech and AI it will have to involve Israeli interest. The plans to make this zone "judicially independent" again is a fig leaf for the creation of A hyper-capitalist's dream - a no man's land where there are no substantive attachments or conceptions of the sacred, the good life. Pure unadulterated technocratic rule that recognises only the considerations of capital. American based PR firms in the next year or so will be going into overdrive to make this project palatable to the masses which will conclude putting on a gnostic sheen on the enterprise via interfaith dress-ups.
Expect the city to be branded as "Abraham's Promise" etc. I don't think incidentally that the combination of digital surveillance and capitalist design is necessarily the Beijing consensus - it is globally accepted by and large. This is significant for the region and provides context for the larger push towards normalization which in reality is Israeli integration into GCC (or vice versa perhaps?)
Normalization is not about Iran - if you think that, you're a zombie from the mid 2000s.
Containing Turkey is what occupies the GCC elite anyway.
ReplyLike to share.
Twitter thread by
Ibn Maghreb
@IbnMaghrebi
'Saudi Arabia...will facilitate a pathway to the so‐called ‘China model' or ‘Beijing consensus'. This combines autocratic rule with an embrace of free‐market capitalism, and increasingly, a focus on digital surveillance of the domestic population'
Abstract
Saudi Arabia is diversifying its economy by becoming a global technological hub. Driven by its ‘Vision 2030' initiative, it has embarked on the most ambitious and far‐reaching transformation plan in the Kingdom's history. At the core of this transformation are the investment and development of artificial intelligence (AI) and its integration into a new mega‐city, Neom. Currently under construction, Neom is seeking to integrate robotics and AI seamlessly into every aspect of citizens' lives in a bid to generate revenues from key economic sectors for the future.
This transition from an economy based on hydrocarbons to AI is, however, more than economic. It is a bid to secure the survival of the House of Saud and meet the growing challenges of constructing a state around oil. Nevertheless, what happens in Neom may provide insights into how AI will impact the world beyond a cross‐roads built on sand.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...467-923X.12794
Saudi Arabia is diversifying its economy by becoming a global technological hub. Driven by its ‘Vision 2030' initiative, it has embarked on the most ambitious and far‐reaching transformation plan in the Kingdom's history. At the core of this transformation are the investment and development of artificial intelligence (AI) and its integration into a new mega‐city, Neom. Currently under construction, Neom is seeking to integrate robotics and AI seamlessly into every aspect of citizens' lives in a bid to generate revenues from key economic sectors for the future.
This transition from an economy based on hydrocarbons to AI is, however, more than economic. It is a bid to secure the survival of the House of Saud and meet the growing challenges of constructing a state around oil. Nevertheless, what happens in Neom may provide insights into how AI will impact the world beyond a cross‐roads built on sand.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...467-923X.12794
Expect the city to be branded as "Abraham's Promise" etc. I don't think incidentally that the combination of digital surveillance and capitalist design is necessarily the Beijing consensus - it is globally accepted by and large. This is significant for the region and provides context for the larger push towards normalization which in reality is Israeli integration into GCC (or vice versa perhaps?)
Aecom awarded design contract for $500bn NEOM project
Aecom wins a major design project for Saudi Arabia’s upcoming ‘city of the future’
America’s largest design engineering firm, Aecom, has been appointed to handle the design and support of the “backbone infrastructure” for Saudi Arabia’s NEOM.
https://www.constructionglobal.com/c...n-neom-project
Aecom wins a major design project for Saudi Arabia’s upcoming ‘city of the future’
America’s largest design engineering firm, Aecom, has been appointed to handle the design and support of the “backbone infrastructure” for Saudi Arabia’s NEOM.
https://www.constructionglobal.com/c...n-neom-project
Containing Turkey is what occupies the GCC elite anyway.
sitarragul
09-28-2020, 05:42 AM
World going to change no one have power stop this change because Jewish covers the all economic states and clutch the world in their hand.
Replyسيف الله
12-12-2020, 08:06 PM
Salaam
Another update.
After Morocco which spineless Arab dictatorship will normalise with Israel next?
Veteran Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan says Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the favourites to follow Morocco and other spineless, treacherous Arab dictatorships in normalising relations with Tel Aviv.
The tweet by outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump revealing that the Moroccan and Israeli governments have agreed to normalise relations was no surprise.
There were clear signs this was coming: the UAE and Jordan opening consulates in the Sahrawi city of Laayoune, and the visit by Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner to Rabat and the festive welcome he was accorded by Morocco’s King Mohammed VI.
This deal between Israel and the Moroccan monarchy conforms to the land-for-peace formula — except that the land concerned is not Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory; it is the land of Western Sahara which Trump’s tweet recognised as being under full Moroccan sovereignty.
The U.S. President also offered financial and development aid to Morocco, while Israel’s national carrier announced it was scheduling flights to Moroccan airports.
More is doubtless to follow.
Qatar and Saudi next?
Trump wasn’t lying when he said that nine Arab states were standing in the normalisation line. He named them as the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Morocco, Tunisia and Mauritania.
The normalisation agreements duly followed, one after another. Don’t be surprised if normalisation with the Israeli occupation state ends up being a component of the Saudi-Qatari reconciliation Kushner has been brokering.
He declared just moments after the Moroccan-Israeli deal was revealed that Saudi normalisation with Israel was “inevitable.” This despite senior Saudi royal Prince Turki al-Faisal’s fierce criticism of Israel at a forum in Bahrain which made headlines earlier this week. We will probably be told in due course that the former intelligence chief and ambassador to the U.S. and UK holds no official position and his views do not reflect those of Saudi Arabia.
Israel’s Minister of Intelligence Eli Cohen had named Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Morocco as states that would establish relations with Israel as part of a regional entente initiated by Trump. Now that the Moroccans have done as they were told, will the Saudis and Qataris follow before Trump leaves the White House?
Anti-Iran alliance
Trump habitually lies about almost every aspect of domestic and foreign policy. The Washington Post has tracked thousands of false or misleading statements he has made since taking office.
But experience has shown us that almost everything he says about the governments of the Middle East is spot-on accurate. This is because the majority of Arab regimes are so weak, compromised and spineless they are prepared to submit to American and Israeli dictates even under a lame-duck president – and they are expert at misleading and lying to their own peoples.
It has become clear that the regimes in many Arab countries – monarchies and republics alike – hope to resolve their economic problems or security concerns (caused essentially by their corruption and domestic policy failures) by selling out the Palestinian cause and core Arab values.
Although ironically, the financial rewards they seek consist of Arab money: either recycled to the U.S. from sovereign wealth funds via arms sales, or ordered to be paid directly as bribes for normalisation.
In a nutshell, we are facing the rapid emergence of an Arab-Israeli alliance aimed at confronting the Iranian-led camp in the region. Just as Arab money bankrolls the normalisation agreements, it could end up paying for the coming war on Iran – even though it will be waged mainly on Arab territory and the U.S. bases located on it, with the lied-to Arab peoples its major casualty.
New normalisation announcements, or reports of Israeli airlines, products or tourists appearing in this or that Arab state, no longer surprise us. Most Arab governments have lost any sense of shame when it comes to appeasing the U.S.
But we are confident that before long these regimes will themselves be surprised by the price they are made to by their own peoples for their treachery and betrayal of the Palestinian cause.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/12/12/af...h-israel-next/
Interesting.
ReplyAnother update.
After Morocco which spineless Arab dictatorship will normalise with Israel next?
Veteran Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan says Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the favourites to follow Morocco and other spineless, treacherous Arab dictatorships in normalising relations with Tel Aviv.
The tweet by outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump revealing that the Moroccan and Israeli governments have agreed to normalise relations was no surprise.
There were clear signs this was coming: the UAE and Jordan opening consulates in the Sahrawi city of Laayoune, and the visit by Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner to Rabat and the festive welcome he was accorded by Morocco’s King Mohammed VI.
This deal between Israel and the Moroccan monarchy conforms to the land-for-peace formula — except that the land concerned is not Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory; it is the land of Western Sahara which Trump’s tweet recognised as being under full Moroccan sovereignty.
The U.S. President also offered financial and development aid to Morocco, while Israel’s national carrier announced it was scheduling flights to Moroccan airports.
More is doubtless to follow.
Qatar and Saudi next?
Trump wasn’t lying when he said that nine Arab states were standing in the normalisation line. He named them as the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Morocco, Tunisia and Mauritania.
The normalisation agreements duly followed, one after another. Don’t be surprised if normalisation with the Israeli occupation state ends up being a component of the Saudi-Qatari reconciliation Kushner has been brokering.
He declared just moments after the Moroccan-Israeli deal was revealed that Saudi normalisation with Israel was “inevitable.” This despite senior Saudi royal Prince Turki al-Faisal’s fierce criticism of Israel at a forum in Bahrain which made headlines earlier this week. We will probably be told in due course that the former intelligence chief and ambassador to the U.S. and UK holds no official position and his views do not reflect those of Saudi Arabia.
Israel’s Minister of Intelligence Eli Cohen had named Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Morocco as states that would establish relations with Israel as part of a regional entente initiated by Trump. Now that the Moroccans have done as they were told, will the Saudis and Qataris follow before Trump leaves the White House?
Anti-Iran alliance
Trump habitually lies about almost every aspect of domestic and foreign policy. The Washington Post has tracked thousands of false or misleading statements he has made since taking office.
But experience has shown us that almost everything he says about the governments of the Middle East is spot-on accurate. This is because the majority of Arab regimes are so weak, compromised and spineless they are prepared to submit to American and Israeli dictates even under a lame-duck president – and they are expert at misleading and lying to their own peoples.
It has become clear that the regimes in many Arab countries – monarchies and republics alike – hope to resolve their economic problems or security concerns (caused essentially by their corruption and domestic policy failures) by selling out the Palestinian cause and core Arab values.
Although ironically, the financial rewards they seek consist of Arab money: either recycled to the U.S. from sovereign wealth funds via arms sales, or ordered to be paid directly as bribes for normalisation.
In a nutshell, we are facing the rapid emergence of an Arab-Israeli alliance aimed at confronting the Iranian-led camp in the region. Just as Arab money bankrolls the normalisation agreements, it could end up paying for the coming war on Iran – even though it will be waged mainly on Arab territory and the U.S. bases located on it, with the lied-to Arab peoples its major casualty.
New normalisation announcements, or reports of Israeli airlines, products or tourists appearing in this or that Arab state, no longer surprise us. Most Arab governments have lost any sense of shame when it comes to appeasing the U.S.
But we are confident that before long these regimes will themselves be surprised by the price they are made to by their own peoples for their treachery and betrayal of the Palestinian cause.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/12/12/af...h-israel-next/
Interesting.
ashraf__
12-16-2020, 12:48 PM
the arabs be subjugated and let them feel whats its like! Have you seen how they treat the poor labors that come to work in their countries?
Replyسيف الله
12-19-2020, 12:05 AM
Salaam
More analysis.
Blurb
Two initiatives, the Tracks for Regional Peace and #Neom city, seek to
physically connect #Israel to the Arab world, and in the process
normalize those ties.
More comment about normalisation.
Protests but they have been suppressed.
ReplyMore analysis.
Blurb
Two initiatives, the Tracks for Regional Peace and #Neom city, seek to
physically connect #Israel to the Arab world, and in the process
normalize those ties.
More comment about normalisation.
Protests but they have been suppressed.
16yroldMuslim
12-20-2020, 12:40 AM
Oy vey 6 million died in the jewcost i was there bro this is anti semitic, not like the jews literally have plans to control the media, army and the entire world.
Replyسيف الله
03-02-2021, 07:53 PM
Salaam
Another update
What a surprise from the UAE leadership.
Amazing! At this rate when Bibi pays a visit to UAE, KSA or whoever else has sold out were going to get performances like this.
ReplyAnother update
What a surprise from the UAE leadership.
Amazing! At this rate when Bibi pays a visit to UAE, KSA or whoever else has sold out were going to get performances like this.
سيف الله
05-19-2021, 07:16 AM
Salaam
Another update. More and more the mask comes off.
How Arab evictions sparked the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Legal battle over settlers’ claims in East Jerusalem sparked protests that led to Gaza aerial barrage
Nabil al-Kurd, a Palestinian, remembers the day Jewish settlers moved into his house, a modest one-storey home in Sheikh Jarrah, a mostly Arab neighbourhood in occupied East Jerusalem.
Yaacov Fauci, a Jew from New York, arrived with a police guard on a sunny autumn day in 2009, threw out the furniture and moved into the tiny annexe Kurd had built for his son.
“He didn’t even speak Hebrew back then,” said Kurd, 77. “He’d been promised the land, the house — and now he’s been here 12 years.”
A decade of court battles later, Kurd and his unwelcome house guest are in the final stages of a plan hatched long ago by rightwing Israeli settlers: pick out Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, evict the owners using property laws that favour Jews over Arabs and, one house at a time, turn entire neighbourhoods Jewish.
With the Israeli Supreme Court due to decide last week if the settlers’ claim to the land was valid, the row over the evictions — which are illegal under international law because East Jerusalem is occupied territory — fused with already chaotic demonstrations at al-Aqsa mosque, a few minutes’ walk away in Jerusalem’s Old City. The mosque is in a compound in Jerusalem that is known to Jews as Temple Mount and which is sacred to both religions.
After days of scuffles with young Muslim men over police barriers at the Old City’s Damascus Gate, Israeli police stormed the compound, injuring hundreds of Palestinian protesters. On May 10 Palestinian militant group Hamas fired rockets deep inside Israel. In a warning to the Jewish state before its first volley, Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli police from Sheikh Jarrah and the mosque.
Israel responded with air strikes on Gaza, which sparked unrest between Jews and Arab Israelis in mixed cities. It also triggered protests across the occupied West Bank. By Tuesday night, 217 Palestinians had been killed in the Gaza Strip, including 99 women and children, the Gaza ministry of health said.
For now, Israel has delayed the proceedings that would have made Kurd, his family and dozens of his Arab neighbours homeless. But the battle over this narrow lane of modest homes is the Palestinian-Israel conflict writ small, a symbol of the vast tracts of Palestinian land confiscated by the Jewish state over decades of occupation.
For rightwing Israelis, seeding Jewish neighbourhoods throughout East Jerusalem is a small part of the settlement enterprise that has seen 650,000 Jews move into the West Bank. Some 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, encircled by about 200,000 Jewish settlers.
Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future state but Israel wants Jerusalem as its undivided capital. The bigger the Jewish population, the less likely it is to be uprooted in any future peace settlement, said Arieh King, a deputy mayor of Jerusalem and a leader in the settler movement.
“I want Jerusalem to be secured for ever as a Jewish city, and the only way to protect it from radical Muslims is by being more than them,” he said. “The heart of the Jewish nation is the Temple Mount — and the layers protecting the Mount will be the Jewish presence around it.”
Palestinians were first housed in Arab districts in East Jerusalem by Jordan, which controlled that part of the divided city for 19 years after the birth of Israel in 1948. Since the Six Day war in 1967, Israeli law allows Jews who lost their land in 1948 to claim it back through the courts. The law only applies to Jews.
“Today, this is the main organised way for the settlers to displace . . . Palestinians,” said Hagit Ofran, an expert on settlement activity at Peace Now, which advocates a two-state solution. “And it’s not a symbolic thing.”
Peace Now estimates that at least 200 families in Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem are facing evictions under the same law used in Kurd’s case. Another 20,000 Arab-owned homes in East Jerusalem face demolition under other laws, including for zoning and building permit violations, according to Peace Now.
The battle over Kurd’s property maps the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kurd and his family, refugees from Haifa in the north of Israel during the 1948 war, moved to this spot in 1956, he said.
The land was originally bought by a Jewish trust in the 1870s when the Ottomans ruled Palestine. After the 1967 war, the trust tried to reclaim it from the Kurd family, eventually selling it to settlers, who have pursued the case through the courts. In 2009, a judge handed the keys of the annexe to the settlers.
Last week, at the height of the tensions around the final eviction hearing, Kurd spotted a man taking rubbish out of his front garden and pointed to him. “There goes the thief,” he said.
There, with a bin bag in his hand, stood Fauci, red-faced from days in the sun and a bit sheepish after a video of him in his pyjamas in his neighbour’s garden, saying, “If I didn’t steal it [ the property], someone else will”, went viral two weeks ago. (“I am getting a lot of flak for that,” Fauci admitted.)
A religious student turned settler, Fauci has become the face of the dispute — he has been to the hospital twice, hit by rocks, but says he still enjoys living on the street. With the force of Israeli law behind him, he is sure he will one day have the rest of Kurd’s house.
“This is the entire story of this country — when people lose multiple wars, they don’t get to set the conditions of surrender. You lost the war, you pay the price,” he said. “All of this needs to be Jewish — we don’t believe in East Jerusalem and west Jerusalem. Jews have a mitzvah [religious commandment] to settle everywhere in the land of Israel.”
https://www.ft.com/content/830e05ed-...c-265c41f79546
ReplyAnother update. More and more the mask comes off.
How Arab evictions sparked the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Legal battle over settlers’ claims in East Jerusalem sparked protests that led to Gaza aerial barrage
Nabil al-Kurd, a Palestinian, remembers the day Jewish settlers moved into his house, a modest one-storey home in Sheikh Jarrah, a mostly Arab neighbourhood in occupied East Jerusalem.
Yaacov Fauci, a Jew from New York, arrived with a police guard on a sunny autumn day in 2009, threw out the furniture and moved into the tiny annexe Kurd had built for his son.
“He didn’t even speak Hebrew back then,” said Kurd, 77. “He’d been promised the land, the house — and now he’s been here 12 years.”
A decade of court battles later, Kurd and his unwelcome house guest are in the final stages of a plan hatched long ago by rightwing Israeli settlers: pick out Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, evict the owners using property laws that favour Jews over Arabs and, one house at a time, turn entire neighbourhoods Jewish.
With the Israeli Supreme Court due to decide last week if the settlers’ claim to the land was valid, the row over the evictions — which are illegal under international law because East Jerusalem is occupied territory — fused with already chaotic demonstrations at al-Aqsa mosque, a few minutes’ walk away in Jerusalem’s Old City. The mosque is in a compound in Jerusalem that is known to Jews as Temple Mount and which is sacred to both religions.
After days of scuffles with young Muslim men over police barriers at the Old City’s Damascus Gate, Israeli police stormed the compound, injuring hundreds of Palestinian protesters. On May 10 Palestinian militant group Hamas fired rockets deep inside Israel. In a warning to the Jewish state before its first volley, Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli police from Sheikh Jarrah and the mosque.
Israel responded with air strikes on Gaza, which sparked unrest between Jews and Arab Israelis in mixed cities. It also triggered protests across the occupied West Bank. By Tuesday night, 217 Palestinians had been killed in the Gaza Strip, including 99 women and children, the Gaza ministry of health said.
For now, Israel has delayed the proceedings that would have made Kurd, his family and dozens of his Arab neighbours homeless. But the battle over this narrow lane of modest homes is the Palestinian-Israel conflict writ small, a symbol of the vast tracts of Palestinian land confiscated by the Jewish state over decades of occupation.
For rightwing Israelis, seeding Jewish neighbourhoods throughout East Jerusalem is a small part of the settlement enterprise that has seen 650,000 Jews move into the West Bank. Some 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, encircled by about 200,000 Jewish settlers.
Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future state but Israel wants Jerusalem as its undivided capital. The bigger the Jewish population, the less likely it is to be uprooted in any future peace settlement, said Arieh King, a deputy mayor of Jerusalem and a leader in the settler movement.
“I want Jerusalem to be secured for ever as a Jewish city, and the only way to protect it from radical Muslims is by being more than them,” he said. “The heart of the Jewish nation is the Temple Mount — and the layers protecting the Mount will be the Jewish presence around it.”
Palestinians were first housed in Arab districts in East Jerusalem by Jordan, which controlled that part of the divided city for 19 years after the birth of Israel in 1948. Since the Six Day war in 1967, Israeli law allows Jews who lost their land in 1948 to claim it back through the courts. The law only applies to Jews.
“Today, this is the main organised way for the settlers to displace . . . Palestinians,” said Hagit Ofran, an expert on settlement activity at Peace Now, which advocates a two-state solution. “And it’s not a symbolic thing.”
Peace Now estimates that at least 200 families in Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem are facing evictions under the same law used in Kurd’s case. Another 20,000 Arab-owned homes in East Jerusalem face demolition under other laws, including for zoning and building permit violations, according to Peace Now.
The battle over Kurd’s property maps the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kurd and his family, refugees from Haifa in the north of Israel during the 1948 war, moved to this spot in 1956, he said.
The land was originally bought by a Jewish trust in the 1870s when the Ottomans ruled Palestine. After the 1967 war, the trust tried to reclaim it from the Kurd family, eventually selling it to settlers, who have pursued the case through the courts. In 2009, a judge handed the keys of the annexe to the settlers.
Last week, at the height of the tensions around the final eviction hearing, Kurd spotted a man taking rubbish out of his front garden and pointed to him. “There goes the thief,” he said.
There, with a bin bag in his hand, stood Fauci, red-faced from days in the sun and a bit sheepish after a video of him in his pyjamas in his neighbour’s garden, saying, “If I didn’t steal it [ the property], someone else will”, went viral two weeks ago. (“I am getting a lot of flak for that,” Fauci admitted.)
A religious student turned settler, Fauci has become the face of the dispute — he has been to the hospital twice, hit by rocks, but says he still enjoys living on the street. With the force of Israeli law behind him, he is sure he will one day have the rest of Kurd’s house.
“This is the entire story of this country — when people lose multiple wars, they don’t get to set the conditions of surrender. You lost the war, you pay the price,” he said. “All of this needs to be Jewish — we don’t believe in East Jerusalem and west Jerusalem. Jews have a mitzvah [religious commandment] to settle everywhere in the land of Israel.”
https://www.ft.com/content/830e05ed-...c-265c41f79546
سيف الله
05-29-2021, 11:59 PM
Salaam
More commentary.
Al-Quds Al-Sharīf, Al-Aqsa, and the Ibn al-‘Alqamī of our Time
Throughout Islamic history, treachery in the ummah has caused more damage than any external factor. A pertinent example here is that of the Caliphate in Baghdad. The Caliph Musta’ṣim (d. 656 AH) had appointed Muwayyad al-Dīn Muhammad bin al-‘Alqamī as the prime minister. Ibn al-‘Alqamī, who had secretly allied with the Mongols, led changes that resulted in a dwindled standing army, and soldiers’ allowances and promotions withheld. Islam and the Muslims had been reduced to a token, helpless status.
When the Mongols descended, a devastation was wrought through the Islamic world the likes of which it had never experienced before. Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī records that Hulagu received the Caliph in his tent whilst Ibn al-‘Alqamī arranged for the Islamic scholars and dignitaries to be in attendance to witness a purported agreement between the two. All were put to the sword.[1]
Ibn al-‘Alqamī, along with other traitors, facilitated the destruction of the Islamic world.
History such as this is worth recalling as we observe the replete violations taking place in and around Masjid Al-Aqsa, the destruction being wrought in Gaza, and the ethnic cleansing taking place in Sheikh Jarrah. At the time of writing, the death toll in the Gaza has risen to 248, including 66 children and 39 women. At least 1,948 people have been injured. The Zionist forces have violently attacked Masjid Al-Aqsa twice.
Whilst much of the focus has been the Zionist entity and its juvenile belligerency, the question we wish to focus on here is, why do the Zionists feel so emboldened that it feels it can shred the hearts over 1.8 billion Muslim repeatedly, with impunity? Why has the already arrogant Zionist state bolstered its arrogance to the extent that it can mock the Muslims using verses of the Qur’ān?
Of course, Israel has the backing of Western governments. US President Joe Biden’s administration has approved $735 million weapons sale to Israel, repeatedly blocked attempts to reach a ceasefire to prevent the killing of Palestinians, whilst making vacuous announcements to help fund redevelopment in Gaza. Meanwhile, the UK spinelessly and amorally remained silent when worshippers in Al-Aqsa were being attacked by Zionist forces and forced evictions of Palestinian families were taking place in Shaykh Jarrah, but remembered to play their broken record on loudspeaker to “condemn Hamas”, and profess the occupying forces illusory right to self-defence, when the Palestinians eventually responded with rocket fire.
However, this has always been the case. The heightened, maniacal zeal with which Al-Aqsa is attacked twice – once triggering the set of events and then again after agreeing a ceasefire – points to other treacherous actors inside the Islamic world.
To better understand what is happening in the Middle East – and indeed beyond this – one needs to understand the machinations that have taken place between the Arab rulers such as Mohammad bin Zayed (MBZ) of UAE, and the Zionist state over the past several years.
MBZ
In 2011, Mohammed Morsi became Egypt’s first democratically elected leader. Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Sisi were not happy with this development. For Israel, it was Morsi’s potential support for Hamas through the common thread of the Muslim Brotherhood. But the Muslim Brotherhood is something that, for obvious reasons, also did not sit well with the Arab leaders. MBZ had reportedly called US defence secretary Chuck Hagel and pointedly told him that the Muslim Brotherhood was “the most dangerous element afoot in the Middle East today,” backing the military takeover that occurred in 2013. UAE’s ambassador to the US, Yusuf Otaiba, posited UAE as the antidote to “extremism” and lobbied US officials to back the dictator Hosni Mubarak.
The military takeover by Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi was brutal. In response to the ensuing protests against the coup, which saw the largest sit-in in Rabaa al-Adaweya Square in the northern Cairo district of Nasr City, Egyptian security forces systematically killed more than 1500 people over multiple mass killings.
Sisi needed a PR fix. In 2014, it was reported that Tony Blair, who is close to MBZ and who shares his view on the Muslim Brotherhood as “extremists”, provided his expertise to polish Sisi’s image and reform the Egyptian economy under a plan that had been paid for by the UAE. Indeed, in this regard, the UAE formed a shadow government in Egypt, and continues to sustain it with billions of dollars of support.
Three years later, Otaiba was selling both Sisi and Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to Project for the New American Century signatory Elliot Abrams, again, as the solution to terrorism.
The aligning interests on the Muslim Brotherhood were bolstered with long posited alignment on Iran. According to a 2009 Wikileaks cable from Israeli Foreign Ministry official Yacov Hadas to the Gulf States (including UAE), the “Gulf Arabs believe in Israel’s role because of their perception of Israel’s close relationship with the U.S. but also due to their sense that they can count on Israel against Iran”. Iran’s nuclear programme was required to centre the discussion when considering a trilateral US-Israel-GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) partnership.
Interestingly, according to the cable, it was suggested that the Palestine-Israel issue should not be the sole consideration: “it should not be the sum total of Israel’s relations with the Arab World.” This latter aspect is particularly relevant when we come to shine a light MBZ and Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) view of Palestine.
Pertinent at this point is that the UAE was already engaged in “under the table” trade and security deals with Israel, including the implementation of an Israeli “internet of things”-based mass surveillance system in Abu Dhabi which was approved by MBZ. The diversification of interests governing relations with Israel was already happening under MBZ.
Trump and Kushner
With the ascendancy of Donald Trump as US President and the introduction of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, what was occurring behind the scenes was formalised through what is now known as the “Abraham Accords” (discussed further below). Whilst much has been made by Trump as the man behind the wheeling and dealing, it appears Trump has been simply regurgitating MBZ’s view of the Middle East.
According to Hubbard, MBZ had already spelled out his position to several American officials at his mansion in McLean, Viginia, in 2015.[2] Otaiba met with Kushner and “struck up a friendship that allowed Otaiba to pass along the Emirati view of the Middle East”. This view saw Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood as the key threats.[3]
Kushner, it should be noted, is close (perhaps a little too close) to both Israel and the Netanyahus:
“Kushner had little experience with the broader Middle East, but knew a lot about Israel. His relatives had donated to Jewish causes, and when he was young, his father had paid Benjamin Netanyahu tospeak in New Jersey a number of times. The long time Israeli prime minister was so close with the Kushners, in fact, that Jared once gave up his bedroom so Netanyahu could sleep in his bed.”
By late 2015, MBZ had posited the “outside-in-plan” on Palestine to American diplomats: UAE, combined with a “new Saudi leadership” could bring the Palestinians around to some new agreement. This, as it turns, would become Trump’s “deal of the century”, which we will turn to later.
Following closely to what Hadas had stated in the 2009 Wikileaks cable in terms of multiplying the planes of relations with Israel, UAE deepened its ties with Israel.
In 2017, Otaiba’s hacked emails showed that UAE was growing its relationship with the pro-Israel, neoconservative think tank called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). The FDD’s positions have “closely tracked those of the Likud party and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—not just on the Iran deal, but on the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the desirability of a two-state solution.”
The think tank has also been funded by Sheldon Adelson, a friend of Netanyahu, AIPAC financier, and someone who has organised the suppression of pro-Palestinian activism. The emails showed scheduled meetings between the FDD and UAE officials, including MBZ, to discuss UAE policies on Iran and associated policies including, “political, economic, military, intelligence, and cyber tools.”
The Sell-Out of the Century
MBZ’s outside-in-approach to Palestine emerged fully in January 2020, with the Trump administration touting their Middle East “peace plan” as the “deal of the century”. The deal, which only demonstrated Kushner’s Likudnik thinking, was roundly rejected as a farce.
The disarmed “Palestinian state” consisted of separated enclaves connected by tunnels and bridges operated under Israeli oversight, with airspace and Palestinian border security controlled by the Zionists. This was to be conditional on Palestinians accepting Israel’s right to conduct “security operations” in purported Palestinian State territories. Meanwhile, 87% of the West Bank territory currently stolen by the Israelis would be annexed to the Zionist state and Palestinian communities living in Israel would be transferred into the Palestinian State territories. Palestinian refugees would have to abdicate their right of return.
To cap off the stupidity, the plan further proposed that Jerusalem would be the undivided capital of Israel, and Palestinians could make up their own capital in the eastern part of Shuafat and Abu Dis, 1.6km east of the Old City of Jerusalem, and name it “Al-Quds”.
This was no peace plan. This was religious, territorial, and cultural cleansing. To borrow David Fromkin’s book title, it was a “peace” to end all peace.
And the UAE has been on the ground doing what it can to surreptitiously facilitate Kushner’s plan.
In 2018, the veteran Palestinian negotiator Saeb Ereket said that the so-called “deal” was already being implemented. This seemed to be affirmed by a 2019 Al-Jazeera investigation. Jewish settlers are feverishly trying to buy their way into ethnic cleaning East Jerusalem, with staunch resistance from Palestinians. Al-Jazeera, however found that the UAE, with help from corrupt Palestinian Authority officials, was circumventing this Palestinian resistance by acting as a middleman to sell Palestinians homes to Jewish settlers.
If this is not betrayal of the highest order, then nothing is.
At this point, it is worth pointing out that Kushner’s proposal did not only receive full financial support and backing from MBZ. This support and backing also came from MBS.
“Israelis are not killing Saudis”
Anyone even remotely keeping an eye on developments in Saudi Arabia will know that MBS is not exactly divergent from what has been thus far outlined about MBZ. His modernisation programme closely imitates what MBZ is doing.
This is not surprising at all given MBS is MBZ’s protégé, with the former absorbing the latter’s view of the Middle East.[5]
In 2015, when MBZ had invited American officials to a lunch at his mansion in Virginia, he made it clear he was backing MBS against MBS’s cousin and then Saudi crown-prince, Mohammed bin Nayef. As Hubbard says, “MBZ was personally taking MBS under his wing as the future of Saudi Arabia”.[6]
During 2015/6, when Otaiba was proposing the UAE view on the Middle East and the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, he also promoted MBS “as the future of Saudi Arabia”, stating to Kushner that he was “incredibly impressive”.[7] MBZ flew into New York in December 2016 for talks with Kushner about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. According to Hubbard, MBZ also put in a good word for MBS.
Palestine, quite simply, is not on the list of concerns for MBS. If it is, then it is because he views the issue as a hindrance for his broader objectives. There is no “emotional attachment” with Palestine, here. According to Hubbard, Rob Malley, a senior White House official in the Obama administration said that MBS considered the Palestine issue an “annoying irritant—a problem to be overcome rather than a conflict to be fairly resolved.”[8]
In contrast, for MBS, “Israel is not our enemy” because “Israelis are not killing Saudis”.[9] Rather, the Zionist entity is seen by MBS as an opportunity that can only be fully realised if there is some type of “peace plan” devised. Asked about how he viewed Israel in terms of interests in 2018, MBS stated quite bluntly:
“Israel is a big economy compared to their size and it’s a growing economy, and of course there are a lot of interests we share with Israel and if there is peace, there would be a lot of interest between Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and countries like Egypt and Jordan.”
“Peace”, would be vehicle for more open economic and security relationships with Israel, driving the Zionist stake deeper into the heart of Islam. And it seems the disgraceful “deal of the century” was the “peace” pitch.
In 2019, it was reported by the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar that MBS had explained the details of the Kushner “peace plan” to President Abbas and proceeded to offer him $10 billion over ten years to accept it.
Abbas reportedly refused.
Abraham Accords
The 2020 Abraham Accords formalised the tight relationship that had been groomed by Israel and secretly delivered by MBZ. Soon after the Accord’s signing before the White House, it was ratified by the Zionist government.
The Accord has been largely promoted as “normalisation” of relations, and in the words of UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed, a “Peace Accord”. However, for Muslims, the situation is an abnormal cover to further private interests and protect despotic rule, all at the treacherous expense of the Palestinians.
When Abdullah bin Zayed gave his speech about the Accord, he gave his thanks to Netanyahu for “halting the annexation of the Palestinian territories”. This was used in an attempt to placate concerns that deals were being made whilst the Palestinian issue remained.
Indeed, this was confirmed by Joel C. Rosenberg, the editor-in-chief of http://www.allarab.news. Rosenberg said MBZ had told him in 2018 that the “normalisation” with Israel was closer than expected and stopping the annexation was nothing but a reason “for presenting this agreement to the Arab people”.
This is precisely why when Kushner was asked how long Israel would cease its annexations, he replied:
“Somewhere between a long time and a short time. That’s what temporary means”.
The US ambassador to Israel David Melech Friedman also further clarified that the issue “could be revisited”. From the outset then, this condition was a ruse to sell the abnormalisation of relations with Israel to the wider Muslim populace, whilst protecting Netanyahu’s reputation in the Zionist entity.
The effects of the deal became manifest in the same year, with MBZ following Trump’s 2018 decision to withdraw all funding of UNRWA – the agency supporting Palestinian refugees who were displaced by Zionists during the 1948 war – and massively reducing its funding.
The Israelis knew full well what such a deal would mean for them. Netanyahu boasted on Twitter saying, “This is the approach I have driven for years: making peace is possible without turning over territories, without dividing Jerusalem, without endangering our future.”
The abnormalisation sends a message of Zionist impunity, which has only been demonstrated to maximum effect in recent weeks. At the same time, the Accord establishes a portal for Zionist influence into the rest of the Arab world and beyond.
In all of this, the Palestinian position is drastically weakened, leaving the beleaguered Palestinians without any political leverage.
MBS and Abnormalisation?
Whilst other treacherous Arab states (Sudan, Oman, Bahrain, and Morocco) have allowed their countries to be prostituted to Israel’s agenda, MBS’s Saudi Arabia remains the exception. For the likes of Kushner (see video of Kushner, here), Saudi is the golden prize for Israel, as the country is the “custodian of the two holy sites”. Abnormalisation between Israel and Saudi, the theory appears to go, would mean broader acceptance across the Muslim world. But thus far, such a formal tie has not been forthcoming, mainly due to MBS’s fear of fatal backlash.
The reality, however, is that MBS, like MBZ, has furtively fostered close ties with Israel.
Security cooperation (and hiring Israeli hackers to spy on dissidents) with Israel, courtesy of MBZ, is already an open secret. However, this is not the only type of underhanded cooperation taking place.
MBS’s Vision 2030 seeks to reduce economic dependency on oil through diversification, economic reform and the building of a tech hub city called Neom (Tabuk province, near Egypt/Israel). As part of these initiatives, Saudi has been working with Israelis through its private sector on “all kinds of cooperation on water, energy, ag-tech, foodtech”. As already outlined above, for MBS, these are just some of the interests he shares with the Zionist entity at the expense of the Palestinians.
Diplomatic relations between Saudis and Israelis have also continued under the radar.
In late 2020, the Israelis leaked information about a meeting between MBS and Netanyahu in Neom city, much to Saudi irritation. In the same year, MBS reportedly told Haim Saban that if he were to establish formal relations with Israel, he would be “killed by Iran, Qatar and my own people.” Whilst much of the reporting focused on this, the real question to be asked is why MBS was meeting someone like Saban in the first place.
As covered elsewhere, Saban, whose sole focus is Israel, has funded the Tony Blair Faith Foundation (now renamed Tony Blair – Institute for Global Change), which advocates draconian, anti-Islam counter-extremism policies. In the past, Saban effectively argued for a suspension of civil liberties when he called for the profiling of Muslim immigrants (he later claimed he “misspoke”). He has also previously joined with Sheldon Adelson (financier of the neocon FDD think-tank courted by Otaiba in 2017) on pro-Israel causes. Adelson has declared that Palestinians are “an invented people.”
Quite the individual to be having a banter with.
Formal recognition or not, MBS is doing in private what MBZ is now doing in public.
As a Foreign Policy article notes
“Arab propagandists claim there is an inherent connection between so-called political correctness and a tendency to downplay ideologies that lead to terrorism—claims that are seized on by Western conservatives to legitimize their own arguments.”
This chimes with the neocon playbook. Douglas Murray, for example, wrote over a decade and half ago:
“Cowed by political correctness, Dutch reporters stated not that the groups were Islamists, but that they were “Moroccans” as if their nationality and not their religion was the nub of the matter.”[10]
A response focussing on national identity was linked by Murray to political correctness, whilst focusing on the Islamic identity was the solution in the finest Clash of Civilisations tradition. What this narrative has enabled, of course, is a legitimisation of anti-Muslim discrimination through securitisation.
However, consorting with neocons and promoting neocon narratives on Muslims is only the beginning.
Whilst UAE’s fingerprints are all over the rejuvenation of Marine LePenn’s far-right party in France, MBS has been courting the far-right bloc of the European Parliament.
In the UK context, it is worth recalling that the UAE was behind the 2015/6 Muslim Brotherhood “review” declaring them “extremists”. In 2016, it was also revealed that the UAE paid a London-based public relations firm connected to an associate of David Cameron millions of pounds to lead attacks in the UK against Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other opponents of the Gulf state. Those connected to the PR firm who were hell-bent on portraying the Brotherhood as “extremists”, were passing information to the discredited Islamophobic journalist, Andrew Gilligan, who duly churned them out into his propaganda articles.
The image that comes into focus shows MBZ, and his ventriloquised props in the form of MBS et al, are not only granting Israel a pass at the expense of Al-Quds and Al-Aqsa, but also have a repressive hand in the constricting state of Muslims globally.
The situation briefly sketched out above is bad enough, but it is certainly not the only attack vector against Muslim ummah emerging from MBZ.
Despite MBS fronting the war in Yemen – a human catastrophe which has cost 233,000 lives, 3000 of which are children – it was MBZ who first sought to sell the war to Washington. MBZ’s hand has startlingly been behind Bashar Al-Assad’s brutal crackdown in Syria: in 2012, MBZ agreed to provide $3 million to the Syrian regime to recommence fighting in Idlib which was the subject of a ceasefire at the time. In 2020, it was reported that the UAE was not only financing the Syrian dictator but providing logistical support and training to the Syrian regime’s intelligence officers who are thought to be behind the torture and murder of more than 100,000 detainees.
In the South Asian region, MBZ has been extending and deepening his tentacles of support to the supremacist Hindutva Modi government with pacts and oil deals – the same government that continues to subjugate the Muslims of Kashmir and fosters a climate in which Muslims are lynched on mere accusations of eating cow meat.
The same seems to be happening with Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government in Bangladesh. Earlier this year, Al-Jazeera’s Investigative Unit revealed that Bangladesh had purchased Israeli surveillance equipment in 2018, whilst Bangladeshi military intelligence officers were trained in Hungary by Israeli intelligence experts. Then, in 2019, reports surfaced that $10 billion worth of investment had been pledged by UAE investors to help fuel the economic growth of Bangladesh.
The effect is the materialisation of what Fluer Hassan-Nahoum – Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem and co-founder of the of the UAE – Israel Business Council – stated when the Abraham Accords were announced in October 2020:
“On the Israeli side… the UAE can be a gateway to the East…”
Soon after this year’s destruction of Gaza, Bangladesh lifted the ban on travel to Israel.
Concluding Remarks
“Peace deals” are meant to establish some semblance of stability in the region. However, how can stability in a region be maintained when you covet and nurture a state that behaves likes a psychotic murderer hell-bent on destruction who has been handed a stash of high-powered weapons?
Whether it is lobbing stun grenades and firing rubber bullets at worshippers inside the Al-Aqsa masjid, or dropping bombs onto one of the most densely populated pieces of land on earth. Israel, in every sense, is a terrorist state.
But what if such a terrorist state now also appears to be growing its nuclear arsenal?
According to the Guardian, the Zionist entity is expanding its Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev desert, where it has historically made the fissile material for its nuclear arsenal. Maintaining the trend of hypocrisy, there are zero demands by the West for Israel to open its nuclear programme for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
This situation only adds to the threat posed to the Muslim world from whom Al-Quds is being stolen. Due to the conniving conspiracies of Mohammed Bin Zayed that have thus far only reinforced Israel, Palestine, Al-Aqsa, and Muslims generally are more vulnerable than they have ever been in recent history.
UAE’s collusion with the US and the Zionist entity under the guise of “normalisation” has resulted in a chain of further “normalisations” by Bahrain, Sudan, Oman, and Morocco.
Whilst the aims of these Arab states are materialistic, Israel has got what it has always pined for.
As Gaza was being bombarded; as the Palestinians resisted their own ethnic cleansing in Sheikh Jarrah; as Al-Aqsa was being violated by Zionist gangs; as Palestinian children were being arrested; these Arab states remained muzzled. Au contraire, in what appeared to be a state-backed response according to the Guardian, the hashtag “Palestine is not my cause” circulated in the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait during the attacks in Gaza.
Yet the Sacred Sanctuary continues to be attacked post-ceasefire, underwriting the view that the Kushner “peace plan” is already being implemented on the ground.
The duplicitous treachery reaches its pinnacle with MBZ’s latest hypocrisy-laden performance. The man who was co-conspiring to hand Al-Aqsa on a platter to the Zionists and eject the Palestinians from their own land, is now offering to play a role in peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians. As Allah says,
“When it is said to them, “Do not spread disorder on the earth”, they say, “We are only putting things right.” Beware, it is, in fact, they who spread disorder, but they are not aware of it.” (Al-Qur’ān, 2:12)
However, there is a hidden wisdom in how the situation in Palestine has reached its zenith in the month of Ramadan, for nothing occurs without Divine Decree. These schemes are well within the Plan of Allah.
Muslim globally are placing aside their squabbles aside and asserting their spiritual link to Masjid Al-Aqsa. A loud message is being sent to both the Zionists and their collaborators that Al-Quds is not just a piece of land that can be traded or colonised, but an embedded part of the hearts of over a billion Muslims.
Those who have embarked on the Emirati ship will find it sinking at the first sight of a Palestinian Intifada (in shā’Allah). Until then, the Muslim world needs to know who is at the centre of the conspiracy to harm the Muslim world.
The turmoil around Al-Aqsa has revealed the ropes that tie down a tent constituted of connected agendas and events. Palestinian men, women and children, and the broader ummah that is facing “counter-extremism” agendas and deformation of Islam projects that ultimately seek to separate the centrality Al-Quds from our hearts, are being led into this tent by the Ibn al-‘Alqamī of our time: Mohammed bin Zayed.
Recent reports indicate a similar pattern occurring in Indonesia.
Turning to the US and Europe, both MBZ and MBS have taken advantage of the neocon War on Terror language of “fighting terrorism” to fuel the “normalisation” of anti-Muslim policies in the West. This ultimately helps justify, or at least deflect their own domestic repression, murdering and torture.
UAE, Saudi and Egypt all have made it their central strategic plank to blame “ideology” (be it Sunni or Shi’i) and promote deformation of Islam (as was the case with Sisi in 2015) much to the affection of the far right and warmongering US neoconservatives who posit Islam as the problem.
https://coolnessofhind.wordpress.com...i-of-our-time/
ReplyMore commentary.
Al-Quds Al-Sharīf, Al-Aqsa, and the Ibn al-‘Alqamī of our Time
Throughout Islamic history, treachery in the ummah has caused more damage than any external factor. A pertinent example here is that of the Caliphate in Baghdad. The Caliph Musta’ṣim (d. 656 AH) had appointed Muwayyad al-Dīn Muhammad bin al-‘Alqamī as the prime minister. Ibn al-‘Alqamī, who had secretly allied with the Mongols, led changes that resulted in a dwindled standing army, and soldiers’ allowances and promotions withheld. Islam and the Muslims had been reduced to a token, helpless status.
When the Mongols descended, a devastation was wrought through the Islamic world the likes of which it had never experienced before. Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī records that Hulagu received the Caliph in his tent whilst Ibn al-‘Alqamī arranged for the Islamic scholars and dignitaries to be in attendance to witness a purported agreement between the two. All were put to the sword.[1]
Ibn al-‘Alqamī, along with other traitors, facilitated the destruction of the Islamic world.
History such as this is worth recalling as we observe the replete violations taking place in and around Masjid Al-Aqsa, the destruction being wrought in Gaza, and the ethnic cleansing taking place in Sheikh Jarrah. At the time of writing, the death toll in the Gaza has risen to 248, including 66 children and 39 women. At least 1,948 people have been injured. The Zionist forces have violently attacked Masjid Al-Aqsa twice.
Whilst much of the focus has been the Zionist entity and its juvenile belligerency, the question we wish to focus on here is, why do the Zionists feel so emboldened that it feels it can shred the hearts over 1.8 billion Muslim repeatedly, with impunity? Why has the already arrogant Zionist state bolstered its arrogance to the extent that it can mock the Muslims using verses of the Qur’ān?
Of course, Israel has the backing of Western governments. US President Joe Biden’s administration has approved $735 million weapons sale to Israel, repeatedly blocked attempts to reach a ceasefire to prevent the killing of Palestinians, whilst making vacuous announcements to help fund redevelopment in Gaza. Meanwhile, the UK spinelessly and amorally remained silent when worshippers in Al-Aqsa were being attacked by Zionist forces and forced evictions of Palestinian families were taking place in Shaykh Jarrah, but remembered to play their broken record on loudspeaker to “condemn Hamas”, and profess the occupying forces illusory right to self-defence, when the Palestinians eventually responded with rocket fire.
However, this has always been the case. The heightened, maniacal zeal with which Al-Aqsa is attacked twice – once triggering the set of events and then again after agreeing a ceasefire – points to other treacherous actors inside the Islamic world.
To better understand what is happening in the Middle East – and indeed beyond this – one needs to understand the machinations that have taken place between the Arab rulers such as Mohammad bin Zayed (MBZ) of UAE, and the Zionist state over the past several years.
MBZ
In 2011, Mohammed Morsi became Egypt’s first democratically elected leader. Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Sisi were not happy with this development. For Israel, it was Morsi’s potential support for Hamas through the common thread of the Muslim Brotherhood. But the Muslim Brotherhood is something that, for obvious reasons, also did not sit well with the Arab leaders. MBZ had reportedly called US defence secretary Chuck Hagel and pointedly told him that the Muslim Brotherhood was “the most dangerous element afoot in the Middle East today,” backing the military takeover that occurred in 2013. UAE’s ambassador to the US, Yusuf Otaiba, posited UAE as the antidote to “extremism” and lobbied US officials to back the dictator Hosni Mubarak.
The military takeover by Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi was brutal. In response to the ensuing protests against the coup, which saw the largest sit-in in Rabaa al-Adaweya Square in the northern Cairo district of Nasr City, Egyptian security forces systematically killed more than 1500 people over multiple mass killings.
Sisi needed a PR fix. In 2014, it was reported that Tony Blair, who is close to MBZ and who shares his view on the Muslim Brotherhood as “extremists”, provided his expertise to polish Sisi’s image and reform the Egyptian economy under a plan that had been paid for by the UAE. Indeed, in this regard, the UAE formed a shadow government in Egypt, and continues to sustain it with billions of dollars of support.
Three years later, Otaiba was selling both Sisi and Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to Project for the New American Century signatory Elliot Abrams, again, as the solution to terrorism.
The aligning interests on the Muslim Brotherhood were bolstered with long posited alignment on Iran. According to a 2009 Wikileaks cable from Israeli Foreign Ministry official Yacov Hadas to the Gulf States (including UAE), the “Gulf Arabs believe in Israel’s role because of their perception of Israel’s close relationship with the U.S. but also due to their sense that they can count on Israel against Iran”. Iran’s nuclear programme was required to centre the discussion when considering a trilateral US-Israel-GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) partnership.
Interestingly, according to the cable, it was suggested that the Palestine-Israel issue should not be the sole consideration: “it should not be the sum total of Israel’s relations with the Arab World.” This latter aspect is particularly relevant when we come to shine a light MBZ and Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) view of Palestine.
Pertinent at this point is that the UAE was already engaged in “under the table” trade and security deals with Israel, including the implementation of an Israeli “internet of things”-based mass surveillance system in Abu Dhabi which was approved by MBZ. The diversification of interests governing relations with Israel was already happening under MBZ.
Trump and Kushner
With the ascendancy of Donald Trump as US President and the introduction of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, what was occurring behind the scenes was formalised through what is now known as the “Abraham Accords” (discussed further below). Whilst much has been made by Trump as the man behind the wheeling and dealing, it appears Trump has been simply regurgitating MBZ’s view of the Middle East.
According to Hubbard, MBZ had already spelled out his position to several American officials at his mansion in McLean, Viginia, in 2015.[2] Otaiba met with Kushner and “struck up a friendship that allowed Otaiba to pass along the Emirati view of the Middle East”. This view saw Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood as the key threats.[3]
Kushner, it should be noted, is close (perhaps a little too close) to both Israel and the Netanyahus:
“Kushner had little experience with the broader Middle East, but knew a lot about Israel. His relatives had donated to Jewish causes, and when he was young, his father had paid Benjamin Netanyahu tospeak in New Jersey a number of times. The long time Israeli prime minister was so close with the Kushners, in fact, that Jared once gave up his bedroom so Netanyahu could sleep in his bed.”
By late 2015, MBZ had posited the “outside-in-plan” on Palestine to American diplomats: UAE, combined with a “new Saudi leadership” could bring the Palestinians around to some new agreement. This, as it turns, would become Trump’s “deal of the century”, which we will turn to later.
Following closely to what Hadas had stated in the 2009 Wikileaks cable in terms of multiplying the planes of relations with Israel, UAE deepened its ties with Israel.
In 2017, Otaiba’s hacked emails showed that UAE was growing its relationship with the pro-Israel, neoconservative think tank called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). The FDD’s positions have “closely tracked those of the Likud party and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—not just on the Iran deal, but on the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the desirability of a two-state solution.”
The think tank has also been funded by Sheldon Adelson, a friend of Netanyahu, AIPAC financier, and someone who has organised the suppression of pro-Palestinian activism. The emails showed scheduled meetings between the FDD and UAE officials, including MBZ, to discuss UAE policies on Iran and associated policies including, “political, economic, military, intelligence, and cyber tools.”
The Sell-Out of the Century
MBZ’s outside-in-approach to Palestine emerged fully in January 2020, with the Trump administration touting their Middle East “peace plan” as the “deal of the century”. The deal, which only demonstrated Kushner’s Likudnik thinking, was roundly rejected as a farce.
The disarmed “Palestinian state” consisted of separated enclaves connected by tunnels and bridges operated under Israeli oversight, with airspace and Palestinian border security controlled by the Zionists. This was to be conditional on Palestinians accepting Israel’s right to conduct “security operations” in purported Palestinian State territories. Meanwhile, 87% of the West Bank territory currently stolen by the Israelis would be annexed to the Zionist state and Palestinian communities living in Israel would be transferred into the Palestinian State territories. Palestinian refugees would have to abdicate their right of return.
To cap off the stupidity, the plan further proposed that Jerusalem would be the undivided capital of Israel, and Palestinians could make up their own capital in the eastern part of Shuafat and Abu Dis, 1.6km east of the Old City of Jerusalem, and name it “Al-Quds”.
This was no peace plan. This was religious, territorial, and cultural cleansing. To borrow David Fromkin’s book title, it was a “peace” to end all peace.
And the UAE has been on the ground doing what it can to surreptitiously facilitate Kushner’s plan.
In 2018, the veteran Palestinian negotiator Saeb Ereket said that the so-called “deal” was already being implemented. This seemed to be affirmed by a 2019 Al-Jazeera investigation. Jewish settlers are feverishly trying to buy their way into ethnic cleaning East Jerusalem, with staunch resistance from Palestinians. Al-Jazeera, however found that the UAE, with help from corrupt Palestinian Authority officials, was circumventing this Palestinian resistance by acting as a middleman to sell Palestinians homes to Jewish settlers.
If this is not betrayal of the highest order, then nothing is.
At this point, it is worth pointing out that Kushner’s proposal did not only receive full financial support and backing from MBZ. This support and backing also came from MBS.
“Israelis are not killing Saudis”
Anyone even remotely keeping an eye on developments in Saudi Arabia will know that MBS is not exactly divergent from what has been thus far outlined about MBZ. His modernisation programme closely imitates what MBZ is doing.
This is not surprising at all given MBS is MBZ’s protégé, with the former absorbing the latter’s view of the Middle East.[5]
In 2015, when MBZ had invited American officials to a lunch at his mansion in Virginia, he made it clear he was backing MBS against MBS’s cousin and then Saudi crown-prince, Mohammed bin Nayef. As Hubbard says, “MBZ was personally taking MBS under his wing as the future of Saudi Arabia”.[6]
During 2015/6, when Otaiba was proposing the UAE view on the Middle East and the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, he also promoted MBS “as the future of Saudi Arabia”, stating to Kushner that he was “incredibly impressive”.[7] MBZ flew into New York in December 2016 for talks with Kushner about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. According to Hubbard, MBZ also put in a good word for MBS.
Palestine, quite simply, is not on the list of concerns for MBS. If it is, then it is because he views the issue as a hindrance for his broader objectives. There is no “emotional attachment” with Palestine, here. According to Hubbard, Rob Malley, a senior White House official in the Obama administration said that MBS considered the Palestine issue an “annoying irritant—a problem to be overcome rather than a conflict to be fairly resolved.”[8]
In contrast, for MBS, “Israel is not our enemy” because “Israelis are not killing Saudis”.[9] Rather, the Zionist entity is seen by MBS as an opportunity that can only be fully realised if there is some type of “peace plan” devised. Asked about how he viewed Israel in terms of interests in 2018, MBS stated quite bluntly:
“Israel is a big economy compared to their size and it’s a growing economy, and of course there are a lot of interests we share with Israel and if there is peace, there would be a lot of interest between Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and countries like Egypt and Jordan.”
“Peace”, would be vehicle for more open economic and security relationships with Israel, driving the Zionist stake deeper into the heart of Islam. And it seems the disgraceful “deal of the century” was the “peace” pitch.
In 2019, it was reported by the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar that MBS had explained the details of the Kushner “peace plan” to President Abbas and proceeded to offer him $10 billion over ten years to accept it.
Abbas reportedly refused.
Abraham Accords
The 2020 Abraham Accords formalised the tight relationship that had been groomed by Israel and secretly delivered by MBZ. Soon after the Accord’s signing before the White House, it was ratified by the Zionist government.
The Accord has been largely promoted as “normalisation” of relations, and in the words of UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed, a “Peace Accord”. However, for Muslims, the situation is an abnormal cover to further private interests and protect despotic rule, all at the treacherous expense of the Palestinians.
When Abdullah bin Zayed gave his speech about the Accord, he gave his thanks to Netanyahu for “halting the annexation of the Palestinian territories”. This was used in an attempt to placate concerns that deals were being made whilst the Palestinian issue remained.
Indeed, this was confirmed by Joel C. Rosenberg, the editor-in-chief of http://www.allarab.news. Rosenberg said MBZ had told him in 2018 that the “normalisation” with Israel was closer than expected and stopping the annexation was nothing but a reason “for presenting this agreement to the Arab people”.
This is precisely why when Kushner was asked how long Israel would cease its annexations, he replied:
“Somewhere between a long time and a short time. That’s what temporary means”.
The US ambassador to Israel David Melech Friedman also further clarified that the issue “could be revisited”. From the outset then, this condition was a ruse to sell the abnormalisation of relations with Israel to the wider Muslim populace, whilst protecting Netanyahu’s reputation in the Zionist entity.
The effects of the deal became manifest in the same year, with MBZ following Trump’s 2018 decision to withdraw all funding of UNRWA – the agency supporting Palestinian refugees who were displaced by Zionists during the 1948 war – and massively reducing its funding.
The Israelis knew full well what such a deal would mean for them. Netanyahu boasted on Twitter saying, “This is the approach I have driven for years: making peace is possible without turning over territories, without dividing Jerusalem, without endangering our future.”
The abnormalisation sends a message of Zionist impunity, which has only been demonstrated to maximum effect in recent weeks. At the same time, the Accord establishes a portal for Zionist influence into the rest of the Arab world and beyond.
In all of this, the Palestinian position is drastically weakened, leaving the beleaguered Palestinians without any political leverage.
MBS and Abnormalisation?
Whilst other treacherous Arab states (Sudan, Oman, Bahrain, and Morocco) have allowed their countries to be prostituted to Israel’s agenda, MBS’s Saudi Arabia remains the exception. For the likes of Kushner (see video of Kushner, here), Saudi is the golden prize for Israel, as the country is the “custodian of the two holy sites”. Abnormalisation between Israel and Saudi, the theory appears to go, would mean broader acceptance across the Muslim world. But thus far, such a formal tie has not been forthcoming, mainly due to MBS’s fear of fatal backlash.
The reality, however, is that MBS, like MBZ, has furtively fostered close ties with Israel.
Security cooperation (and hiring Israeli hackers to spy on dissidents) with Israel, courtesy of MBZ, is already an open secret. However, this is not the only type of underhanded cooperation taking place.
MBS’s Vision 2030 seeks to reduce economic dependency on oil through diversification, economic reform and the building of a tech hub city called Neom (Tabuk province, near Egypt/Israel). As part of these initiatives, Saudi has been working with Israelis through its private sector on “all kinds of cooperation on water, energy, ag-tech, foodtech”. As already outlined above, for MBS, these are just some of the interests he shares with the Zionist entity at the expense of the Palestinians.
Diplomatic relations between Saudis and Israelis have also continued under the radar.
In late 2020, the Israelis leaked information about a meeting between MBS and Netanyahu in Neom city, much to Saudi irritation. In the same year, MBS reportedly told Haim Saban that if he were to establish formal relations with Israel, he would be “killed by Iran, Qatar and my own people.” Whilst much of the reporting focused on this, the real question to be asked is why MBS was meeting someone like Saban in the first place.
As covered elsewhere, Saban, whose sole focus is Israel, has funded the Tony Blair Faith Foundation (now renamed Tony Blair – Institute for Global Change), which advocates draconian, anti-Islam counter-extremism policies. In the past, Saban effectively argued for a suspension of civil liberties when he called for the profiling of Muslim immigrants (he later claimed he “misspoke”). He has also previously joined with Sheldon Adelson (financier of the neocon FDD think-tank courted by Otaiba in 2017) on pro-Israel causes. Adelson has declared that Palestinians are “an invented people.”
Quite the individual to be having a banter with.
Formal recognition or not, MBS is doing in private what MBZ is now doing in public.
As a Foreign Policy article notes
“Arab propagandists claim there is an inherent connection between so-called political correctness and a tendency to downplay ideologies that lead to terrorism—claims that are seized on by Western conservatives to legitimize their own arguments.”
This chimes with the neocon playbook. Douglas Murray, for example, wrote over a decade and half ago:
“Cowed by political correctness, Dutch reporters stated not that the groups were Islamists, but that they were “Moroccans” as if their nationality and not their religion was the nub of the matter.”[10]
A response focussing on national identity was linked by Murray to political correctness, whilst focusing on the Islamic identity was the solution in the finest Clash of Civilisations tradition. What this narrative has enabled, of course, is a legitimisation of anti-Muslim discrimination through securitisation.
However, consorting with neocons and promoting neocon narratives on Muslims is only the beginning.
Whilst UAE’s fingerprints are all over the rejuvenation of Marine LePenn’s far-right party in France, MBS has been courting the far-right bloc of the European Parliament.
In the UK context, it is worth recalling that the UAE was behind the 2015/6 Muslim Brotherhood “review” declaring them “extremists”. In 2016, it was also revealed that the UAE paid a London-based public relations firm connected to an associate of David Cameron millions of pounds to lead attacks in the UK against Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other opponents of the Gulf state. Those connected to the PR firm who were hell-bent on portraying the Brotherhood as “extremists”, were passing information to the discredited Islamophobic journalist, Andrew Gilligan, who duly churned them out into his propaganda articles.
The image that comes into focus shows MBZ, and his ventriloquised props in the form of MBS et al, are not only granting Israel a pass at the expense of Al-Quds and Al-Aqsa, but also have a repressive hand in the constricting state of Muslims globally.
The situation briefly sketched out above is bad enough, but it is certainly not the only attack vector against Muslim ummah emerging from MBZ.
Despite MBS fronting the war in Yemen – a human catastrophe which has cost 233,000 lives, 3000 of which are children – it was MBZ who first sought to sell the war to Washington. MBZ’s hand has startlingly been behind Bashar Al-Assad’s brutal crackdown in Syria: in 2012, MBZ agreed to provide $3 million to the Syrian regime to recommence fighting in Idlib which was the subject of a ceasefire at the time. In 2020, it was reported that the UAE was not only financing the Syrian dictator but providing logistical support and training to the Syrian regime’s intelligence officers who are thought to be behind the torture and murder of more than 100,000 detainees.
In the South Asian region, MBZ has been extending and deepening his tentacles of support to the supremacist Hindutva Modi government with pacts and oil deals – the same government that continues to subjugate the Muslims of Kashmir and fosters a climate in which Muslims are lynched on mere accusations of eating cow meat.
The same seems to be happening with Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government in Bangladesh. Earlier this year, Al-Jazeera’s Investigative Unit revealed that Bangladesh had purchased Israeli surveillance equipment in 2018, whilst Bangladeshi military intelligence officers were trained in Hungary by Israeli intelligence experts. Then, in 2019, reports surfaced that $10 billion worth of investment had been pledged by UAE investors to help fuel the economic growth of Bangladesh.
The effect is the materialisation of what Fluer Hassan-Nahoum – Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem and co-founder of the of the UAE – Israel Business Council – stated when the Abraham Accords were announced in October 2020:
“On the Israeli side… the UAE can be a gateway to the East…”
Soon after this year’s destruction of Gaza, Bangladesh lifted the ban on travel to Israel.
Concluding Remarks
“Peace deals” are meant to establish some semblance of stability in the region. However, how can stability in a region be maintained when you covet and nurture a state that behaves likes a psychotic murderer hell-bent on destruction who has been handed a stash of high-powered weapons?
Whether it is lobbing stun grenades and firing rubber bullets at worshippers inside the Al-Aqsa masjid, or dropping bombs onto one of the most densely populated pieces of land on earth. Israel, in every sense, is a terrorist state.
But what if such a terrorist state now also appears to be growing its nuclear arsenal?
According to the Guardian, the Zionist entity is expanding its Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev desert, where it has historically made the fissile material for its nuclear arsenal. Maintaining the trend of hypocrisy, there are zero demands by the West for Israel to open its nuclear programme for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
This situation only adds to the threat posed to the Muslim world from whom Al-Quds is being stolen. Due to the conniving conspiracies of Mohammed Bin Zayed that have thus far only reinforced Israel, Palestine, Al-Aqsa, and Muslims generally are more vulnerable than they have ever been in recent history.
UAE’s collusion with the US and the Zionist entity under the guise of “normalisation” has resulted in a chain of further “normalisations” by Bahrain, Sudan, Oman, and Morocco.
Whilst the aims of these Arab states are materialistic, Israel has got what it has always pined for.
As Gaza was being bombarded; as the Palestinians resisted their own ethnic cleansing in Sheikh Jarrah; as Al-Aqsa was being violated by Zionist gangs; as Palestinian children were being arrested; these Arab states remained muzzled. Au contraire, in what appeared to be a state-backed response according to the Guardian, the hashtag “Palestine is not my cause” circulated in the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait during the attacks in Gaza.
Yet the Sacred Sanctuary continues to be attacked post-ceasefire, underwriting the view that the Kushner “peace plan” is already being implemented on the ground.
The duplicitous treachery reaches its pinnacle with MBZ’s latest hypocrisy-laden performance. The man who was co-conspiring to hand Al-Aqsa on a platter to the Zionists and eject the Palestinians from their own land, is now offering to play a role in peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians. As Allah says,
“When it is said to them, “Do not spread disorder on the earth”, they say, “We are only putting things right.” Beware, it is, in fact, they who spread disorder, but they are not aware of it.” (Al-Qur’ān, 2:12)
However, there is a hidden wisdom in how the situation in Palestine has reached its zenith in the month of Ramadan, for nothing occurs without Divine Decree. These schemes are well within the Plan of Allah.
Muslim globally are placing aside their squabbles aside and asserting their spiritual link to Masjid Al-Aqsa. A loud message is being sent to both the Zionists and their collaborators that Al-Quds is not just a piece of land that can be traded or colonised, but an embedded part of the hearts of over a billion Muslims.
Those who have embarked on the Emirati ship will find it sinking at the first sight of a Palestinian Intifada (in shā’Allah). Until then, the Muslim world needs to know who is at the centre of the conspiracy to harm the Muslim world.
The turmoil around Al-Aqsa has revealed the ropes that tie down a tent constituted of connected agendas and events. Palestinian men, women and children, and the broader ummah that is facing “counter-extremism” agendas and deformation of Islam projects that ultimately seek to separate the centrality Al-Quds from our hearts, are being led into this tent by the Ibn al-‘Alqamī of our time: Mohammed bin Zayed.
Recent reports indicate a similar pattern occurring in Indonesia.
Turning to the US and Europe, both MBZ and MBS have taken advantage of the neocon War on Terror language of “fighting terrorism” to fuel the “normalisation” of anti-Muslim policies in the West. This ultimately helps justify, or at least deflect their own domestic repression, murdering and torture.
UAE, Saudi and Egypt all have made it their central strategic plank to blame “ideology” (be it Sunni or Shi’i) and promote deformation of Islam (as was the case with Sisi in 2015) much to the affection of the far right and warmongering US neoconservatives who posit Islam as the problem.
https://coolnessofhind.wordpress.com...i-of-our-time/
سيف الله
07-01-2021, 02:47 PM
Salaam
Another update.
The Neocon War on Terror cannot be Understood without Israel
The recent events in Palestine have brought attention to the brutal actions of Zionist entity against both the people in the form of ethnic cleansing and bombardment, and their religious sanctity through the violent incursions against Masjid Al-Aqsa.
These events represent an epicentre for broader reverberations across the Islamic world, but not in the most apparent sense.
Of course, the situation in Palestine continues to cause much pain to Muslims globally despite the treacherous schemes of the likes of Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ) and Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS). In contrast to the aims of their repressive agenda, these events have rekindled the fire in the hearts of Muslims for Al-Aqsa and Palestine, both young and old.
However, the connected reverberations we are referring to, and upon which we wish to shed light upon, are ones which have been continually felt over the course of the past two decades through the War on Terror.
From extensive, repressive counterterrorism and counter-extremism frameworks to the destructive interventions in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia, the War on Terror’s engagement with Muslims and the Islamic world has been marked by a spectrum of violent modes.
The US is often seen as the initiator of this volatile shift in international relations. However, this is only a part of a complex picture that is intertwined with Muslims in more ways than one. And Israel’s role duly facilitated by neoconservatives, and consequently the Al-Quds Al-Sharif factor, are crucial.
“A Clean Break” from Sanity
To understand this picture, one needs to understand that the neoconservatives are staunchly pro-Israeli and have worked ardently to protect and project Zionist interests.
In 1996, a group of prominent neoconservatives led by Richard Perle (who was caught by the FBI disclosing classified information to Israeli officials in October 1970) produced the policy paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” for the attention of then Israeli Likud party PM Benjamin Netanyahu. This document, as well as influencing the removal of Saddam Hussein, outlined the way in which the areas of Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria could be “remade” by specifically highlighting their “weapons of mass destruction”.
In 1998, pressure was also put on the Clinton administration by neocons like Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, to oust Saddam Hussein. Many of these neocons had “close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security of America] or WINEP [The Washington Near East Policy – set up with support from AIPAC]”.[1]
JINSA has included neocons such as Perle, Michael Ledeen, Muravchik, James Woolsey, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Douglas Feith. On elaborating upon the Zionist/neoconservative roots, Ryan notes,[2]
WINEP was similarly born from pro-Israel interests facilitated by neoconservatives:
When the US had what the Project for New American Century (PNAC) neoconservatives would call a “new Pearl Harbor” in the form of 9/11, the picture presented of the Middle East to the US was an Israeli one. Israeli-US intelligence cooperation was at unprecedented levels. According to one Israeli general, “Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non‐conventional capabilities.”[4]
The USA Today, reported in late 2002 that Israel was “secretly playing a key role in U.S. preparations for possible war with Iraq, helping to train soldiers and Marines for urban warfare, conducting clandestine surveillance missions in the western Iraqi desert and allowing the United States to place combat supplies in Israel”.
Meanwhile, American neoconservatives were in full force to push the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, within the US, “a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud Party” were the “driving force” behind the Iraq war. This band of pro-Israeli neoconservatives included Scooter Libby, Bernard Lewis, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Wolfowitz who is “committed to Israel”, was described during the Bush era as the “the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the Administration”.[5] He had been an advocate of the Iraq war for decades. The Wolfowitz Doctrine was the informal name of the 1990s policy devised under then US Defense Secretary Wolfowitz by his deputy Libby, his aid Zalmay Khalilzad and with consultation with Perle, among others. The policy articulated an American imperialist unipolarity, and the doctrine of pre-emption, where threats are taken out before they emerge.
Pre-emption
With Wolfowitz taking up a key position in Bush administration, his doctrine became the Bush doctrine.
The doctrine of pre-emption undergirded both the invasion of Iraq and the counter-terror policies that were being architected in parallel. And the engine driving the terrorism smokescreen, however tenuous, was fuelled by neoconservative Israel-cheerleaders right from the inceptive period:
“On September 20, a group of prominent neoconservatives and their allies published another open letter, telling the President that “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9/11] attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.The letter also reminded Bush that, “Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism.””[6]
This threat of terrorism was hyped up at the expense of more cataclysmic threats.
In 2004, a secret report produced by the Pentagon concluded that the “threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism”. This report was suppressed by US defence chiefs amongst whom at that time was the notorious neocon and advocate of the doctrine of pre-emption in the terrorism sphere, Paul Wolfowitz. Also present during that period was the US vice president and CEO of oil field services corporation Halliburton, Dick Cheney. He lobbied for the US to leave the Kyoto protocol, an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.
Despite these machinations becoming increasingly public from the very beginning of the War on Terror, the neoconservatives have continued to operate in the realm of “security”. In recent years, this has meant lobbying by neoconservative in a political landscape that has shifted, aligning Israel with the UAE.
The “Arab Neocons”, Israel and counter-extremism
In 2017, hacked emails showed that UAE was growing its relationship with the pro-Israel, neoconservative think tank called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). FDD’s positions have followed those of the Likud party and its former leader, Netanyahu, “not just on the Iran deal, but on the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the desirability of a two-state solution.” This is hardly surprising given the think-tank “arose out of an organization committed to burnishing Israel’s reputation in the United States” and was originally set up in April 2001 by three major pro-Israel donors under the name EMET (Hebrew for “truth”).
The FDD has been important in facilitating the neoconservative worldview in the Middle East through the “Arab neocon” MBZ. In 2017, hacked emails showed scheduled meetings between the FDD and UAE officials, including MBZ, to discuss UAE policies on Iran and associated policies including, “political, economic, military, intelligence, and cyber tools.”
In the same, year, London-based Centre for Public Affairs revealed that the UAE spent around $5.3 million funding an anti-Qatar “UAE-AIPAC Conference” that aimed to prove “Qatar’s sponsorship of terrorism groups”. In addition to three pro-Israeli politicians, on the panel was Founder and Executive Director of the pro-Israeli neoconservative Henry Jackson Society (HJS – discussed further below), Alan Mendoza.
MBZ has since forged the path for the signing of the Abraham Accords: Arab “normalisation” of relations with Israel at the expense of Al-Quds and the Al-Aqsa Masjid. This was publicly acknowledged as an achievement for Israel by Netanyahu, much to the disgrace of Arab leaders:
The alignment between UAE and Israel, and neoconservatives extends to the policy of repression of any Islamic expression that professes a political slant.
In 2014, it was reported that the UAE was enlisting the services of an American consulting firm, Camstoll Group, to attack Qatar for its support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Camstoll Group consisted of neoconservatives, including notorious pro-Israeli neocon Islamophobe Steve Emerson, who used their contacts to pump anti-Qatar propaganda:
The focus of this attack has been ideological suppression through the counter-terror lingua franca.
Indeed, the UAE has been at the forefront, alongside the UK, in globally promoting the ideology-centred Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda through the Global Counterterrorism Forum on Countering Violent Extremism, Hedayah Center for CVE and the Sawab Centre. These hubs have been in turn influenced by the London-based, pro-Israeli, neoconservative Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD – we return to ISD further below).
In 2016, the UAE endorsed the highly questionable UN Resolution to Prevent Violent Extremism. Again, focussing on ideology, Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE’s permanent representative to the UN, said that the initiative should be a blueprint for coordinating efforts to “combat extremism”.
This was in synchrony with Israel’s more emphatic statements on the UN Resolution which, as we shall see further below, have been longstanding since the very inception of the War on Terror. Welcoming the UN Plan of Action, the Zionist entity stated:
This was followed a year later by MBZ’s protégé in Saudi, MBS. In line with his Vision 2030 project to promote “moderate Islam”, MBS inaugurated The Global Center for Combatting Extremist Ideology (Etidal) in Riyadh alongside then US President Donald Trump, and Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.
The project was picked up by the HJS, with its researcher Najah Al-Otaibi, praising the Vision 2030 initiative as “important”, and calling on the UK to “deepen its ties” with the Saudis and Gulf state into civil society:
The “moderate Islam”/bad Islam dichotomy is a narrative that allows for invasive, precriminal state intervention whilst eschewing scrutiny of state actions and political factors in the assessment of political violence. This is, of course, convenient for the likes of MBS, MBZ, the US and Israel. Making Islam the problem shifts the attention away from tyranny, repression and occupation.
Pertinently it is a view that has been floated by Israel from the very inception of the War on Terror.
Precrime: the Israeli view through Neocons
The precrime counter-terrorism approach which emerged in the wake of 9/11 rooted itself in a Clash of Civilisations thesis, de-emphasising political factors and focusing on ideology. This strategy was concordant with Israel’s “Huntingtonian” view of Muslims. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, former director general of the Mossad Shabtai Shavit, for example, said:
What should be noted, however, is that before 9/11, the world was forcefully reacting to the IDF’s ethnic cleansing and brutal suppression of Palestinian protests in response to Ariel Sharon’s storming of Masjid al-Aqsa with more than 1,000 heavily armed police and soldiers in the year 2000. 9/11 provided the catalyst to divert attention from political injustice and concretise the “extremist Islam is the problem” narrative.
It is not surprising to find, therefore, that those passionately advocating for pre-emptive, ideology-focused counter-terrorism policies in the UK have been, and continue to be, pro-Israeli neoconservatives.
From the earlies period of the War on Terror, neoconservative think-tanks focused their resources on propounding this view.
The Quilliam Foundation telos has been to downplay the Iraq war and focus on what was for them, “the politicization of Islam”.[8] The prominent British neoconservative and outspoken Zionist, Michael Gove, was a board member of the organisation, which disbanded earlier this year.
Gove is a useful entry-point into the heavily interconnected neocon/pro-Israel world.
The late George Weidenfeld is cited as the “inspiration” and idea for Gove’s book, Celsius 7/7, which regurgitates the Machinean Israeli worldview. Gove has called Weidenfeld a “man of great wisdom and humanity” who he is proud to call “a friend.”
Weidenfeld had been the president of the Board of Trustees for the ISD, which promotes CVE. He also happened to be a Zionist who co-signed, alongside hard-line neocons, a petition which states that, “Israeli land concessions, will never bring peace”. The petition, published by the rabidly bigoted, anti-Muslim Gatestone Institute run by the chief financier of transatlantic Muslim-hate, Nina Rosenwald, also postures a supremacist assumption, stating that “only a cultural revolution in the Arab world can achieve [peace].”
Amongst the list of editors Gove thanks “in particular”, is Daniel Finkelstein. Finkelstein is a senior Conservative peer who was the editor of the Times, as well as chairman of the right-wing, neoconservative London think-tank, Policy Exchange.
Gove founded Policy Exchange in 2002 and has postured a securitised view of Islam and Muslims since.
The think-tank is notorious for fabricating receipts to prove “extremist” material was being sold in masajid. The report, which used these fabricated receipts, was authored by anti-Islam Denis MacEoin who has been on record to state that he has very “negative feelings” about Islam.
In 2008, the then chairman of Policy Exchange mooted the idea of a blacklist of Muslim organisations deemed extremist as a “possible approach to the question of Islam in Britain”.
Pertinently, the think-tank, through its former research director Dean Godson, was strongly influential in the development of the PREVENT counter-extremism strategy. Godson is a neoconservative who called for the revival of Cold War era techniques in the War on Terror.[9]
The transatlantic, neocon/pro-Israeli War on Terror network
The American neoconservative influences and connections are also present in the Policy Exchange.
During the 1980s Godson served as a Special Assistant to the US Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman. Lehman would go onto to become a signatory for the war-mongering neoconservative think-tank founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC.
The American neocon and war-advocate David Frum has called Godson his “friend”. Frum is also the Chairman of the board of trustees for Policy Exchange. He was the speechwriter for Bush, the author of the infamous “Axis of Evil” claim in Bush’s 2002 State of Union address and co-author of the book An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Frum wrote this book with fellow neocon Perle.
Many of the names of these American neoconservatives are also relevant to the HJS, a leading exponent of repressive War on Terror policies in the UK. Its international patrons include Kagan, Kristol, Muravchik, Perle, and Woolsey.
According to a 2015 report by Spinwatch,
Pertinent here is that the Eranda Foundation, which has funded the HJS, has also funded the UK Friends of the City of David, the British-based branch of the Ir David Foundation, commonly known as Elad.
Elad, one of Israel’s wealthiest nonprofits, is a Jewish settler organisation which works to “Judaise” occupied East Jerusalem. The fanatical group has been behind the recent ethnic cleansing taking place in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan.
Despite these foreign influences and connections, the HJS works parasitically within the corridors of power.
In 2020, it was revealed by Declassified that the Home Office was financing the HJS to report on “UK connections to Islamist terrorism”. The HJS also funded the current Home Secretary Priti Patel’s trip to Washington DC to be a “delegate” at a forum organised by Israel lobby group AIPAC.
These dubious moves in pursuit of Zionist interests are per form, especially when one considers how the HJS has driven a McCarthyist approach for the Government in relation to Muslims.
In September 2015, we published a piece on a Number 10 press statement which announced the duty to stop “extremists” radicalising on campuses. In the release, they “named and shamed” universities and Muslim activists for allowing “extremists” on campus and being “extremists”, respectively. The Home Office-based Extremism Analysis Unit (EAU) was used to determine the list of “extremists”. We demonstrated that the government lifted chunks of its press release from a dubious report published by the Student Rights organisations, a project of the HJS. This was confirmed in the 2017 Salman Butt case in which the Home Office admitted it was uncritically relying on information provided by the HJS to smear Muslim activists and speakers.
Recent reports have revealed other facets of the neocon-Israel nexus:
Gove, counter-extremism, and Palestine
Given the above nexus, it is not surprising to find Gove’s statements and actions all favour Israel, whilst also hyping up the fear of “Islamist extremism”.
In 2011, Gove intervened and shutdown school workshops celebrating Palestinian literature and human rights via his Department’s Prevention of Extremism Unit. This was found to be done at the behest of the pro-Israel lobby group Board of Deputies of Jews (BoD).
(It is worth pointing out here that the BoD (along with Community Security Trust) submitted written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the “roots of violent radicalisation” in the same year. BoD promoted “preventative approaches” to “combatting radicalisation”, whilst claiming the “UK Muslim community” is the target for “many radicalising forces”.)
In 2014, Gove commissioned former CTU head Peter Clarke to investigate the Muslim-demonising, hoax Trojan Horse affair. Published in 2014, Clarke, using the PREVENT definition of “extremism”, categorised an orthodox Jewish group – the Neturei Karta – as “extoling” extremist views because it was “anti-Israel”. It is worth pointing out that from 2008, Clarke was on the advisory council for Policy Exchange.
In 2015, Gove was lauding proposals to suppress support of the BDS movement. In the following year, Gove followed Israel’s agenda to curb criticism of its actions by equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and called for the UK embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
In 2020, Gove again claimed “anti-Zionism has become the new antisemitism”, whilst calling on an “anti-extremism” group Mainstream UK to “continue its work”. Those who support Mainstream UK include Blairite Zionist MPs (including Joan Ryan who faked claims of antisemitism), the pro-Israeli neocon Eric Pickles, and the director of the Israel-Britain Alliance, and former vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel Michael McCann.
There is an undeniable link between counter-extremism and the protection of Israel thanks to neoconservatives and Zionists in key political positions. As the PREVENT policy has developed, it has worked to suppress pro-Palestinian views.
To date, no “anti-Palestine” views have been censured as “extremist”.
Concluding Remarks
The War on Terror was also coined the Global War on Terrorism.
This is clearly misleading, as the focus has been much of the Muslim world.
Though the Zionist entity repeatedly terrorises the Palestinians through its apartheid policies, indiscriminate slaughtering of women and children, and ethnically cleansing whatever slivers of land remain of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Israel has remained outside the rhetoric of pre-emptive strikes, “shock and awe” action, “terrorism” and “extremism”.
And this is for good reason.
The War on Terror cannot be understood without factoring Israel and the lobbying done on its behalf by its neoconservative proxies in the US and UK. Through the neoconservatives who pined for an unending security paradigm and warring, Israel, and its agenda to “reshape” the Middle East through the War on Terror, continues to be delivered to the present day with a helping hand from MBZ and MBS.
This only reinforces the reality that the chants of “terrorism”, and the infrastructures of repression that have been built on this noise, mask the sustained attack against Islam and Muslims through a process in which the major factors are Masjid al-Aqsa and Palestine.
However, despite its intensity and devastation, which is now openly facilitated by treacherous Arab leaders, this attack is doomed to failure.
Given twenty years of War on Terror policies, pointed questions must continue to be asked.
How many British lives have been lost in wars that have done more to protect Israeli interests than British ones? How many laws have been passed, and policies advocated that have threatened the freedoms of all to please the Zionist lobby? Will there be a systematic government “independent review” into the interconnected neoconservatives, pro-Israel lobby groups, and MPs who act as conduits for Israeli interests in Britain? Should Britain be interfered with by a foreign influence via a small syndicate of neoconservatives?
And what will happen if Britain acts against the interests of Israel?
https://coolnessofhind.wordpress.com...ithout-israel/
Meanwhile.
Comment
More analysis.
ReplyAnother update.
The Neocon War on Terror cannot be Understood without Israel
The recent events in Palestine have brought attention to the brutal actions of Zionist entity against both the people in the form of ethnic cleansing and bombardment, and their religious sanctity through the violent incursions against Masjid Al-Aqsa.
These events represent an epicentre for broader reverberations across the Islamic world, but not in the most apparent sense.
Of course, the situation in Palestine continues to cause much pain to Muslims globally despite the treacherous schemes of the likes of Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ) and Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS). In contrast to the aims of their repressive agenda, these events have rekindled the fire in the hearts of Muslims for Al-Aqsa and Palestine, both young and old.
However, the connected reverberations we are referring to, and upon which we wish to shed light upon, are ones which have been continually felt over the course of the past two decades through the War on Terror.
From extensive, repressive counterterrorism and counter-extremism frameworks to the destructive interventions in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia, the War on Terror’s engagement with Muslims and the Islamic world has been marked by a spectrum of violent modes.
The US is often seen as the initiator of this volatile shift in international relations. However, this is only a part of a complex picture that is intertwined with Muslims in more ways than one. And Israel’s role duly facilitated by neoconservatives, and consequently the Al-Quds Al-Sharif factor, are crucial.
“A Clean Break” from Sanity
To understand this picture, one needs to understand that the neoconservatives are staunchly pro-Israeli and have worked ardently to protect and project Zionist interests.
In 1996, a group of prominent neoconservatives led by Richard Perle (who was caught by the FBI disclosing classified information to Israeli officials in October 1970) produced the policy paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” for the attention of then Israeli Likud party PM Benjamin Netanyahu. This document, as well as influencing the removal of Saddam Hussein, outlined the way in which the areas of Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria could be “remade” by specifically highlighting their “weapons of mass destruction”.
In 1998, pressure was also put on the Clinton administration by neocons like Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, to oust Saddam Hussein. Many of these neocons had “close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security of America] or WINEP [The Washington Near East Policy – set up with support from AIPAC]”.[1]
JINSA has included neocons such as Perle, Michael Ledeen, Muravchik, James Woolsey, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Douglas Feith. On elaborating upon the Zionist/neoconservative roots, Ryan notes,[2]
“JINSA had been established “as a result of the lessons learned from the 1973 Yom Kippur War” in order to communicate with the national security establishment and the general public “to explain the role Israel can and does play in bolstering American interests, as well as the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel.” Here the cross-think-tank links and the key activists were particularly clear, with Cheney, Bolton, Feith, Ledeen, Muravchik, Woolsey, and Perle all affiliated to the organization. At age 23, Feith had helped draft JINSA’s charter in 1973.”
“WINEP was established in 1985 by Martin Indyk, previously the Research Director at the leading pro-Israel lobby, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Barbi Weinberg, a former Vice President of AIPAC, and was closely aligned with AIPAC from its inception. (As of 2006, fourteen members of the 100-plus Board of Trustees had served on the AIPAC executive board and some were founders or Directors of pro-Israel Political Action Committees.) …
“WINEP’s advisory board and list of scholars also included some neoconservatives… Woolsey, Perle, and Wolfowitz were all on the WINEP board. Muravchik and Pipes both served as Adjunct Scholars. Rubin became a WINEP Adjunct Scholar in 1999. (WINEP also included three others on the MEF [the Middle East Forum – a neoconservative group headed by Daniel Pipes] advisory board: Robert Satloff, Patrick Clawson, and Jonathan Schanzer)… WINEP was one of the first think tanks to call for regime change in Iraq in a 1996 report by a study group that included Bolton, Rodman, Dobriansky, Feith, and Zalamy Khalilzad.”[3]
The USA Today, reported in late 2002 that Israel was “secretly playing a key role in U.S. preparations for possible war with Iraq, helping to train soldiers and Marines for urban warfare, conducting clandestine surveillance missions in the western Iraqi desert and allowing the United States to place combat supplies in Israel”.
Meanwhile, American neoconservatives were in full force to push the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, within the US, “a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud Party” were the “driving force” behind the Iraq war. This band of pro-Israeli neoconservatives included Scooter Libby, Bernard Lewis, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Wolfowitz who is “committed to Israel”, was described during the Bush era as the “the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the Administration”.[5] He had been an advocate of the Iraq war for decades. The Wolfowitz Doctrine was the informal name of the 1990s policy devised under then US Defense Secretary Wolfowitz by his deputy Libby, his aid Zalmay Khalilzad and with consultation with Perle, among others. The policy articulated an American imperialist unipolarity, and the doctrine of pre-emption, where threats are taken out before they emerge.
Pre-emption
With Wolfowitz taking up a key position in Bush administration, his doctrine became the Bush doctrine.
The doctrine of pre-emption undergirded both the invasion of Iraq and the counter-terror policies that were being architected in parallel. And the engine driving the terrorism smokescreen, however tenuous, was fuelled by neoconservative Israel-cheerleaders right from the inceptive period:
“On September 20, a group of prominent neoconservatives and their allies published another open letter, telling the President that “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9/11] attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.The letter also reminded Bush that, “Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism.””[6]
In 2004, a secret report produced by the Pentagon concluded that the “threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism”. This report was suppressed by US defence chiefs amongst whom at that time was the notorious neocon and advocate of the doctrine of pre-emption in the terrorism sphere, Paul Wolfowitz. Also present during that period was the US vice president and CEO of oil field services corporation Halliburton, Dick Cheney. He lobbied for the US to leave the Kyoto protocol, an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.
Despite these machinations becoming increasingly public from the very beginning of the War on Terror, the neoconservatives have continued to operate in the realm of “security”. In recent years, this has meant lobbying by neoconservative in a political landscape that has shifted, aligning Israel with the UAE.
The “Arab Neocons”, Israel and counter-extremism
In 2017, hacked emails showed that UAE was growing its relationship with the pro-Israel, neoconservative think tank called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). FDD’s positions have followed those of the Likud party and its former leader, Netanyahu, “not just on the Iran deal, but on the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the desirability of a two-state solution.” This is hardly surprising given the think-tank “arose out of an organization committed to burnishing Israel’s reputation in the United States” and was originally set up in April 2001 by three major pro-Israel donors under the name EMET (Hebrew for “truth”).
The FDD has been important in facilitating the neoconservative worldview in the Middle East through the “Arab neocon” MBZ. In 2017, hacked emails showed scheduled meetings between the FDD and UAE officials, including MBZ, to discuss UAE policies on Iran and associated policies including, “political, economic, military, intelligence, and cyber tools.”
In the same, year, London-based Centre for Public Affairs revealed that the UAE spent around $5.3 million funding an anti-Qatar “UAE-AIPAC Conference” that aimed to prove “Qatar’s sponsorship of terrorism groups”. In addition to three pro-Israeli politicians, on the panel was Founder and Executive Director of the pro-Israeli neoconservative Henry Jackson Society (HJS – discussed further below), Alan Mendoza.
MBZ has since forged the path for the signing of the Abraham Accords: Arab “normalisation” of relations with Israel at the expense of Al-Quds and the Al-Aqsa Masjid. This was publicly acknowledged as an achievement for Israel by Netanyahu, much to the disgrace of Arab leaders:
“[The] Abraham Accords enabled us to get out of the equation of land for peace to peace for peace, and we did not give up a span.”
In 2014, it was reported that the UAE was enlisting the services of an American consulting firm, Camstoll Group, to attack Qatar for its support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Camstoll Group consisted of neoconservatives, including notorious pro-Israeli neocon Islamophobe Steve Emerson, who used their contacts to pump anti-Qatar propaganda:
“Their strategy was clear: target neocon/pro-Israel writers such as the Daily Beast‘s Eli Lake, Free Beacon‘s Alana Goodman, Iran-contra convict Elliott Abrams, The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin, and American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin – all eager to promote the Qatar-funds-terrorists line being pushed by Israel.”
Indeed, the UAE has been at the forefront, alongside the UK, in globally promoting the ideology-centred Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda through the Global Counterterrorism Forum on Countering Violent Extremism, Hedayah Center for CVE and the Sawab Centre. These hubs have been in turn influenced by the London-based, pro-Israeli, neoconservative Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD – we return to ISD further below).
In 2016, the UAE endorsed the highly questionable UN Resolution to Prevent Violent Extremism. Again, focussing on ideology, Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE’s permanent representative to the UN, said that the initiative should be a blueprint for coordinating efforts to “combat extremism”.
This was in synchrony with Israel’s more emphatic statements on the UN Resolution which, as we shall see further below, have been longstanding since the very inception of the War on Terror. Welcoming the UN Plan of Action, the Zionist entity stated:
“…we must be clear – the real and most basic threat we face is the extremist ideology itself. Thus, if we truly want to defeat violent extremism and terrorism, we must attack radical extremist ideology at its source.”
The project was picked up by the HJS, with its researcher Najah Al-Otaibi, praising the Vision 2030 initiative as “important”, and calling on the UK to “deepen its ties” with the Saudis and Gulf state into civil society:
“The Crown Prince’s ‘Vision 2030’ project is an important one for encouraging the development of a moderate Islamic narrative which integrates liberal values, challenging the origins of extremism in the region and removing the sources of its funding worldwide… If we are truly to counter extremism at its source, the UK should now increase its anti-terrorism co-operation with the Saudis and the GCC, going beyond intelligence sharing to creating joint initiatives with civil society and working with tech companies to counter jihadi recruitment online.”
Pertinently it is a view that has been floated by Israel from the very inception of the War on Terror.
Precrime: the Israeli view through Neocons
The precrime counter-terrorism approach which emerged in the wake of 9/11 rooted itself in a Clash of Civilisations thesis, de-emphasising political factors and focusing on ideology. This strategy was concordant with Israel’s “Huntingtonian” view of Muslims. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, former director general of the Mossad Shabtai Shavit, for example, said:
“This is war, war against the Free World. For years we issued warnings and the Western states shrugged their shoulders. But what we always said about extremist Islam and the struggle against it has now been proved.”[7]
It is not surprising to find, therefore, that those passionately advocating for pre-emptive, ideology-focused counter-terrorism policies in the UK have been, and continue to be, pro-Israeli neoconservatives.
From the earlies period of the War on Terror, neoconservative think-tanks focused their resources on propounding this view.
The Quilliam Foundation telos has been to downplay the Iraq war and focus on what was for them, “the politicization of Islam”.[8] The prominent British neoconservative and outspoken Zionist, Michael Gove, was a board member of the organisation, which disbanded earlier this year.
Gove is a useful entry-point into the heavily interconnected neocon/pro-Israel world.
The late George Weidenfeld is cited as the “inspiration” and idea for Gove’s book, Celsius 7/7, which regurgitates the Machinean Israeli worldview. Gove has called Weidenfeld a “man of great wisdom and humanity” who he is proud to call “a friend.”
Weidenfeld had been the president of the Board of Trustees for the ISD, which promotes CVE. He also happened to be a Zionist who co-signed, alongside hard-line neocons, a petition which states that, “Israeli land concessions, will never bring peace”. The petition, published by the rabidly bigoted, anti-Muslim Gatestone Institute run by the chief financier of transatlantic Muslim-hate, Nina Rosenwald, also postures a supremacist assumption, stating that “only a cultural revolution in the Arab world can achieve [peace].”
Amongst the list of editors Gove thanks “in particular”, is Daniel Finkelstein. Finkelstein is a senior Conservative peer who was the editor of the Times, as well as chairman of the right-wing, neoconservative London think-tank, Policy Exchange.
Gove founded Policy Exchange in 2002 and has postured a securitised view of Islam and Muslims since.
The think-tank is notorious for fabricating receipts to prove “extremist” material was being sold in masajid. The report, which used these fabricated receipts, was authored by anti-Islam Denis MacEoin who has been on record to state that he has very “negative feelings” about Islam.
In 2008, the then chairman of Policy Exchange mooted the idea of a blacklist of Muslim organisations deemed extremist as a “possible approach to the question of Islam in Britain”.
Pertinently, the think-tank, through its former research director Dean Godson, was strongly influential in the development of the PREVENT counter-extremism strategy. Godson is a neoconservative who called for the revival of Cold War era techniques in the War on Terror.[9]
The transatlantic, neocon/pro-Israeli War on Terror network
The American neoconservative influences and connections are also present in the Policy Exchange.
During the 1980s Godson served as a Special Assistant to the US Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman. Lehman would go onto to become a signatory for the war-mongering neoconservative think-tank founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC.
The American neocon and war-advocate David Frum has called Godson his “friend”. Frum is also the Chairman of the board of trustees for Policy Exchange. He was the speechwriter for Bush, the author of the infamous “Axis of Evil” claim in Bush’s 2002 State of Union address and co-author of the book An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Frum wrote this book with fellow neocon Perle.
Many of the names of these American neoconservatives are also relevant to the HJS, a leading exponent of repressive War on Terror policies in the UK. Its international patrons include Kagan, Kristol, Muravchik, Perle, and Woolsey.
According to a 2015 report by Spinwatch,
“there has been a large overlap between funders of the HJS and other pro-Israel causes… [the] donors shared by the [HJS] and a number of prominent pro-Israel groups… includes all of HJS’s thirteen largest identified donors except for the City of London… All of these donors except for the Eranda Foundation contributed to the United Jewish Israel Appeal. All except the Eranda Foundation and foundations associated with the Kalms family donated to the Community Security Trust. The UK Friends of the Association for the Well-being of Israel’s Soldiers and the Jewish National Fund each received funding from six HJS donors, while four donors contributed to the Jerusalem Fund.”
Elad, one of Israel’s wealthiest nonprofits, is a Jewish settler organisation which works to “Judaise” occupied East Jerusalem. The fanatical group has been behind the recent ethnic cleansing taking place in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan.
Despite these foreign influences and connections, the HJS works parasitically within the corridors of power.
In 2020, it was revealed by Declassified that the Home Office was financing the HJS to report on “UK connections to Islamist terrorism”. The HJS also funded the current Home Secretary Priti Patel’s trip to Washington DC to be a “delegate” at a forum organised by Israel lobby group AIPAC.
These dubious moves in pursuit of Zionist interests are per form, especially when one considers how the HJS has driven a McCarthyist approach for the Government in relation to Muslims.
In September 2015, we published a piece on a Number 10 press statement which announced the duty to stop “extremists” radicalising on campuses. In the release, they “named and shamed” universities and Muslim activists for allowing “extremists” on campus and being “extremists”, respectively. The Home Office-based Extremism Analysis Unit (EAU) was used to determine the list of “extremists”. We demonstrated that the government lifted chunks of its press release from a dubious report published by the Student Rights organisations, a project of the HJS. This was confirmed in the 2017 Salman Butt case in which the Home Office admitted it was uncritically relying on information provided by the HJS to smear Muslim activists and speakers.
Recent reports have revealed other facets of the neocon-Israel nexus:
- Gove, who became a director of the HJS in January 2017, was funded to visit “New York to receive an award at the anniversary of the Algemeiner Journal – a right-wing pro-Israel publication – and ‘attend events organised by the Henry Jackson Society’”. Later that year,
- Gove also attended an event co-funded by AIPAC and the HJS.
- At least two HJS employees have subsequently taken up positions in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- Another investigative report showed that, whilst Patel and Gove were involved in HJS, HJS’s US directors have also been directors of charities which are not only supporting the IDF but are also funded by Israel’s Ministry of Defence.
Gove, counter-extremism, and Palestine
Given the above nexus, it is not surprising to find Gove’s statements and actions all favour Israel, whilst also hyping up the fear of “Islamist extremism”.
In 2011, Gove intervened and shutdown school workshops celebrating Palestinian literature and human rights via his Department’s Prevention of Extremism Unit. This was found to be done at the behest of the pro-Israel lobby group Board of Deputies of Jews (BoD).
(It is worth pointing out here that the BoD (along with Community Security Trust) submitted written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the “roots of violent radicalisation” in the same year. BoD promoted “preventative approaches” to “combatting radicalisation”, whilst claiming the “UK Muslim community” is the target for “many radicalising forces”.)
In 2014, Gove commissioned former CTU head Peter Clarke to investigate the Muslim-demonising, hoax Trojan Horse affair. Published in 2014, Clarke, using the PREVENT definition of “extremism”, categorised an orthodox Jewish group – the Neturei Karta – as “extoling” extremist views because it was “anti-Israel”. It is worth pointing out that from 2008, Clarke was on the advisory council for Policy Exchange.
In 2015, Gove was lauding proposals to suppress support of the BDS movement. In the following year, Gove followed Israel’s agenda to curb criticism of its actions by equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and called for the UK embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
In 2020, Gove again claimed “anti-Zionism has become the new antisemitism”, whilst calling on an “anti-extremism” group Mainstream UK to “continue its work”. Those who support Mainstream UK include Blairite Zionist MPs (including Joan Ryan who faked claims of antisemitism), the pro-Israeli neocon Eric Pickles, and the director of the Israel-Britain Alliance, and former vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel Michael McCann.
There is an undeniable link between counter-extremism and the protection of Israel thanks to neoconservatives and Zionists in key political positions. As the PREVENT policy has developed, it has worked to suppress pro-Palestinian views.
To date, no “anti-Palestine” views have been censured as “extremist”.
Concluding Remarks
The War on Terror was also coined the Global War on Terrorism.
This is clearly misleading, as the focus has been much of the Muslim world.
Though the Zionist entity repeatedly terrorises the Palestinians through its apartheid policies, indiscriminate slaughtering of women and children, and ethnically cleansing whatever slivers of land remain of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Israel has remained outside the rhetoric of pre-emptive strikes, “shock and awe” action, “terrorism” and “extremism”.
And this is for good reason.
The War on Terror cannot be understood without factoring Israel and the lobbying done on its behalf by its neoconservative proxies in the US and UK. Through the neoconservatives who pined for an unending security paradigm and warring, Israel, and its agenda to “reshape” the Middle East through the War on Terror, continues to be delivered to the present day with a helping hand from MBZ and MBS.
This only reinforces the reality that the chants of “terrorism”, and the infrastructures of repression that have been built on this noise, mask the sustained attack against Islam and Muslims through a process in which the major factors are Masjid al-Aqsa and Palestine.
However, despite its intensity and devastation, which is now openly facilitated by treacherous Arab leaders, this attack is doomed to failure.
“And they worked out their plot and whatever they plot is before Allah, even though their plot is such as would move the mountains.”
Al-Qur’ān, 14:46
Al-Qur’ān, 14:46
Given twenty years of War on Terror policies, pointed questions must continue to be asked.
How many British lives have been lost in wars that have done more to protect Israeli interests than British ones? How many laws have been passed, and policies advocated that have threatened the freedoms of all to please the Zionist lobby? Will there be a systematic government “independent review” into the interconnected neoconservatives, pro-Israel lobby groups, and MPs who act as conduits for Israeli interests in Britain? Should Britain be interfered with by a foreign influence via a small syndicate of neoconservatives?
And what will happen if Britain acts against the interests of Israel?
https://coolnessofhind.wordpress.com...ithout-israel/
Meanwhile.
Comment
More analysis.
abadwek
07-04-2021, 02:09 AM
brothers im so glad i am seeing all you being so awake to whats happening. i have some brothers who are very pious but so ignorant and could give their lives thinking saudi regime is in haq.its the total opposite.
the jews got rid of all their oppositions in the arab world - egypt ,iraq (sadam hussein). lybia (gadafi) and they also trying to do that now with syria and iran. btw where was all this sectarian war before 2003? as far as i know , it never was on this big scale before.
the :normalization with the gulf states only shows that those countries have submitted and their leaders either sold out or ignorant and not fearful of the true Lord of heavens and Earth, but without trying to little the arabs and wha tthey have done for islam - let me tell you what i think of them - arabs arent the true pride of islam or never will be.
wallah i believe most of their leaders are very hypocrite. just remember the arab revolt and what big of a treason that was to the muslim otoman caliphate- and in ww2 when the fascist powers were fighting zionism on all sides - arabs did almost nothing. they slept.
and what cam after their sleep? israel.
now let them bear it!! i feel sad for the opressed - but wallahi nothing in this life happens without a reason.
until mahdi comes. i dont expect things to get any better. and to be honest, now more than ever im trying to avoid these topics and focus solely on discipline of islam within myself - cause people seem to ignorant to understand these days. they following their traps like our prophet pbuh warned us long ago.
Replythe jews got rid of all their oppositions in the arab world - egypt ,iraq (sadam hussein). lybia (gadafi) and they also trying to do that now with syria and iran. btw where was all this sectarian war before 2003? as far as i know , it never was on this big scale before.
the :normalization with the gulf states only shows that those countries have submitted and their leaders either sold out or ignorant and not fearful of the true Lord of heavens and Earth, but without trying to little the arabs and wha tthey have done for islam - let me tell you what i think of them - arabs arent the true pride of islam or never will be.
wallah i believe most of their leaders are very hypocrite. just remember the arab revolt and what big of a treason that was to the muslim otoman caliphate- and in ww2 when the fascist powers were fighting zionism on all sides - arabs did almost nothing. they slept.
and what cam after their sleep? israel.
now let them bear it!! i feel sad for the opressed - but wallahi nothing in this life happens without a reason.
until mahdi comes. i dont expect things to get any better. and to be honest, now more than ever im trying to avoid these topics and focus solely on discipline of islam within myself - cause people seem to ignorant to understand these days. they following their traps like our prophet pbuh warned us long ago.
سيف الله
08-08-2021, 09:14 PM
Salaam
We have to be careful generalising many have suffered jail or worse for opposing this, I agree the current leadership on the whole has been weak and servile (contrast whether you like it or not with Iran which despite everything they have gone through has managed to follow and independent path) and Im sure many are against normalisation until there is a a proper peace when it comes to the Israel Palestine issue.
Having said that the change in direction by the new generation of leaders is disturbing, they are willing to collaborate in undermining Muslim or Islamic groups in general.
Have to remember other areas of the Muslim world arent that much better (Turkey, Pakistan licking the boots of China etc etc). So overall its currently a bleak situation.
Its important to discipline yourself and focus on building yourself and improving your life but shouldnt completely turn off from these issues, its always good to be in the know.
Another update, the betrayal continues.
Saudi Arabia: Dozens of Palestinians and Jordanians sentenced after mass trial
Those who received jail terms include the former Hamas representative in the kingdom Mohammed al-Khoudary and his son
A Saudi court on Sunday issued various sentences against 69 Palestinian and Jordanian detainees, with some handed jail terms of up to 22 years, over alleged support for the Palestinian Hamas movement.
Dozens of Palestinians have been detained and facing trial before a terrorism court since February 2019, including businesspeople, academics and students.
Sources in the besieged Gaza Strip have previously told Middle East Eye that they believed the crackdown was linked to warming ties between Israel and Riyadh.
An official Hamas source told MEE last year that the majority of the detainees were Hamas members who had resided in the Gulf country for decades, accusing Saudi Arabia of "targeting everyone who is linked with resistance" against the Israeli occupation.
On Sunday, the Committee of Jordanian Detainees in Saudi Arabia, a Jordanian rights group, said sentences have been issued against 69 Jordanians and Palestinians, with some of them sentenced to 22 years in prison while others were acquitted.
The sentences have not yet been made public. Detainees can appeal against the sentences after 40 days, according to the sister of Jordanian detainee Tarek Abbas.
Hamas middleman sentenced
The Saudi court sentenced the Hamas representative in Saudi Arabia, Mohammed al-Khoudary, to 15 years in prison, while his son, Hani, was sentenced to three years, according to Anadolu agency.
The Turkish news agency quoted Abd al-Majid, Khoudary's brother, as saying that the sentence against him includes "clemency for half the term (seven-and-a-half years)".
The 82-year-old Khoudary is a veteran Hamas leader who was responsible for managing the relationship with Saudi Arabia for two decades.
Khoudary had long had a relationship with the Saudi royal family and security agencies and was the conduit for their indirect talks with Hamas before being detained in April 2019.
Amnesty International has previously said that the Khoudarys had not been not allowed access to a lawyer while in detention.
Saudi authorities have yet to comment on Sunday's verdicts.
The verdicts were scheduled to be announced in October but were brought forward, a decision welcomed by Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh who expressed hope that it will include the release of all Palestinians held pending the case.
He appealed to Saudi Arabia to release the detainees "based on the historical positions of the Kingdom and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in support of the Palestinian people and their just cause".
Hamas was established in 1987 and is generally viewed in the Arab world as a legitimate resistance movement against Israel's occupation of Palestinians lands, although Israel and the United States consider it a terrorist group.
A number of its founders and close associates have lived in the Gulf kingdom, where large donation campaigns were launched for the movement, some with official Saudi blessings.
But the kingdom's relationship with the Gaza-based faction appears to have soured since the election of US president Donald Trump, a staunch supporter of Israel, and the emergence of Mohammed bin Salman as Saudi Arabia's crown prince.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/s...d-prison-terms
Related
Egypt: Court upholds 'Hamas collaboration' charges against Brotherhood leaders
Life sentences upheld against Mohamed Badie and other Brotherhood leaders over accusations of collaborating with the Palestinian group to destabilise Egypt
An Egypt court has upheld jail sentences for several Muslim Brotherhood leaders on charges of "collaborating with Hamas", throwing out an appeal even as relations between the country and the Palestinian group have continued to improve in recent months.
The Egyptian Court of Cassation on Wednesday rejected appeals by Mohamed Badie - the highest-ranking leader of the Brotherhood - his deputy Khairat El-Shater and others, upholding their life sentences over accusations of working with foreign organisations to destabilise national security and stability. The ruling is now final and cannot be appealed.
Badie was sentenced to life imprisonment in several other cases in 2013.
The cassation court added that the case against political leader Essam el-Erian had been terminated owing to his death in 2020.
Seven defendants, including the Brotherhood's former international spokesperson, Gehad el-Haddad, were acquitted.
The verdict against the Brotherhood leaders was issued by the Cairo Criminal Court in September 2019 after a retrial. The case was initiated in 2014, a year after former President Mohamed Morsi was overthrown by his successor Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in a military coup.
Sisi has since overseen a crackdown on his opposition from across the political spectrum. The Brotherhood, the country's largest opposition group, has since been outlawed and its members and supporters either jailed or excluded from public life.
In June, the cassation court upheld death sentences on 12 members of the Brotherhood, including two senior leaders of the group. Rights groups have warned that the death penalty could be carried out imminently.
A tense relationship
Egypt's relationship with Hamas has been tumultuous - though the Egyptian government has aided Israel in its blockade of the Gaza Strip since Hamas took control in 2007, it has also often acted as a mediator during times of conflict.
Since Sisi took power in Egypt in 2013, he has pursued a generally harsh policy against Hamas, viewing them as allies of the Brotherhood.
However, in recent years relations have begun to thaw, with Hamas collaborating with Egypt in tackling the Islamic State group's insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt has also allowed diplomatic relations to resume.
On 18 May, Sisi pledged $500m to help the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip in the wake of an Israeli assault on the enclave. Egyptian construction equipment began entering the strip in early June to help with the effort.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/e...hood-officials
ReplyWe have to be careful generalising many have suffered jail or worse for opposing this, I agree the current leadership on the whole has been weak and servile (contrast whether you like it or not with Iran which despite everything they have gone through has managed to follow and independent path) and Im sure many are against normalisation until there is a a proper peace when it comes to the Israel Palestine issue.
Having said that the change in direction by the new generation of leaders is disturbing, they are willing to collaborate in undermining Muslim or Islamic groups in general.
Have to remember other areas of the Muslim world arent that much better (Turkey, Pakistan licking the boots of China etc etc). So overall its currently a bleak situation.
Its important to discipline yourself and focus on building yourself and improving your life but shouldnt completely turn off from these issues, its always good to be in the know.
Another update, the betrayal continues.
Saudi Arabia: Dozens of Palestinians and Jordanians sentenced after mass trial
Those who received jail terms include the former Hamas representative in the kingdom Mohammed al-Khoudary and his son
A Saudi court on Sunday issued various sentences against 69 Palestinian and Jordanian detainees, with some handed jail terms of up to 22 years, over alleged support for the Palestinian Hamas movement.
Dozens of Palestinians have been detained and facing trial before a terrorism court since February 2019, including businesspeople, academics and students.
Sources in the besieged Gaza Strip have previously told Middle East Eye that they believed the crackdown was linked to warming ties between Israel and Riyadh.
An official Hamas source told MEE last year that the majority of the detainees were Hamas members who had resided in the Gulf country for decades, accusing Saudi Arabia of "targeting everyone who is linked with resistance" against the Israeli occupation.
On Sunday, the Committee of Jordanian Detainees in Saudi Arabia, a Jordanian rights group, said sentences have been issued against 69 Jordanians and Palestinians, with some of them sentenced to 22 years in prison while others were acquitted.
The sentences have not yet been made public. Detainees can appeal against the sentences after 40 days, according to the sister of Jordanian detainee Tarek Abbas.
Hamas middleman sentenced
The Saudi court sentenced the Hamas representative in Saudi Arabia, Mohammed al-Khoudary, to 15 years in prison, while his son, Hani, was sentenced to three years, according to Anadolu agency.
The Turkish news agency quoted Abd al-Majid, Khoudary's brother, as saying that the sentence against him includes "clemency for half the term (seven-and-a-half years)".
The 82-year-old Khoudary is a veteran Hamas leader who was responsible for managing the relationship with Saudi Arabia for two decades.
Khoudary had long had a relationship with the Saudi royal family and security agencies and was the conduit for their indirect talks with Hamas before being detained in April 2019.
Amnesty International has previously said that the Khoudarys had not been not allowed access to a lawyer while in detention.
Saudi authorities have yet to comment on Sunday's verdicts.
The verdicts were scheduled to be announced in October but were brought forward, a decision welcomed by Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh who expressed hope that it will include the release of all Palestinians held pending the case.
He appealed to Saudi Arabia to release the detainees "based on the historical positions of the Kingdom and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in support of the Palestinian people and their just cause".
Hamas was established in 1987 and is generally viewed in the Arab world as a legitimate resistance movement against Israel's occupation of Palestinians lands, although Israel and the United States consider it a terrorist group.
A number of its founders and close associates have lived in the Gulf kingdom, where large donation campaigns were launched for the movement, some with official Saudi blessings.
But the kingdom's relationship with the Gaza-based faction appears to have soured since the election of US president Donald Trump, a staunch supporter of Israel, and the emergence of Mohammed bin Salman as Saudi Arabia's crown prince.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/s...d-prison-terms
Related
Egypt: Court upholds 'Hamas collaboration' charges against Brotherhood leaders
Life sentences upheld against Mohamed Badie and other Brotherhood leaders over accusations of collaborating with the Palestinian group to destabilise Egypt
An Egypt court has upheld jail sentences for several Muslim Brotherhood leaders on charges of "collaborating with Hamas", throwing out an appeal even as relations between the country and the Palestinian group have continued to improve in recent months.
The Egyptian Court of Cassation on Wednesday rejected appeals by Mohamed Badie - the highest-ranking leader of the Brotherhood - his deputy Khairat El-Shater and others, upholding their life sentences over accusations of working with foreign organisations to destabilise national security and stability. The ruling is now final and cannot be appealed.
Badie was sentenced to life imprisonment in several other cases in 2013.
The cassation court added that the case against political leader Essam el-Erian had been terminated owing to his death in 2020.
Seven defendants, including the Brotherhood's former international spokesperson, Gehad el-Haddad, were acquitted.
The verdict against the Brotherhood leaders was issued by the Cairo Criminal Court in September 2019 after a retrial. The case was initiated in 2014, a year after former President Mohamed Morsi was overthrown by his successor Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in a military coup.
Sisi has since overseen a crackdown on his opposition from across the political spectrum. The Brotherhood, the country's largest opposition group, has since been outlawed and its members and supporters either jailed or excluded from public life.
In June, the cassation court upheld death sentences on 12 members of the Brotherhood, including two senior leaders of the group. Rights groups have warned that the death penalty could be carried out imminently.
A tense relationship
Egypt's relationship with Hamas has been tumultuous - though the Egyptian government has aided Israel in its blockade of the Gaza Strip since Hamas took control in 2007, it has also often acted as a mediator during times of conflict.
Since Sisi took power in Egypt in 2013, he has pursued a generally harsh policy against Hamas, viewing them as allies of the Brotherhood.
However, in recent years relations have begun to thaw, with Hamas collaborating with Egypt in tackling the Islamic State group's insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt has also allowed diplomatic relations to resume.
On 18 May, Sisi pledged $500m to help the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip in the wake of an Israeli assault on the enclave. Egyptian construction equipment began entering the strip in early June to help with the effort.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/e...hood-officials
abadwek
08-10-2021, 10:18 AM
Can someone tell me how to be usnubscribed from this topic im not interested on it at all
Replyسيف الله
09-17-2021, 08:45 AM
Salaam
Final update.
UAE looking to do $1 trillion worth of business with Israel in next decade
The United Arab Emirates wants to grow economic ties with Israel to more than $1 trillion over the next decade, Economy Minister Abdulla Bin Touq has said.
Abu Dhabi has signed over 60 memorandums of understanding with Israel since normalising relations last year and is expecting an influx of trade in the next two years, Bin Touq told a conference.
The UAE is looking to invest in sectors including defence, energy and food security.
“We have $600 to $700 million dollars of bilateral trade happening, we have funds of billions of dollars that have been announced jointly between the two countries, we are moving into so many areas of economic opportunities,” he said. “We are looking to create over $1 trillion dollars of economic activity over the next decade.”
Dorian Barak, an Israeli investor, told The Times of Israel that by the end of 2021 Israel and the UAE would have reached $1 billion in trade, including services and tourism.
“About 40 Israeli companies have set up shop in UAE free-trade zones and over 200 companies have local representatives in the country in areas like agriculture, jewellery, food, retail,” Barak said, adding that he thinks that figure will grow to 500.
The bigger story, he said, is that the UAE is a “launching pad” for Israeli businesses and this is where tremendous opportunities lie.” He added that ties with the UAE will be a “catalyst for trade with the wider Arab world” and beyond.
Palestinian factions have called the UAE-Israel peace deal a “stab in the back.”
https://5pillarsuk.com/2021/09/16/ua...n-next-decade/
Some honesty, how did this slip through the barrier.
ReplyFinal update.
UAE looking to do $1 trillion worth of business with Israel in next decade
The United Arab Emirates wants to grow economic ties with Israel to more than $1 trillion over the next decade, Economy Minister Abdulla Bin Touq has said.
Abu Dhabi has signed over 60 memorandums of understanding with Israel since normalising relations last year and is expecting an influx of trade in the next two years, Bin Touq told a conference.
The UAE is looking to invest in sectors including defence, energy and food security.
“We have $600 to $700 million dollars of bilateral trade happening, we have funds of billions of dollars that have been announced jointly between the two countries, we are moving into so many areas of economic opportunities,” he said. “We are looking to create over $1 trillion dollars of economic activity over the next decade.”
Dorian Barak, an Israeli investor, told The Times of Israel that by the end of 2021 Israel and the UAE would have reached $1 billion in trade, including services and tourism.
“About 40 Israeli companies have set up shop in UAE free-trade zones and over 200 companies have local representatives in the country in areas like agriculture, jewellery, food, retail,” Barak said, adding that he thinks that figure will grow to 500.
The bigger story, he said, is that the UAE is a “launching pad” for Israeli businesses and this is where tremendous opportunities lie.” He added that ties with the UAE will be a “catalyst for trade with the wider Arab world” and beyond.
Palestinian factions have called the UAE-Israel peace deal a “stab in the back.”
https://5pillarsuk.com/2021/09/16/ua...n-next-decade/
Some honesty, how did this slip through the barrier.
Karl
09-30-2022, 03:15 AM
Strange that these rich Islamic states serve the Jews so much. Are the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE Zionist Jews? Iran seems to be the only Islamic defiant state against the Zionists.
Replyسيف الله
11-02-2022, 12:27 AM
Salaam
They are caving for a multitude of reasons. The allegations made in the vid are plausible. Ill post some comments about the video that criticize the video for the sake of balance.
Hamza Zad
Saudi Arabia didn't normalize relations with Israel! ...Not yet at least. Your thumbnail and the unfair characterisation of Saudi Arabia is troubling to say the least. I mean you're quoting the words of a zionist propagandist that describes how much power they have on gulf states! Did it ever cross your minds that they might be lying or at least exaggerating!
Mexicano Man
Who told you we remove the Hadeth and the Ayat of prophet Laout ? We still study it in Saudi Arabia Alhamdullah … don’t miss lead the muslims !!!
شيماء أصغر
I have a hard time believing this. Isreal claims all sorts of things esp in regards to KSA. We live here and have access to these books.
There was a blanket ban on rainbow colour toys yet Isreal claims they're infiltration books! Come on. Why are we believing Isreal and condemning our Muslim leaders? Muslims aren't ignorant here. Even the most basic educated Muslim on KSA know Tawheed and study several aqeedah books throughout school. Please be critical when posting content like this. "It is enough of a lie for a man to narrate everything he hears "
Syed Hussain Ali Shah
This has been happening in Pakistan for years.
Quantum 1157
That’s a stretch mate. Have you seen Muslim textbooks in pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt since the 1960s? All in the hands of ‘secular politicians’ and it’s been happening for decades. So let’s not try to hide behind Saudi Arabia or try to,pretend that we didn’t have a problem until 2020 when Saudis starting doing this. Also need I remind you that how egypt, Jordan, etc have had relations and recognition of Israel for decades. We need to stop outsourcing all our serious decades old issues to Saudi Arabia! We also need to realize the ummah’s sins and corruption won’t go away depending on what happens in Saudi Arabia: belly dancing, drinking, ‘tourism’ have existed for decades in Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan,……even when Saudi Arabia was ‘good’ or even when Saudi Arabia didn’t exist! We have huge problems in all Muslim countries for decades now.
Again more proof of the games they play, if you need anymore.
Blurb
This video deserves to be shared to everyone. The true extent of the effect of niche movies exposed by a key user of psyops is a big deal.
ReplyThey are caving for a multitude of reasons. The allegations made in the vid are plausible. Ill post some comments about the video that criticize the video for the sake of balance.
Hamza Zad
Saudi Arabia didn't normalize relations with Israel! ...Not yet at least. Your thumbnail and the unfair characterisation of Saudi Arabia is troubling to say the least. I mean you're quoting the words of a zionist propagandist that describes how much power they have on gulf states! Did it ever cross your minds that they might be lying or at least exaggerating!
Mexicano Man
Who told you we remove the Hadeth and the Ayat of prophet Laout ? We still study it in Saudi Arabia Alhamdullah … don’t miss lead the muslims !!!
شيماء أصغر
I have a hard time believing this. Isreal claims all sorts of things esp in regards to KSA. We live here and have access to these books.
There was a blanket ban on rainbow colour toys yet Isreal claims they're infiltration books! Come on. Why are we believing Isreal and condemning our Muslim leaders? Muslims aren't ignorant here. Even the most basic educated Muslim on KSA know Tawheed and study several aqeedah books throughout school. Please be critical when posting content like this. "It is enough of a lie for a man to narrate everything he hears "
Syed Hussain Ali Shah
This has been happening in Pakistan for years.
Quantum 1157
That’s a stretch mate. Have you seen Muslim textbooks in pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt since the 1960s? All in the hands of ‘secular politicians’ and it’s been happening for decades. So let’s not try to hide behind Saudi Arabia or try to,pretend that we didn’t have a problem until 2020 when Saudis starting doing this. Also need I remind you that how egypt, Jordan, etc have had relations and recognition of Israel for decades. We need to stop outsourcing all our serious decades old issues to Saudi Arabia! We also need to realize the ummah’s sins and corruption won’t go away depending on what happens in Saudi Arabia: belly dancing, drinking, ‘tourism’ have existed for decades in Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan,……even when Saudi Arabia was ‘good’ or even when Saudi Arabia didn’t exist! We have huge problems in all Muslim countries for decades now.
Again more proof of the games they play, if you need anymore.
Blurb
This video deserves to be shared to everyone. The true extent of the effect of niche movies exposed by a key user of psyops is a big deal.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Similar Threads
-
Replies: 7Last Post: 05-12-2016, 07:41 PM
-
Replies: 0Last Post: 03-18-2012, 12:09 AM
-
Replies: 1Last Post: 06-07-2011, 06:09 PM
-
Replies: 29Last Post: 08-09-2006, 06:19 AM
-
Replies: 21Last Post: 03-17-2006, 05:53 PM
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.