Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Palestine, South Africa and the Myth of One State

By Nahida | Exiled Palestinian | May 22, 2019

Insisting on squeezing the Palestinian struggle to fit the apartheid model of South Africa or black America is a double whammy:

* Firstly, presenting the Zionist entity as a normal state with a few apartheid policies that can be changed is fundamentally false:

a) what is happening in Palestine is not mere segregation and apartheid, what is going on is ethnic cleansing, wiping a country off the map and slow genocide.

b) Racism in the “Jewish state” is ideological, grounded in “sacred” texts, cultural practices and the inherent concept of “chosen-ness”, unlike South Africa in which racism was a momentary convenience, reflecting opportunistic fulfillment of self-interest of a white minority.

* Secondly, when activists are intoxicated with the deceptive mantra of “Equal rights, One State, Two People”, offered as the best formula and ideal model of solution rather than other successful models of Liberation, such as Algeria for example, that means the they participates in whitewashing and rewarding the century-ongoing Zionist crimes, such paradigm gives a lee-way to the thriving of an illegal genocidal expansionist racist entity.

Such solution would mean blessing the expansion of “israel” and granting the Zionist occupier a comprehensive and “peaceful” take over, and unrestricted control over our land and our lives.

Like North America, South Africa was conquered and subsequently ruled by white Europeans several centuries ago, i.e. before International Law adopted through the Nuremberg Principles right after WW2, explicitly prohibited land acquisition through military conquest, and clearly defined Crimes Against Humanity, amidst them Wars of Aggression and Conquest , Genocide and Instigation of Wars & Crimes Against Peace, and War Crimes to be the worst categories of crimes.

All the latter Crimes having been, and still are in even worse manner, perpetrated by Jewish “israelis”.

Furthermore, this “one-state, two people” approach fully ignores the unbalanced premise of the reality on the ground, and the implication such proposal would have – namely the finalization of the aims of the racist, expansionist and exclusionary Jewish Nationalist experiment called “israel”.

It would de facto annex all residual Palestinian post-1967 Bantustans, and attach them to what would inevitably be “israel” no matter what convoluted name would be attached to. Because indeed, there is no need to be a rocket scientist to know full well who would keep the arsenal, who would keep the apparatus of power, judicial, military, educational, political, executive, financial, etc.

All the while the demand granting equal rights to all, includes supremacists and invaders who have no historic or legal rights to the land, who are still flocking to Palestine as we speak, armed to the teeth by their support networks in US-America, in other words, these are active dangerous psychopathic criminals.

Zionist Jews did not come to Palestine with olive branches to begin with, they did not come with peaceful intentions of co-existence with the indigenous population. They gushed in like savages, terrorizing unarmed peaceful farmers and land tenders, they tortured and imprisoned, they came to destroy, “cleanse”, conquer and dominate.

A century on, their racist ideology, their use of terror, and their abominable psychopathic behaviour has only intensified, and drastically. The vast majority of that artificial “society” -and for very specific supremacist ideological reasons- are unwilling/ incapable of viewing the “other” as equal and over the passing of time they have shown to be unwilling to become modest or peaceful , let alone remain peaceful.

Would any decent human-being force a mother to marry the murderer of her child?

Would any decent human-being find it acceptable to force a child to live with his paedophile abuser?

Would any decent human-being accuse these people, child and mother of “immorality” or call them “unrealistic” for refusing to tie their future with their abusers?

Through the delusional “Equal Rights, One State, Two People” proposal, the facts on the grounds would remain unchanged, and probably aggravated, since these facts, stock and barrel, would remain in the hands of ideological supremacists.

What is wrong in “israel” as an occupation, a political system, and an artificial society if far far worse than mere segregation and apartheid… What is wrong is the IDEOLOGICAL RACISM and SUPREMACY having its roots at the core of the concept of being “chosen”, then going downhill to hell from there.

So highlighting the “undemocratic” part of that society and trying to “fix” it, when the rot is at the core is like pointing at the a long fingernail of a person dying of cancer and saying, we think it would help to show the doctor that your fingernail has overgrown and needs cutting off.

The problem is not mere lack of democracy, the problem is a disturbed mindset, resulted from multi-generational indoctrination with the illusion of superiority, the delusion of “unique suffering and persecution” and the fantasy of “entitlement”, all this by a majority of a community. (70% of “israeli Jews” believe Jews are the “chosen”).

It is not the undemocratic system that we need to focus on and to change. It is the MINDSET of a people.

By now, to the majority of the rest of the world, its pretty obvious that their perspective, education and understanding of history has been constructed on myths and lies which does not correspond to reality.

Their moral upbringing has been encapsulated in the narrowness of tribalism, instead of the vastness of universalism; the illusion of their “chosen-mess”, hence, the delusion of their intellectual and moral “superiority” and the uniqueness and special-mess of their suffering.

Their world-view and perception of the other is twisted and distorted by the scarecrow of “antisemitism” as an inherent quality in the world which necessitate ever-lasting ghettoization and separation from the “boogy-gentile” who is forever “chasing” after them because for some mysterious and inexplicable reasons the entire people of the world are born with “intrinsic hatred towards Jews” !

To their utter disadvantage they have been born into a community of many many myths, which is sad and unfortunate, but I believe that every human no matter how disadvantageous their situation might be, is equipped with inherent moral compass, therefore would be capable to break away if they so well desire and aspire.

“israelis” who claim to have understood the role of their community in the creation and continuation of Palestinian Nakba, those who claim to be disgusted with the crimes of their society, those who say they feel remorseful and repentant, if they are indeed honest, then the least they could do is to show some signs of sincerity, meaning to show the desire and determination to correct the mistakes of their “people”.

Only then their victims may investigate the fragile alleys of forgiveness or punishment. The victims should have the last say irrespective of what their judgment might be, they should not be vilified, indicted or moralized with, for they have suffered more than enough for almost a century.

The emergence of forgiveness and reconciliation requires certain conditions:

1) Stopping the crime

2) Admitting of guilt

3) Asking for pardon

4) And most importantly rectifying the wrong

None of these conditions are ever considered as an option amongst that mighty sick racist Zionist society as a collective.

Those very few individuals who show some support for Palestinians are rarely, if ever, able to accept even the return of refugees. They never go beyond calling for “equal rights”. i.e. they NEVER go as far as total restitution and reinstatement  of all property and rights to the dispossessed Palestinians.

Morally blinded (by self interest) and submerged in dishonesty (due to the conflict of interest) they pretend not see that such approach is fatally flawed from its inception. For it equates between aggressors and victims. It absolves criminals from being prosecuted by laws of justice, and it absolves them from giving back real assets of land and property.

If Jewish “israeli” peace activists fail to see the lopsided morality in such approach, then they need to go back on their knees for some self-reflection and pray to see some light that might help restore their humanity.

In my entire life, I have met personally with one, only one ex-“israeli”, Gilad Atzmon, who calls himself Palestinian Hebrew. He vehemently rejects “israel” with all its aggression, violence, theft and supremacy. He took the most admirable stance by imposing exile upon himself even though he was born in a settlement near Al-Quds/ Palestine, because he morally refuses to be part of that racist criminal society.

Such is my brother, such is a person of moral rectitude who is worthy of Palestinian citizenship upon liberation of Palestine.

Make no mistake, the fate of Palestine will be the forbearing sign indicating the shape of the future of International Relationships. By failing to liberate Palestine, we forfeit International Law, and that unambiguously opens the gates to an abyss. Any predatory group equipped with some military, would be vindicated to conquer and destroy whatever they want, wherever they want, on the primitive basis of military force. Basically a staggering regression back into the Stone Age methodology, expanded globally by contemporaneous weaponry’s range and effect, which is biocidal, and instantaneous.

In conclusion, in this war-ridden era it has become a matter of acute urgency and prime importance, that Nations reconvene as a Community, to fulfill its responsibility to Restore International Law, as well as to affirm universal principles of ethics, in order to stop the bloodshed and destruction of our beautiful planet, by stopping predators and warmongers by all means necessary.

Generally unknown, ignored, dismissed and unspoken of by activists in the West, but these are the true aspirations of most Palestinians:

FULL LIBERATION of Historic Palestine. The Holy Land must be free from racists committing atrocities. A way must be found, to bring reason to the Holy Land, and there is no other way than to evict foreign criminals. Keep in mind that before the invasion by Jewish foreigners, Palestine was characterized by the harmonious coexistence between respectively a Palestinian Muslim majority, a Palestinian Christian minority and a Palestinian Jewish minority. To restore this harmonious cohesive fabric is the only way forward.

FULL SOVEREIGNTY of the Palestinian Nation over their ancestral country: Palestine, with a constitution and a political system of their own independent choice. For the sake of International Peace and Security.

PROSECUTION OF WAR CRIMINALS, plans of which should start without delay, A Palestinian judicial and immigration system, will respectively prosecute former “israeli” criminals and their associates, and/or grant or decline on an individual basis, a Right to Remain, based on criteria solely to be defined by said Immigration and Integration Services. Anyone who can prove non-participation in the ex-israeli occupation apparatus, and who has demonstrated ability and willingness to a respectable and law-abiding conduct, will probably obtain a chance to gain unrestricted Palestinian citizenship, with equal rights.

RETURN, RESTITUTION and COMPENSATIONS: Palestinian refugees have the unconditional Right of Return. Palestine and the Palestinian Nation at large, are entitled to full and unconditional Restitution of their land and property whenever possible, assorted with appropriate Compensation for more than seven decades of deprivation and slow genocide, Cultural destruction, and a whole array of atrocities and usurpation.

When we talk about RESTITUTION , we mean restoration of property and rights previously taken away, restoration of destroyed villages to the former or original state, and reparation made by giving an equivalent in current value when restoration is not possible, and compensation for loss, damage, and injury caused for the entire period of occupation since 1948.

RESTITUTION meaning:
1. The act of restoring to the rightful owner something that has been taken away, lost, or surrendered.
2. The act of making good or compensating for loss, damage, or injury; indemnification.
3. A return to or restoration of a previous state or position.

Now, the question is:

Would you or any “israeli” Jew be interested to join us in our struggle for LIBERATION as one of us, as an ex-”israeli” and a future Palestinian?

May 23, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 2 Comments

Girl Reportedly Bullied by Teacher, Classmates for Refusing to ‘Climate Strike’

Sputnik – 23.05.2019

A Swedish girl who refused to join her classmates in skipping school for the sake of the climate has ended up being labelled as a “climate denier”, which her mother described as “mass psychosis”.

A high-school pupil who refused to attend a so-called “school strike for climate” has been bullied not only by her classmates, but the teacher as well, the magazine Det Goda Samhället reported.

When the girl’s classmates decided to join the “climate strike” spearheaded by teenage activist-turned-superstar Greta Thunberg, “Sanna” declared she didn’t want to attend and was given a tongue-lashing from the teacher.

“The teacher said ‘Sanna’ was uncommitted and failed to understand the seriousness of the climate threat. She asked her to reconsider her decision, and she said it openly, for the entire class to hear. ‘Sanna’ felt like the teacher was trying to ridicule her in front of the others”, “Lena”, the girl’s mother, told Det Goda Samhället.

Because of the teacher’s actions, the rest of the class also turned against “Sanna”, who ended up being boycotted by her own friends and accused of being a “climate denier”, “Lena” recalled.

When the mother called the school’s administration, she herself was questioned by the female principal.

“She said it was sad that ‘Sanna’ went against the rest of the class and refused to participate in something this positive. I could read between the lines that she thought I had a wrong attitude myself”, “Lena” explained.

The mother called the situation a “mass psychosis” and said it was “very unpleasant”.

“If you are not a fan of Greta Thunberg and her ‘school strikes’ for the sake of climate, then you should be boycotted and bullied. This is totally sick”, the mother explained.

According to her, “Sanna” now refuses to go to school, she is worried and afraid of what may happen.

Greta Thunberg is a Swedish climate activist who rose to international fame for her weekly “school strikes” held outside of the Swedish parliament. As her movement rose to prominence, hundreds of thousands of students in over a hundred countries across the globe have followed her example.

For her relentless activism and penchant for doomsday rhetoric, Thunberg received a lot of traction, having met with EU officials, top-ranking businessmen and even the Pope, and was decorated with a lot of prizes and awards. In March 2019, she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Norwegian MPs. In May 2019, at the age of 16, she starred on the cover of the Time magazine. In her home country, she was appointed the woman of the year by two of the country’s largest newspapers, Expressen and Aftonbladet.

In Scandinavia, she is known as “Climate Greata” and receives a lot of media coverage and is almost universally venerated by the political establishment despite her repeated criticism of their actions as insufficient. Sweden’s goal to become carbon neutral by 2045 has been called “the world’s most ambitious climate law”.

However, her name also sparks a lot of controversy. First, many are sceptical of Thunberg’s stance due to her diagnoses of Asperger’s, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism. Second, her name is often misused. In late 2018, Ingmar Rentzhog, founder of the non-profit We Don’t Have Time Foundation, who claims to have “found” and “developed” Thunberg, recruited her to become an unpaid youth advisor and used Thunberg’s name and image without her knowledge or permission to raise millions.

May 23, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | 1 Comment

Israel launches massive recruitment drive for social media warriors

MEMO | May 23, 2019

Israel has embarked on a massive recruitment drive to support the country’s online propaganda campaign one day after its companies were exposed for spreading disinformation and meddling in the elections of several African, Asian and Latin American countries.

The new initiative, which would see the government funding pro-Israel groups overseas, was unveiled by Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, a government arm set up to combat the global rise of pro-Palestinian activism and Israel’s poor global image.

Launching the initiative, Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan, who is also the public security minister, was quoted by the Times of Israel saying: “I’m proud to launch the first [government] program to support pro-Israel organizations and activists around the world.”

The plan will “encourage grassroots events and online initiatives against the BDS [boycott] movement and in support of Israel. I’m certain that this program will give a significant boost to all our supporters around the world who are battling this anti-Semitism and the boycott activists,” added Erdan.

Details of the tendering process for recruiting pro-Israeli activists was published in the Jewish Chronicle on 17 May a day after Israeli firms were kicked out by social media giant, Facebook, for spreading disinformation by posing as local journalists and influencers working in several African, Asian and Latin American countries.

“The Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy has announced the opening of submission process for application for grants in 2019 in relation to the topics listed below,” an ad in the Jewish Chronicle said.

The two areas in which the Israeli government was seeking new recruits were in “support for pro-Israeli activities abroad” and “support for pro-Israeli activities on the internet aimed at target audiences abroad.”

$1.6 million was being offered to successful candidates for creating online campaigns battling BDS and supporting pro-Israel events abroad.

Questions over the legality of such a programme were raised by the Times of Israel. “Many of the advocacy organizations that may be a good fit for support from the initiative are registered nonprofits in the United States and other Western nations, thus facing tight restrictions on receiving funds from foreign states.”

These concerns came to light in the UK last summer at the height of the anti-Semitism row within the Labour party when a pro-Israeli British charity, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), was found to be leading a fierce campaign against the party leader Jeremy Corbyn. The group was formed during “Operation Protective Edge” in the summer of 2014 when over 2,000 Palestinians, including 551 children were killed by Israeli missile attacks and shelling of civilian areas.

The group’s activities prompted the Charity Commission and police to launch an investigation into its behaviour.

In addition to Britain, advertisements for the program are said to have been placed in a number of other countries, including the United States, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina.

The initiative is likely to fuel concerns over Israel’s nefarious online activities which have caught the attention of Facebook. It will also raise speculations in the UK where “infowar techniques” are said to have been deployed by pro-Israel groups to fuel the anti-Semitism crises.

An investigation by The Electronic Intifada documented 10 fake Twitter profiles posing as Corbyn supporters posting virulent anti-Semitism. The accounts are said to share sufficient similarities to indicate that the same person – or group – is running them.

Read also:

Source of pro-Israel guerrilla warriors on social media exposed

May 23, 2019 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | 3 Comments

How a BBC documentary promoted Israel’s narrative about the Gaza protests

A digital message calling for the BBC to be more honest in their reporting [Inminds.com]
By Motasem A Dalloul | MEMO | May 23, 2019

A documentary aired recently by the BBC, One Day in Gaza, was produced by award-winning filmmaker Olly Lambert. It covered a day in 2018 of the ongoing protests when Palestinians specifically marked the 70th anniversary of the Nakba (Catastrophe) of the creation of the State of Israel, while Israelis and Americans celebrated the move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The Nakba anniversary and the embassy relocation provoked the largest demonstration at the time since the start of the Great March of Return protests on 30 March last year. Unarmed Palestinians were met by lethal force from the Israeli army; soldiers killed at least 60 demonstrators and wounded more than 3,000 others in a single day.

Lambert showed Israeli brutality in his film, a rare occurrence on Western TV screens. Unfortunately, though, he was clearly trying to justify that brutality judging by the selective interviews with Palestinian and Israeli witnesses and spokespersons which survived the editing process.

In the trailer for the film, Lambert said that the Palestinians in Gaza planned “mass” and “peaceful” demonstrations in response to the announced relocation of the US Embassy, although what followed did not support this claim. Contradicting what he said about the “peaceful” demonstrations, he foreshadowed violent Palestinian action against the Israeli “civilians” by presenting an elderly Israeli lady — he did not mention that she was a settler — describing the protests as a war after three and a half years of quiet. Violence is expected and usually justified in a war, but not a legitimate demonstration, so what was Lambert trying to imply at this stage?

Although it was said that Palestinians at a grassroots level had planned the protests, this was followed by a senior Islamic Jihad official speaking about them as if to reiterate the participation of Palestinian factions designated by Western governments as terrorists. Justification for the snipers taking aim and firing at unarmed people? He even showed the same official saying that the protests are another tactic used by the “armed resistance” because that is what the world wants to see.

Ahmad Abu Ertema was the man behind the peaceful protests. He was critical of the way that his interview was used. It took place while he was on tour across the United States. “They asked for my permission to air the interview, and I approved, under one condition: that they do not twist my words or take them out of context. The documentary proved these concerns were well-founded.”

According to Israeli Colonel Kobi Heller, “As long as it was peaceful, we would have permitted them to protest, but that’s not what happened.” The following scenes of Palestinian casualties led to a voiceover saying “They are breaking through now.” We then saw Deputy Hamas Leader Dr Khalil Al-Hayya referring mistakenly to the fence as “the borders” and “We will not leave the borders until the siege is broken once for all.” This suggested to the viewer that the Palestinians themselves were responsible for the casualties thanks to incitement by Hamas, even though Al-Hayya was talking about the siege, the breaking of which is regarded by many around the world as entirely justifiable.

Did Lambert show a protester raising an axe and calling for others to move towards the fence just to show how difficult it would be for the Israeli soldiers to stop such Palestinians from crossing the “Israeli borders” and harming that elderly woman, sitting unarmed on the other side? Heller claimed that if the Israeli army had done nothing, the “rioters” and “terrorists” would have infiltrated the “borders” and arrived in his village — a settlement built on the rubble of an ethnically-cleansed Palestinian village — within three minutes.

The director cut from the axe scene to the US Embassy celebration in Jerusalem on what was also Israeli Independence Day. In my opinion, this was to show how Israel is living normally and hosting international guests, while these Palestinian “rioters” were trying to disrupt everything. In the midst of this emotional moment, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu popped onto our screens to claim that, “Our brave soldiers are protecting the borders of Israel as we speak today.”

Scenes of a Palestinian protester being shot and bleeding among hundreds running towards the fence, and Israeli soldiers using loudspeakers to warn the protesters about getting too close and firing only tear gas, were cut with Netanyahu claiming, “Remember this moment, we are making history!” The implication was that the soldiers only used tear gas after issuing warnings to the protesters. In fact, this was no ordinary gas; doctors in Gaza described it as “toxic” and of a kind they had never come across before.

The reality of Netanyahu’s “making history” is that his “brave soldiers” were shooting and killing unarmed Palestinian civilians in cold blood even though the victims posed no credible threat to the soldiers or any other Israelis.

In highlighting the claim that Hamas rejects Israel’s right to exist, Lambert pointed out that the movement had a history of suicide attacks and rocket launches against the “Jewish” state, and that Israel had fought three major conflicts with it. He did not need to justify overtly the use of lethal force by the Israeli army because he had already prepped the viewers to want to see such people being crushed.

Of course, we were also treated to the stereotype image of Palestinian Muslim women wearing long black dresses, head scarfs and face covers. This was followed by a young lady wearing camouflage jeans saying that women provided a human shield for men, thus supporting the accusation which the pro-Israeli media has been making against Hamas for years. In doing so, even unintentionally, Lambert basically justified the targeting of female protesters.

Many people have commented on the surreal nature of watching a young girl being shot in the head, in slow motion, on prime time television. However, 15-year-old Wisal Al-Sheikh Khalil’s dream, said her mother to the camera, was to be a martyr. Another witness appeared on screen only to say that Wisal’s nickname was the “stone bank” because she used to carry stones in her bag and give them to the men. Thus we were given a justification for this girl to be killed for aiding and abetting “terrorists”.

However, one Israeli witness, Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus, a spokesman of the Israeli Army, explained that Wisal was one of a number of Palestinians who were killed, it was claimed, unintentionally. “One of the working assumptions,” he explained, “is that a bullet hit a target and then changed direction.”

One child who was shot in the leg which had to be amputated explained that he was planning to break through the “borders” to “give them [Israelis] Hell.” The bullet that did the damage was, he said, “the bullet of pride”. This suggested to the viewer that such boys are not normal and so deserve special treatment. “As long as he’s classified as a terrorist,” said Heller, “we authorise a sniper to shoot him in the leg.”

Abdul Salam Wahba was also killed on that day. He and his brother, Ayman, were taking part peacefully. Ayman stressed that had never had any link with Palestinian factions. Lambert, though, delved 16 years into the past to prove the opposite and mentioned that their brother Ahmad was killed by Israel while taking part in a military operation with Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas. At this point, he also had Heller saying that the whole issue is Hamas-incitement to infiltrate the “borders”.

The most important thing is that Lambert did not say why the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are really angry and wanted to cross the fence. He did not say that they were forced from their homes by the Israeli occupation’s deliberate ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine (to which they have a legitimate right of return). He only said that they fled during the Israeli war of independence. Nor did he mention the ongoing crisis of the Israeli-led siege which has turned Gaza into the largest open-air prison in the world and made it virtually unliveable.

Even though many people were happy that the BBC aired such a film, I believe that the British broadcaster needs to be much more objective in its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict instead of adopting the Israeli narrative. I cannot say that One Day in Gaza was better than nothing, because other objective sources are available for those who care to look for them. Lambert mixed poison with honey in this film, albeit very skilfully.

May 23, 2019 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

UNRWA rejects US call for dismantling UN agency for Palestinian refugees

Press TV – May 23, 2019

The head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has rejected a US call to dismantle the agency, saying it cannot be blamed for the stalemate in the so-called peace efforts.

“I unreservedly reject the accompanying narrative that suggests that somehow UNRWA is to blame for the continuation of the refugee-hood of Palestine refugees, of their growing numbers and their growing needs,” UNRWA’s Commissioner General Pierre Krahenbuhl said in a press conference in the Gaza City on Thursday.

His comments were in response to a question about what Jason Greenblatt, US President Donald Trump’s special representative for international negotiations, provocatively had said a day earlier, claiming that the agency had run its course and was no longer needed.

Addressing the UN Security Council on Wednesday, Greenblatt claimed that UNRWA had been a “bandaid” and that it was time to hand over services assured by the refugee agency to those countries hosting the Palestinian Arab refugees.

“The UNRWA model has failed the Palestinian people,” he added.

UNRWA was originally set up in 1949 to take care of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in the Middle East mainly through providing them with humanitarian aid.

It was initially established as a temporary agency, but it has continued to provide support for Palestinian refugees for the better part of six decades.

It currently supports more than five million Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip, the occupied West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, providing them with healthcare, education and social services with funding from international donors.

Most are descendants of the roughly 700,000 Palestinians who were driven out of their homes or fled the 1948 war that led to Israel’s creation.

Last year, however, Washington cut its roughly $300 million annual donation to the UN agency, claiming that it was flawed as Trump’s administration pressed ahead with work on its so-called peace plan.

The US has accused UNRWA of expanding the definition of the refugee so that it includes all descendants of refugees regardless of whether they have taken citizenship in another country.

“The fact that UNRWA still exists today is an illustration of the failure of the parties and the international community to resolve the issue politically — and one cannot deflect the attention onto a humanitarian organization,” the UNRWA head further said on Thursday.

The UN agency will host a conference on June 25 at which international donors are expected to pledge financial support.

The developments come as the White House is set to hold an economic summit in Bahrain’s capital, Manama, on June 25 and 26 during which the first part of Trump’s “peace plan” which is spearheaded by his son-in-law Jared Kushner will be unveiled.

The Trump administration has said that its secret plan would require compromise by both sides.

The plan has been dismissed by Palestinian authorities even before being unveiled. Palestine’s Minister of Social Development Ahmed Majdalani also said early this week that Palestinians would not participate in the economic conference in Manama.

Relations between the Palestinian Authority and the US took an unprecedented dip in late 2017, when Washington recognized Jerusalem al-Quds as Israel’s “capital.”

Since then, Palestinians have shown little interest in discussing a plan that they anticipate will fall far short of their core demands.

The Palestinian Authority, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, is facing steep aid cuts. Since being shunned by Palestinians, the White House has slashed hundreds of millions of dollars to humanitarian organizations.

Palestinians want the West Bank as part of a future independent state with East Jerusalem al-Quds as its capital, but Israel insists on maintaining the occupation of Palestinian territories.

Trump has time and again called his plan as “the deal of the century,” which is coincidentally the title of a 1983 comedy featuring a bunch of hapless arms dealers who compete to sell a weapon, called the Peacemaker, to a South American dictator.

May 23, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

The 2020 Sweepstakes Begin. Let’s Keep Israel and the Phony Claims of Anti-Semitism out of It

By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 23, 2019

The more than twenty Democrats who are seeking to become their party’s presidential candidate in 2020 have been more than a little reticent about the foreign policy of the United States. There has been some muttering from the more progressive aspirants regarding the regular and bipartisan presidential abuse of his war powers, together with some demands that the next conflict be approved by a vote of congress as the Constitution demands, but most of the Democrats prefer to keep their heads down on the issue because it is believed to be too complicated for American voters to understand. That assumption might actually be true as the US citizenry has been fed a banquet of lies from both the media and the wise men and women running the government, so it would be surprising if they could be anything but. The oft-repeated joke is that the United States is fighting wars in places that most American would be unable to find on a map.

Only Tulsi Gabbard has been outspoken, calling for an end to the current wars and a new policy alignment that would make it more difficult to rush into something new. She has inevitably been marginalized by the Establishment media and is way down in the polls relating to the preferences of Democratic voters.

The inside the beltway consensus candidate is, inevitably, Joe Biden, who is again portraying himself as some kind of working class hero to undercut Donald Trump’s blue collar appeal in the 2020 showdown. Biden is a hero in his own mind, as the expression goes, and he is deeply complicit in the abominations during the Obama Administration, in which he served as Vice President. Those crimes against humanity as well as the Constitution of the United States included the destruction of a functioning government in Libya, which included the brutal assassination of its leader, an action that has produced today’s anarchy in that country while also unleashing a wave of Islamic terrorism in north and central Africa. Biden was also surely involved in the Obama assassination by drone program, which include Tuesday morning meetings in the office of the president to draw up lists of American citizens to be targeted.

One of the core constituencies that most of the candidate-aspirants, as well as Trump, seek to get on board is the Israel Lobby, which is important not necessarily because it delivers Jewish and Christian Zionist votes, but more-so because of the favorable media coverage it guarantees and the millions of dollars in political donations and PAC money (which some prefer to call Benjamins) required to run a campaign.

Navigating the shoals of Greater Israel can be tricky, as several Democrats have learned to their dismay. Popular favorite, the boyish looking Pete Buttigieg Mayor of South Bend Indiana, was the latest to fall into the trap. He made what some might well regard as innocent comments. He criticized the principal Republican donor Sheldon Adelson, who has succeeded in buying both Trump and the Republican Party on behalf of Israel. Speaking in Las Vegas, the home of Adelson when he is not in Israel, and the source of his wealth as he owns a chain of casinos that have “earned” billions of dollars by fleecing the ungodly, Buttigieg reportedly told his audience that “I know I’m a guest in Sheldon Adelson’s town. But I know … that real democracy means that the voice you have in our political process is gauged by the merits of what you have to say and not by the number of zeros in your bank balance.”

Even though the comment had nothing to do with either Jews or Israel, Adelson immediately fired back that Buttigieg is an anti-Semite. Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, wrote on Twitter also went to bat for Adelson, claiming that Buttigieg’s remarks were an “anti-Semitic dog whistle.” It is clear from the two comments, that disproving any allegations of anti-Semitism will be a major issue no matter who is nominated for 2020. On the Republican side, former House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy was accused a year ago of repeating anti-Semitic tropes when he criticized the influence of Hungarian-Jewish Democratic major donor George Soros. In other words, if you criticize the actions of a Jew, no matter in what context, you now will likely be accused of anti-Semitism.

Candidate Cory Booker has also felt the lash from “America’s rabbi” Shmuley Boteach who wrote a lengthy letter to the Jerusalem Post In it, he explains why Cory’s candidacy is sinking both in the polls and his donations received: “[His]… friendship has not foundered. It was betrayed. It was betrayed by a friend who was as close to me as a brother, whom my people embraced as a son, but who decided to vote to fund a government that was calling for our annihilation. It was betrayed by a friend whom I introduced to Elie Wiesel, and who quotes the great Holocaust survivor at every turn, but who chose to close his eyes to Iran’s promise to perpetrate a second Holocaust. And it was betrayed by a politician to whom the Jewish community gave incalculable support for his promises to support Israel, only to see him condemn the embassy move to Jerusalem and vote in committee against a bill that would stop payments to Palestinian terrorists for murdering Jews.”

What had Cory Booker done? He had voted in support of the agreement to monitor Iran’s nuclear program so it would not produce a weapon. Boteach described the betrayal as “Giving the Iranian terrorists more money by which to murder innocents [and] open the gates to lush opportunities of a global economy happy to overlook the mullahs’ vows to eradicate Israel.” Of course, Boteach is talking nonsense but his particular brand of mud will stick on Booker.

So Israel will be an issue from now until next November when Americans go to the polls. The solution? Let’s get Israel and the frequent charges about anti-Semitism out of our politics. Once and for all and forever.

May 23, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | 1 Comment

Rand Corp: how to destroy Russia

By Manlio Dinucci | Voltairenet | May 21, 2019

The conclusions of the latest confidential report by the Rand Corporation were recently made public in a « Brief ». They explain how to wage a new Cold War against Russia. Certain recommendations have already been implemented, but this systemic exposure enables us to understand their true objective.

Force the adversary to expand recklessly in order to unbalance him, and then destroy him. This is not the description of a judo hold, but a plan against Russia elaborated by the Rand Corporation, the most influential think tank in the USA. With a staff of thousands of experts, Rand presents itself as the world’s most reliable source for Intelligence and political analysis for the leaders of the United States and their allies.

The Rand Corp prides itself on having contributed to the elaboration of the long-term strategy which enabled the United States to win the Cold War, by forcing the Soviet Union to consume its own economic resources in the strategic confrontation. It is this model which was the inspiration for the new plan, Overextending and Unbalancing Russia, published by Rand [1]. According to their analysts, Russia remains a powerful adversary for the United States in certain fundamental sectors. To handle this opposition, the USA and their allies will have to pursue a joint long-term strategy which exploits Russia’s vulnerabilities. So Rand analyses the various means with which to unbalance Russia, indicating for each the probabilities of success, the benefits, the cost, and the risks for the USA.

Rand analysts estimate that Russia’s greatest vulnerability is that of its economy, due to its heavy dependency on oil and gas exports. The income from these exports can be reduced by strengthening sanctions and increasing the energy exports of the United States. The goal is to oblige Europe to diminish its importation of Russian natural gas, and replace it by liquefied natural gas transported by sea from other countries.

Another way of destabilising the Russian economy in the long run is to encourage the emigration of qualified personnel, particularly young Russians with a high level of education. In the ideological and information sectors, it would be necessary to encourage internal contestation and at the same time, to undermine Russia’s image on the exterior, by excluding it from international forums and boycotting the international sporting events that it organises.

In the geopolitical sector, arming Ukraine would enable the USA to exploit the central point of Russia’s exterior vulnerability, but this would have to be carefully calculated in order to hold Russia under pressure without slipping into a major conflict, which it would win.

In the military sector, the USA could enjoy high benefits, with low costs and risks, by increasing the number of land-based troops from the NATO countries working in an anti-Russian function. The USA can enjoy high probabilities of success and high benefits, with moderate risks, especially by investing mainly in strategic bombers and long-range attack missiles directed against Russia.

Leaving the INF Treaty and deploying in Europe new intermediate-range nuclear missiles pointed at Russia would lead to high probabilities of success, but would also present high risks. By calibrating each option to gain the desired effect – conclude the Rand analysts – Russia would end up by paying the hardest price in a confrontation, but the USA would also have to invest huge resources, which would therefore no longer be available for other objectives. This is also prior warning of a coming major increase in USA/NATO military spending, to the disadvantage of social budgets.

This is the future that is planned out for us by the Rand Corporation, the most influential think tank of the Deep State – in other words the underground centre of real power gripped by the economic, financial, and military oligarchies – which determines the strategic choices not only of the USA, but all of the Western world.

The « options » set out by the plan are in reality no more than variants of the same war strategy, of which the price in sacrifices and risks is paid by us all.

Translation by Pete Kimberley

Source: Il Manifesto (Italy)

[1] Overextending and Unbalancing Russia. Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options, by James Dobbins, Raphael S. Cohen, Nathan Chandler, Bryan Frederick, Edward Geist, Paul DeLuca, Forrest E. Morgan, Howard J. Shatz, Brent Williams, Rand Corporation, May 2019.

May 23, 2019 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | 5 Comments

Democracy vs. The Putin-Nazis

By CJ Hopkins | Consent Factory, Inc | May 23, 2019

Back in January 2018, I wrote this piece about The War on Dissent, which, in case you haven’t noticed, is going gangbusters. As predicted, the global capitalist ruling classes have been using every weapon in their arsenal to marginalize, stigmatize, delegitimize, and otherwise eliminate any and all forms of dissent from neoliberal ideology, and in particular from their new official narrative … “Democracy versus The Putin-Nazis.”

For over two years, the corporate media have been pounding out an endless series of variations on this major theme, namely, that “democracy is under attack” by a conspiracy of Russians and neo-Nazis that magically materialized out of the ether during the Summer of 2016. The intelligence agencies, political elites, academia, celebrities, social media personalities, and other organs of the culture industry have been systematically reifying this official narrative through constant repetition. The Western masses have been inundated with innumerable articles, editorials, television news and talk show segments, books, social media posts, and various other forms of messaging whipping up hysteria over “Russians” and “fascists.” At this point, it is no longer just propaganda. It has become the new “truth.” It has become “reality.”

Becoming “reality” is, of course, the ultimate goal of every ideology. An ideology is just a system of ideas, and is thus fair game for critique and dissent. “Reality” is not fair game for dissent. It is not up for debate or challenge, not by “serious,” “legitimate” people. “Reality” is simply “the way it is.” It is axiomatic. It is apothegmatic. It’s not a belief or an interpretation. It is not subject to change or revision. It is the immortal, immutable Word of God … or whatever deity or deity-like concept the ruling classes and the masses they rule accept as the Final Arbiter of Truth. In our case, this would be Science, or Reason, rather than some supernatural being, but in terms of ideology there isn’t much difference. Every system of belief, regardless of its nature, ultimately depends on political power and power relations to enforce its beliefs, which is to say, to make them “real.”

OK, whenever I write about “reality” and “truth,” I get a few rather angry responses from folks who appear to think I’m denying the existence of objective reality. I’m not … for example, this chair I’m sitting on is absolutely part of objective reality, a physical object that actually exists. The screen you’re probably reading these words on is also part of objective reality. I am not saying there is no reality. What I’m saying is, “reality” is a concept, a concept invented and developed by people … a concept that serves a variety of purposes, some philosophical, some political. It’s the political purposes I’m interested in.

Think of “reality” as an ideological tool … a tool in the hands of those with the power to designate what is “real” and what isn’t. Doctors, teachers, politicians, police, scientists, priests, pundits, experts, parents — these are the enforcers of “reality.” The powerless do not get to decide what is “real.” Ask someone suffering from schizophrenia. Or … I’m sorry, is it bipolar disorder? Or oppositional defiant disorder? I can’t keep all these new disorders psychiatrists keep “discovering” straight.

Or ask a Palestinian living in Gaza. Or the mother of a Black kid the cops shot for no reason. Ask Julian Assange. Ask the families of all those “enemy combatants” Obama droned. Ask the “conspiracy theorists” on Twitter digitally screaming at anyone who will listen about what is and isn’t “the truth.” Each of them will give you their version of “reality,” and you and I may agree with some of them, and some of their beliefs may be supported with facts, but that will not make what they believe “reality.”

Power is what makes “reality” “reality.” Not facts. Not evidence. Not knowledge. Power.

Those in power, or aligned with those in power, or parroting the narratives of those in power, understand this (whether consciously or not). Those without power mostly do not, and thus we continue to “speak truth to power,” as if those in power gave a shit. They don’t. The powerful are not arguing with us. They are not attempting to win a debate about what is and isn’t “true,” or what did or didn’t “really” happen. They are declaring what did or didn’t happen. They are telling us what is and is not “reality,” and demonstrating what happens to those who disagree.

The “Democracy versus The Putin-Nazis” narrative is our new “reality,” whether we like it or not. It does not matter one iota that there is zero evidence to support this narrative, other than the claims of intelligence agencies, politicians, the corporate media, and other servants of the ruling classes. The Russians are “attacking democracy” because the ruling classes tell us they are. “Fascism is on the march again” because the ruling classes say it is. Anyone who disagrees is a “Putin-sympathizer,” a “Putin-apologist,” or “linked to Russia,” or “favored by Russia,” or an “anti-Semite,” or a “fascist apologist.”

Question the official narrative about the Gratuitously Baby Gassing Monster of Syria and you’re an Assad apologist, a Russian bot network, or a plagiarizing Red-Brown infiltrator. Criticize the corporate media for disseminating cheap McCarthyite smears, and you’re a Tulsi-stanning Hindu Nazi-apologist. God help you if you should appear on FOX, in which case you are a Nazi-legitimizer! A cursory check of the Internet today revealed that “far-right Facebook groups are spreading hate to millions in Europe” by means of some sort of hypnogenic content that just looking at it turns you into a Nazi. Our democracy-loving friends at The Atlantic Council are disappointed by Trump’s refusal to sign the “Christchurch Call,” a multilateral statement encouraging corporations to censor the Internet … and fascism is fashionable in Italy again!”

This post-Orwellian, neo-McCarthyite mass hysteria is not going to stop … not until the global capitalist ruling classes have suppressed the current “populist” insurgency and restored “normality” throughout the Western world. Until then, it’s going to be pretty much non-stop “Democracy versus the Putin-Nazis.”

So, unless you’re enjoying our new “reality,” or are willing to conform to it for some other reason, prepare to be smeared as “a Russia-loving, Putin-apologizing conspiracy theorist,” or a “fascism-enabling, Trump-loving Nazi,” or some other type of insidiously Slavic, white supremacist, mass-murder enthusiast. Things are only going to get uglier as the American election season ramps up. I mean, come on … you don’t really believe that the global capitalist ruling classes are going to let Trump serve a second term, do you?

May 23, 2019 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Let’s not make a drama about Skripal case before important questions are answered

By Neil Clark | RT | May 22, 2019

It’s over 14 months since the Skripal poisonings first made world headlines but to paraphrase the words of the 1970s Johnny Nash hit ‘There are more questions than answers, and the more we find out, the less we know.’

There’s been neither sight nor sound of Yulia or Sergei Skripal. Yulia was last seen in a short video statement released on May 23, 2018, her father in CCTV footage in a shop in Salisbury at 12.47pm on February 27, 2018. If Sergei was sure that the Russian state was responsible for what happened to him, why hasn’t he been put before a camera to say so? Even more mysteriously, why hasn’t this dutiful son not called his 91-year old mother Yelena to say he’s ok?  Might Sergei Skripal actually be dead – and if so, why haven’t we been told?

Then there’s the unraveling of the Amesbury (a town nine miles from Salisbury) postscript. The news that two British nationals, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, had been admitted to hospital after being exposed to alleged Novichok poisoning from a bottle of perfume found in a bin by Rowley, caused a sensation when it broke in early July 2018.

But a couple of days ago the Guardian, cited a source au fait with the police’s criminal inquiry, who stated: “The bin where the bottle (of perfume) was found was regularly emptied, so it seems inconceivable that it had been there in March.”

Which raises the question: If the bottle did contain Novichok and the two Russian suspects didn’t put it in the bin, then who did?

There are three possible explanations – if we rule out the bottle somehow quite miraculously remaining in the bin after regular emptying over a sixteen-week period.

Firstly, Rowley misremembered where he found the bottle and that he actually picked it up somewhere else. Secondly, the bottle didn’t contain Novichok and wasn’t the source of the poisoning and Dawn’s tragic death. Thirdly, it did contain Novichok and that it was placed in the bin in the week preceding Rowley finding it.

Possibility one clearly does not exclude the two Russian suspects leaving the Novichok somewhere else, eg in a bush in the park and Rowley finding it several weeks later. However, Rowley did tell ITV in July 2018: “I feel confident in myself to say it wasn’t picked up in the park.”

The other two possibilities raise some very serious questions indeed. They would indicate that some unknown actor was keen to link the poisoning of Rowley and Burgess to the earlier events in Salisbury. If so, was it done to try and further turn public opinion against Russia in pursuance of a geopolitical agenda?

Again, it’s worth stressing that up to now the Metropolitan Police have been unable able to link the poisoning of Rowley and Burgess to that of the Skripals.

All things considered, what we could really do with at this point is answers from the authorities who were so quick to throw accusations at Russia, and a new television documentary could help that.

I’m old enough to remember the excellent ITV series ‘In Suspicious Circumstances’, shown in the early 1990s, which looked into real-life murder mysteries of the past. The individual programs were introduced by the late Edward Woodward. They included mini-dramatizations, but in the end, Woodward would sum up what we did know and what we didn’t and let us make our own minds up.

One would hope that ‘Salisbury’ the new two-part BBC ‘factual drama’ on the Skripal case, announced last week, will follow the same forensic pattern, but given the anti-Russian undercurrent to so much of contemporary programming, one can’t be too optimistic. The article on the BBC website announcing the drama doesn’t inspire confidence as it states “Dawn Sturgess was fatally poisoned in the attack.”

The truth is that the Met has been unable to prove that and manslaughter charges against the two Russian suspects have not been brought.

Commissioning a two-part drama about an event which remains clouded in so much uncertainty is premature. Surely it would be better to try and establish exactly what happened first, and then make the drama? Perhaps Government DSMA Notices (formerly D-Notices) are the reason why proper investigative journalism is not taking place. We know of at least two DSMAs being issued in relation to the Skripal affair. But these notices are not legally enforceable and Britain is not –or at least not yet – a totalitarian state. It should be possible to make a painstakingly-factual documentary on the Skripal case without compromising national security.

For such a documentary to be credible, it would be imperative that the two Russian suspects, traveling under the names of Boshirov and Petrov, but allegedly Messrs Chepiga and Mishkin of Russian Military Intelligence, make themselves available for interview. If they had nothing to do with the poisoning of the Skripals then we really need to know what they were doing in Salisbury on the weekend in question (no one, let’s face it, is convinced about the ‘they were just tourists visiting the Cathedral’ line). At the same time, other leads need to be investigated too. Could the poisonings have been planned by an unknown actor hostile to Russia, with the knowledge that the two Russians were visiting Salisbury for a purpose connected to Sergei Skripal but not involving poisoning him? Could Boshirov and Petrov have been set up, with traces of Novichok left in their hotel room weeks later to try and incriminate them? That would explain why no guests occupying the room after Boshirov and Petrov became ill.

Can we even be 100 percent sure that Novichok was indeed used, and that the Skripals weren’t instead the victims of fentanyl poisoning? Remember the testimony of eyewitness Freya Church, who saw the Skripals on the bench that Sunday afternoon, and who told the BBC: “He was doing some strange hand movements, looking up to the sky… They looked like they had been taking something quite strong”.

Remember too the letter to the Times published on 14th March 2018 from Dr Stephen Davies, Consultant in Emergency Medicine at the Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, who wrote: “May I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning… No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved.”

Might what happened be linked to Skripal’s work on Russian criminal/Mafia gangs with Spanish Intelligence?

Could there be a connection to the Steele dossier, or is that just a wild conspiracy theory? Where is the CCTV footage of the Skripals in Salisbury on 4th March 2018? Why haven’t we seen it?

And regarding the Amesbury postscript, if Novichok was suspected, why has there still been no coroner’s inquest into the death of Dawn Sturgess?

These are the questions that I’m sure Edward Woodward would be asking.

Journalists should be asking them too.

May 23, 2019 Posted by | Film Review, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

UK to warn NATO allies of Russian cyber attack campaign

Press TV | May 23, 2019

Britain is providing information to 16 allies in the NATO military alliance about Russia’s cyber activities in their territories over the last 18 months, Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt will announce later on Thursday, a statement that is expected to further muddy the waters between London and Moscow.

Hunt will make the remarks during a speech at the NATO Cyber Defense Pledge Conference in London, where he is expected to accuse Russia’s intelligence services of running a “global campaign” that has targeted the critical infrastructure of at least 16 member-states, according to extracts of the speech released by his department.

“This global campaign also seeks to compromise central government networks,” he will warn the meeting, which is to be attended by the alliance’s head Jens Stoltenberg.

“I can disclose that in the last 18 months, the National Cyber Security Centre has shared information and assessments with 16 NATO Allies — and even more nations outside the Alliance — of Russian cyber activity in their countries,” Hunt will add.

The British FM will call on NATO’s all 29 members to team up against Moscow and deliver a “proportionate” response if Russia ever attacks.

“Together, we possess options for responding to any attacks. We should be prepared to use them.”

The remarks come as ties between London and Moscow are at a deadlock. Tensions began last year, when the UK accused Russia of orchestrating a poison attack against former double agen Sergey Novichok in Salisbury.

London expelled 23 Russian diplomats in March after accusing Moscow of masterminding a nerve agent attack against Russia’s former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia on the British soil in March.

Russia has denied any involvement in the attack, dismissing the UK accusations as an extension of the anti-Russia propaganda campaign by the West.

London since the Salisbury attack has stepped up its anti-Russia rhetoric by backing a NATO buildup on Russia’s borders while siding with Ukraine in a standoff with the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

May 23, 2019 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment