Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Memo to Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi

By Pat Buchanan • Unz Review • June 28, 2019

“For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end.”

Donald Trump, circa 2016?

Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during Wednesday night’s Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage.

Gabbard proceeded to rip both the “president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us to the brink of war with Iran.”

In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage from Afghanistan: “When we weren’t in there they started flying planes into our buildings.”

“The Taliban didn’t attack us on 9/11,” Gabbard replied, “Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That’s why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban.”

When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:

“Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? ‘Well, we just have to be engaged.’ As a solider, I will tell you, that answer is unacceptable. … We are no better off in Afghanistan that we were when this war began.”

By debate’s end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google.

Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not have used that time more effectively. And her performance may shake up the Democratic race.

If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates.

If she is, moderators will now go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions in the Democratic Party.

Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be — not only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner’s “Deal of the Century,” and Trump’s seeming rejection of the two-state solution.

If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump’s victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.

The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that, as was shown in the joust with Ryan, she takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich.

Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver.

We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to negotiate to avoid a war.

Jared Kushner is talking up a U.S.-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians in return for their forfeiture of sovereignty and an end to their dream of a nation-state on the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.

John Bolton is talking of regime change in Caracas and confronting the “troika of tyranny” in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War

U.S. policy has managed to push our great adversaries, Russia and China, together as they have not been since the first Stalin-Mao decade of the Cold War.

This June, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall of the People to warn that in this time of “growing global instability and uncertainty,” Russia and China will “deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues.”

Xi presented Putin with China’s new Friendship Medal. Putin responded: “Cooperation with China is one of Russia’s top priorities and it has reached an unprecedented level.”

At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this Cold War II?

Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?

Copyright 2019 Creators.com.

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 3 Comments

Globalism has failed US middle class, Trump saw it – Putin on MAGA

RT | June 27, 2019

US President Donald Trump’s election victory should be attributed not to some foreign influence but to the fact that many Americans were left behind by globalization and Trump saw it, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said.

“The middle class in the US has not benefited from globalisation; it was left out when this pie was divided up,” Putin told the Financial Times ahead of the G20 summit when asked to comment on the US president’s policies.

“Trump looked into his opponents’ attitude to him and saw changes in American society, and he took advantage of this,” he explained, while calling the perceived Russian influence on the US 2016 election “mythical.”

Putin also assumed that globalization could have divided US society – at least in an economic sense. “In the US, the leading US companies — the companies, their managers, shareholders and partners — made use of these benefits. The middle class hardly benefited from globalization.”

“The Trump team sensed this very keenly and clearly, and they used this in the election campaign. It is where you should look for reasons behind Trump’s victory, rather than in any alleged foreign interference,” Putin said. Trump’s “extravagant” policies might be a sign of the US president’s attempts to right some wrongs in accordance with his own “distinct world outlook.”

“He seems to believe that the results of globalization could have been much better for the US than they are. These globalization results are not producing the desired effect for the US, and he is beginning this campaign against certain elements of globalization.”

Putin argued, one of the major problems in the US, but in Europe as well, is that the “ruling elites have broken away from the people.” The elites continue to entertain so-called liberal ideas and seem to be quite happy with the ongoing developments while people are increasingly concerned by such issues as mass immigration, the Russian president believes.

“The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population.”

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Democratic candidates on Israel/Palestine

By Kathryn Shihadah – If Americans Knew – June 27, 2019

Overwhelmed by the crowd of candidates for President? The issue of justice for Palestinians – in which almost everyone bows to the Israel lobby – is the ultimate litmus test for integrity. Find out where everyone stands. (This guide will be updated often.)

Keep in mind that since Palestinians in Gaza began weekly unarmed demonstrations for their internationally recognized rights on March 30, 2018 through March 22, 2019, Israeli forces killed over 271 demonstrators and injured 29,187 Gazans (6,000 of them children). During that time 2 Israelis were killed and 56 injured. A Timeline of Palestinian and Israeli deaths is here

Democratic Candidates 1-24

1. Michael Bennet (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Yes. I’ve said this before and I believe it: Israel is the one essential country on the planet. I say that because of my family’s history during the Holocaust, and that doesn’t mean Israel’s perfect. Where we have disagreements, we should be able to articulate those disagreements, and I do articulate the disagreements I’ve had with Benjamin Netanyahu over the years.

(Twitter 5/6/19) “We stand behind Israel’s right to self-defense against rocket attacks by terror groups inside Gaza,” he said on Twitter. “Launching rocket attacks against innocent civilians is unacceptable and we mourn the lives lost. A cessation in violence is a necessary step toward de-escalation and stability.”

2. Joe Biden(D)

(Remarks at Saban Forum, 12/7/14)“Send a message to Bibi. I love him.” Even if he drives me crazy, Biden said. The love message came in 2014 a few months after the Gaza slaughter, in which Israel killed 500 children.

(Remarks at Yeshiva Beth Yehuda 75th Anniversary Dinner 11/15/11) About 18, 20 years ago, I was speaking to the Zionist Organization of Baltimore.  And I said, I am a Zionist, for I learned you do not have to be a Jew to be a Zionist…[I]t was no surprise to my friends when I was elected to the Senate in a state less than 1 percent of the Jewish — less than 1 percent of the population is Jewish, that I got so deeply involved early on in the Senate with the business of Israel.

(Remarks at AIPAC Policy Conference 3/4/13) We opposed the unilateral efforts of the Palestinian Authority to circumvent direct negotiations by pushing for statehood and multilateral organizations like UNESCO. We stood strongly with Israel in its right to defend itself after the Goldstone ReportGaza flotillain 2010, [I spent a lot of time] going to the United Nations directly by telephone, speaking with the Secretary General, making sure that one thing was made clear, Israel had the right — had the right — to impose that blockade.

3. Bill de Blasio (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I believe in the state of Israel…the one true democracy in the Middle East, and they do respect the rights of all people. There’s always more work to be done…it begins with a strong commitment to Israel…I’ve been to Israel 4 times, I’ve spent a lot of time seeing the threats that Israel faces. I firmly believe that we have to defend the state of Israel, and we have to fight against the movements that would undercut Israel, like BDS…The current administration has made a lot of mistakes that have hindered the peace process…

(Remarks at Hampton Synagogue in Westhampton Beach, 8/20/16) I think [BDS – Boycott, Divest, and Sanction is] one of the most ahistorical things I’ve ever seen…Defending Israel is a matter — from my point of view as a progressive — is a matter of being consistent with progressive values.

(Remarks at AIPAC Policy Conference, 3/25/19) As a progressive, here’s what I see when I’m in Israel. I see a multi-racial democracy. I see universal healthcare, free college, a strong labor movement. You’ve often heard it said that Israel’s America’s closest ally in the Middle East and a great center of innovation, and although that is true, I’m moved by something more than that. Israel at its core is there to shelter an oppressed people. That is why I am here to make a simple, clear, progressive case for the state of Israel. So here’s a straightforward definition for you. Progressives fight oppression. Progressives shelter those in danger. We embrace inclusion. We fight against exclusion.

4. Cory Booker (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) We have a problem right now in America with the way we are debating issues surrounding Israel and Israel’s security…My commitment right now is affirming Israel’s right to exist and affirming Israel’s right to defend itself against enemies which they have virtually surrounding them, but also to affirm the dignity and self-determination of the Palestinian people.

(Senate floor speech 11/29/18) Mr. President, today I wish to add myself as a cosponsor of S. 720, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation in its modified form. I have long and staunchly opposed the BDS movement and associated efforts to unfairly isolate Israel in international forums.

[Secretly recorded meeting with New Jersey AIPAC members 3/26/19) Israel is not political to me. It’s not political. I was a supporter of Israel well before I was a United State Senator. I was coming to AIPAC conferences well before I knew that one day I would be a federal officer. If I forget thee, o Israel, may I cut off my right hand. [Applause]

[Booker assured a questioner he’s always been for more money to Israel:] Unequivocally 100 percent absolutely [yes] to the 3.3 billion [a year]. I have been on the front lines every time an MOU is up to make sure Israel gets the funding it needs. I even pushed for more funding.

5. Steve Bullock (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I think that Israel’s a trusted partner, a trusted friend to our country, and will continue to. I think that there have been certainly in the territories there have been challenges with decisions that currently Netanyahu has made…we could get things back on track, work with our allies, and get to a 2-state solution.

(Signatory of Governors Against BDS, an initiative of the American Jewish Committee, 12/17/17, which reads in part:) We, the undersigned Governors, reject efforts to demonize and delegitimize Israel—America’s democratic ally in the Middle East— through the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. The goals of the BDS movement are antithetical to our values and the values of our respective states…They malign a trusted ally that, while forced to defend itself against repeated and ongoing attempts to annihilate it, has consistently extended its hand in peace to its Palestinian neighbors and to states across the Middle East and around the world. Significantly, the BDS movement would also undermine peacemaking by suggesting that economic and political pressure on Israel can replace real negotiation…

6. Pete Buttigieg (D)

(Comment on American Jewish Committee podcast after returning from an AJC Mayors’ trip to Israel – recorded 4 days after 60 mostly unarmed Palestinians were killed by Israeli sharpshooters, 5/18/18) “Seeing the way that a country can be on the one hand very intentional, very serious, and very effective when it comes to security and on the other hand not allowing concerns about security to dominate your consciousness,” he said, “I think that’s a very important lesson that hopefully Americans can look to when we think about how to navigate a world that unfortunately has become smaller and more dangerous for all of us.”

(Remark in speech at Indiana University, 6/11/19) “If Prime Minister Netanyahu makes good on his threat to annex West Bank settlements, he should know that a President Buttigieg would take steps to ensure that American taxpayers won’t help foot the bill,”

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Israel’s human rights record is problematic and moving in the wrong direction under the current rightwing government…I’m very worried, especially with some of the latest talk about annexation of the West Bank, that their government is moving away from peace…

7. Julián Castro (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19)  I believe that Israel, like a lot of countries, wants to do the right thing, that they can get better. I do believe that we need to recognize and respect the human rights of Palestinians…Israel has to choose: it’s going to be a Jewish state or a democratic state…I recognize that [a 2-state solution] has been made harder over the years through the increase in settlements…

(Remark at Castro’s Conversations About America’s Future, Austin TX, 3/10/19) Support Israel, remain strong allies, but recognize the value of Palestinians and that they should be treated in a way that we can support on behalf of the country.

(Tweet 4/8/19) In abandoning our position as a good faith partner in the Middle East peace process, the Trump admin has enabled reckless actions like [West Bank annexation] from Netanyahu. US support for a two-state solution is on the line in November 2020.

8. John Delaney (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19)  I think Israel does meet international standards of human rights. I think Israel’s in a very difficult situation, when they’re surrounded by countries who are effectively threatening their existence, and don’t believe they have a right to exist. So I think that puts them in an exceedingly difficult situation in many respects. It’s always in the best interest of Israel to make sure their response to people who are threatening them is as measured and appropriate as possible.

(Remark before a trip to Israel as a candidate for Congress, 7/27/12. The visit included holy sites, Israeli officials and business leaders)  After speaking with community leaders, faith leaders, and voters, across the District during my campaign, I came to understand that visiting Israel was necessary to obtain a full and proper perspective on our relationship with our strongest ally in the Middle East. I felt that it was vital to gain a first-hand understanding of the issues. Israel is a force for greater democracy and stability in the Middle East, and we must support its right to exist in peace and security…As a member of Congress, I will work to ensure that the US-Israel partnership remains strong” said Delaney.

9. Tulsi Gabbard (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I think that there are some challenges with Israel that need to be addressed. I think that ongoing issues that we continue to see in the conflict between Israel and Palestine are complicated, but there needs to be progress made, ultimately to make sure that both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people are able to live in peace and security.

(Tweet following Gaza protest on 5/14/19, in which 60 mostly unarmed Palestinians were killed by Israeli sharpshooters) Israel needs to stop using live ammunition in its response to unarmed protesters in Gaza. It has resulted in over 50 dead and thousands seriously wounded.

(Statement after declining to condemn UN Security Council resolution critical of Israeli settlements, 1/3/17) I know how important our enduring alliance with Israel is,” she wrote. “My vote upholds my commitment to maintaining and strengthening this alliance, as well as my long-held position that the most viable path to peace between Israel and Palestine can be found through both sides negotiating a two-state solution. While I remain concerned about aspects of the UN resolution, I share the Obama administration’s reservation about the harmful impact Israeli settlement activity has on the prospects for peace.”

10. Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

(Statement released after more than 200 rockets were fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip, which were in retaliation for Israel’s breaking a ceasefire and killing 14 Palestinians in one night, 11/12/18)The escalation in violence on the Israel-Gaza border is deeply disturbing, and I am relieved that Israel’s missile defense programs were able to avert civilian fatalities from this disgraceful terror attack. I urge calm so the situation does not further escalate, and I still remain hopeful for a long-term, peaceful solution to this tragic conflict. But the only way we will accomplish that is through negotiations that create conditions for safety and economic security — not through rocket attacks or any other acts of terrorism.

(Statement, 1/11/16) Last week, I led a trip with seven of my Senate colleagues to meet with top government officials and military leaders about security concerns in Israel and our other partners in the Middle East. We heard from Israel’s leaders about the constant threat of terrorism they face, and we reaffirmed to them our commitment to supporting and protecting our closest ally and the only democracy in the Middle East.

11. Mike Gravel (D)

(In a piece for Mondoweiss, 6/19/19) [T]he two-state solution is dead, and we have killed it. The signs of its expiration are all around us. More than half a million Israeli settlers live (illegally) in Palestinian territory, and it would be politically, and logistically, impossible for them to be removed peacefully. The increasingly entrenched Israeli hard right—led by toxic figures like Ayelet Shaked and Naftali Bennett—openly advocates annexing “Area C,” which constitutes most of the West Bank…It is also apparent that a two-state solution would likely not be worth the bloodshed and chaos it would cause. So why keep up the charade?

The most obvious and humane path forward is the creation of a secular, democratic, binational state with equal rights for all. That is the model the U.S. government, with its partners in the region, should work toward and publicly highlight as the ideal outcome. This, like any real solution, would disappoint many, both those who want an official Palestinian national homeland and those who want an official Jewish homeland. But this is necessary.

Of course, the sheer power of the Israel lobby in the United States is the main hurdle to such a radical departure from traditional blind support for Israel. Thus the Israel lobby should be restricted; it is time to free American policy from the shackles of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), ZOA (Zionist Organization of America), and other groups…The first step should be mandating that AIPAC register as a foreign lobby under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Next, the U.S. should end military aid to Israel, citing the Israeli military’s complicity in crimes against the Palestinian people. It should call for a gradual demilitarization of Israel and Palestine, and should be clear with the Israeli government that the days of Israel-right-or-wrong are over.

And the U.S. should refuse to take unconstitutional steps to stifle BDS.

It’s time for a mature relationship with Israel, free of the cloying sentimentalities and tired banalities (“Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East”) that infest our political discourse surrounding it. America’s wanton indulgence of the whims of Benjamin Netanyahu and his fellow rightists will only redound to the harm of Israelis and Palestinians years down the line.

12. Kamala Harris (D)

(Statement 1/1/16)The people of the Middle East need a durable peace, and one that protects Israel’s security and interests. In the U.S. Senate, Kamala will be a staunch supporter of Israel.

(1/11/19) So having grown up in the Bay Area, I fondly remember those Jewish national fund boxes that we would use to collect donations to plant trees for Israel,” she said at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2017. “Years later when I visited Israel for the first time, I saw the fruits of that effort and the Israeli ingenuity that has truly made a desert bloom.”

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19)  Overall, yes. I think Israel as a country is dedicated to being a democracy and is one of our closest friends in that region, and that we should understand the shared values and priorities that we have as a democracy, and conduct foreign policy in a way that is consistent with understanding the alignment between the American people and the people of Israel.

13. John Hickenlooper (D)

(Comment after flareup in border violence, 5/7/19) The random rocket fire by Hamas into Israel must stop. My heart goes out to the families of the Israelis killed, and those wounded in these grievous attacks. I call on all parties to show restraint and de-escalate this situation immediately.

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19)  Again, there are instances when you can find in almost every country places where there is disagreement for how they treat people or how they resolve internal conflicts. I continue to look at Israel as one of our strongest allies, they have been partners with the United States for a long time. Our challenge is to build on that foundation and help them be able to move towards that two-state solution that, which again, I think almost every Israeli believes is the ultimate goal.

(Interview with Jewish Insider, 6/25/19) We don’t always approve of the decisions of [the] Israeli government but most of us recognize Israel is ally of long standing, one of our strongest allies and even when someone criticizes certain activities of [the] Israeli government, it doesn’t mean we are in anyway diminishing our presence and long term support of the country.

14. Jay Inslee (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I’m a longtime supporter of a democratic Israel, and I believe we have to have a two-state solution. And I would work with all parties to make sure we have that we have that; of justice for people in Palestine and democracy in Israel. And that depends on a two-state solution and I would work with everyone to achieve that. I think that all countries can improve in all respects. Certainly our ability to foster a future for the Palestinian people needs all of us to up our game. I do not believe that the present government of Israel has followed policies, and those policies can improve to encourage the ability and maintain the access of the future to a two-state solution, and we all need to be dedicated to that.

(Signatory of Governors Against BDS, an initiative of the American Jewish Committee, 12/17/17, which reads in part:) We, the undersigned Governors, reject efforts to demonize and delegitimize Israel—America’s democratic ally in the Middle East— through the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. The goals of the BDS movement are antithetical to our values and the values of our respective states…They malign a trusted ally that, while forced to defend itself against repeated and ongoing attempts to annihilate it, has consistently extended its hand in peace to its Palestinian neighbors and to states across the Middle East and around the world. Significantly, the BDS movement would also undermine peacemaking by suggesting that economic and political pressure on Israel can replace real negotiation…

15. Amy Klobuchar (D)

In February, The Times of Israel called Klobuchar “the candidate most closely aligned with AIPAC.”

New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Yes [Israel meets human rights standards]. I think Israel, however, under Prime Minister Netanyahu has been doing things that are not helpful to bringing peace to the Middle East. The way that he came out in favor of annexing the Golan Heights, what he has done when it comes to the settlements, the fact that we are not engaging in serious discussions for a two-state solution, our country and the Palestinians and the Israelis, I think that this is setting us back. And so what I would do is to reach out to restart those negotiations again. I think that President Trump has politicized this issue and has not helped in terms of American support for Israel. Israel is our beacon of democracy in the Mideast, and we have a role to play here that is very important and it shouldn’t be politicized the way the Trump administration has politicized it. And when Israel does things that I think are against public policy and international policy, I will call them out on it and I will work with them.

(Tweet following the announcement of Netanyahu’s rightwing coalition, which included radical racists, 2/27/19)This is wrong and has been rightly condemned. To quote the American Jewish Committee, ‘[The views of Otzma Yehudit] do not reflect the core values that are the very foundation of the State of Israel.

16. Wayne Messam (D)

(After returning from an independent trip to the Middle East, 4/8/19) I just recently returned from an independent fact-finding mission to Jerusalem, Ramallah, Hebron, and Tel-Aviv, meeting with top leaders from both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I met with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, a mayor of one of the largest settlements, and the executive director of B’Tselem – a leading human rights organization. I also met with the top negotiator on the Palestinian side who negotiated the Oslo Accords and the first woman elected to the Palestinian National Council…Over and over again, Israeli and Palestinian leaders made clear to me their desire to negotiate directly for peace. And it’s not just high-profile figures like the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset or the top negotiator for the PLO. It’s also the everyday Israeli and Palestinians – the people I met in Ramallah, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv – who quietly shared their hopes for a two-state resolution and fears of what would happen if the region were to disintegrate into an all-out religious war.

There was the Israeli cab driver, so overcome with emotion that he had to pull over, swearing his love for his Palestinian neighbors and describing how their families care for each other. Then there was the Palestinian shopkeeper, who despite living under harsh conditions in the occupied territories, displayed both compassion and understanding towards Israelis. Regular people are suffering and deserve American leadership, not misguided ideology and partisan talking points. The actions of the United States in resolving this conflict should not just reflect the interests of a small minority of right-wing, ideological voices.

We are not truly secure when our long-time friend and dear ally, Israel, feels threatened to the point of occupying and securing land as a permanent solution, instead of peace. We are not secure when the Palestinians – have been fully disenfranchised, undermining effective diplomacy, yet this is what happens when a real estate developer leads an insular negotiations process that prioritizes right-wing voices over all others…We are not secure when 53 percent of Palestinians live in poverty, including over 400,000 children.

17. Seth Moulton (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19)  Israel often does but not always [meet international standards of human rights]. And it’s incumbent on us as an ally to hold them accountable. And I have done that in Congress. I have signed legislation that is sometimes controversial, to say that we will not supply Israel with weapons and goods if they do not uphold standards for the treatment of Palestinian kids in prison for example. Now it’s not that hard for them to do this, and Israel is our most important ally in the Middle East. Now they’re a democracy that we have sworn to protect and we should. But we also have to hold our friends and allies to the same standards that we should uphold ourselves.

(Remark on HR4391, No Way To Treat A Child, 5/27/19) For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has endured despite efforts by leaders within the region and throughout the world to find peace…Despite the challenges, I still believe peace is achievable if parties recommit to negotiations towards a two-state solution that allows both nations to safely live side-by-side.

H.R. 4391 would express a Sense of Congress that any abusive or unnecessarily harsh conditions or treatment of Palestinian children during their detention by the Israeli military is a violation of international law and counter to U.S. and international human rights standards.

H.R. 4391 also prohibits the use of U.S. funds to support any abusive or inhumane detention of children…A 2013 UNICEF report showed that Israeli forces arrest, interrogate, and detain approximately 700 Palestinian children a year. While experiences vary, the Israeli military has been documented subjecting children to harsh and sometimes abusive interrogation methods, without an attorney present, that often include forced confessions signed in Hebrew. America should not support these undemocratic practices. That is why I support H.R. 4391, and I believe it will contribute towards a peaceful resolution to this complex conflict and a lasting two-state solution.

18. Beto O’Rourke (D)

(Explaining why he voted against a House resolution to refute U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, condemning illegal Israeli settlements, 1/5/17) We should be aware of the fact that the U.N. is dangerously preoccupied with Israel…That is of great concern to me—as are other manifestations of this bias, including the Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement. There is not enough pressure applied to the Palestinian Authority and those who have leverage with its leadership to refrain from acts of terror, incitement to terror, and the cultural context (including in textbooks) that provides part of the moral underpinning for terror to thrive.

However, the settlement problem is putting at risk the very viability of the two-state solution. And I think that it is in our interest and in Israel’s interest for those settlements to cease if there is to be any hope for lasting peace; and that if settlement construction does not stop, a two-state solution will be unobtainable and Israel will lose the ability to be both a democratic and Jewish state.

19. Tim Ryan (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) You know I think it’s a very complicated relationship that Israel obviously has with Hamas and dealings with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. And I think the United States needs to play a much bigger role in trying to resolve that problem. I think the president has been very disengaged and we need to be a neutral broker, but recognizing the importance of Israel and the relationship we have with them for all of the other relationships we have in that region. Well, I think they could do a better job, and I think we all need to participate in the discussion. The United States needs to maintain in some its ability to broker these peace agreements. The problem today is we are not even really trying.

(After traveling to Israel as part of a House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee delegation, 3/30/16) I was honored to have the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss and reaffirm the important strategic relationship between our two nations. I remain committed to using my position on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee to strengthen partnerships with our allies around the globe, including our most steadfast ally in the Middle East, Israel. Touring the Iron Dome battery further emphasized the importance of this relationship, the need for increased collaboration moving forward, and the value of close friends in the region.

20. Joe Sestak (D)

(Interview with Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, 5/19/10) I strongly support Israel’s security, having visited Israel more than half a dozen times during my naval career. I believe that Israel serves as a vital ally to the United States and that the unique U.S.-Israeli friendship must be preserved and strengthened for generations to come. It is also my firm belief that the successful negotiation of a two-state solution will advance Israel’s security in the region.

The settlements dispute [details here] should not have occurred between the United States and Israel, two stalwart allies. The way it was handled by both nations has not helped bring about a positive engagement. The United States must keep in mind that if Israel does not feel secure, then it is less willing to take risks for peace, and we must continue to ensure that Israel’s security in the region is our No. 1 goal.

Sestak, a retired Navy admiral and 2-term Democratic Pennsylvania congressman, criticized Israel’s blockade of Gaza. He then ran in a Senatorial primary bid against Arlen Specter, the Israel partisan who had just switched from Republican to Democrat. The Dem establishment, including Obama, backed Specter, but Sestak won the primary. Conservative pro-Israel groups spent millions targeting Sestak, who then narrowly lost the general election to Republican Pat Toomey…

(2/24/08) I am proud to have visited Israel at least five times and to have seen firsthand the courage and steadfast resolve of its people. Throughout Israel’s nearly 60-year history, Israelis have fought overwhelming odds to reestablish the birthplace of the Jewish People, and today it remains the only democracy in the Middle East. Surrounded by challenges on all sides, Israel is steadfastly working towards its goals of peace and security.

21. Eric Swalwell (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Israel is a country that needs to work with the Palestinian people to find a two-state solution. I support putting the US back into the UN Commission on Human Rights. I support increasing aid to the Palestinian people. And I’m going to fire Jared Kushner on day one, because he has no business being on the job of seeking a two-state solution or finding peace in the Middle East. It requires serious scholars and a serious leader committed to making it happen. That’s what I’m going to do on day one.

I would like to see Israel not conduct any further settlements into the West Bank. I don’t oppose any geographical changes in either region, Israel and the Palestinian area, until we have a two-state solution. So I would press both sides; for the Palestinians to sort out who speaks for them, whether it is the PA or Hamas, and for the Israelis to negotiate and have a partner on the other side to seek that two-state solution. But I’m more interested in the future, I’m not going to go back into the past, because the future depends on a stable and secure Middle East.

22. Elizabeth Warren (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I think that Israel is in a really tough neighborhood. I understand that. They face enormous challenges, and they are our strong ally. We need a liberal democracy in that region and to work with that liberal democracy. But it is also the case that we need to encourage our ally, the way we would any good friend, to come to the table with the Palestinians and to work toward a permanent solution. I strongly support the two-state solution, and I believe that a good friend says to the Palestinians and to the Israelis: come to the table and negotiate. The United States cannot dictate the terms of a long-term settlement for the Palestinians and the Israelis, but what it can do is urge both of them to go there and to stay out of the way — to let them negotiate the pieces that are most important to them for a lasting peace.

(Remark after 2nd week of Great March of Return, 4/12/18. Over 30 mostly unarmed Palestinians had been killed by Israeli sharpshooters.) I am deeply concerned about the deaths and injuries in Gaza. As additional protests are planned for the coming days, the Israel Defense Forces should exercise restraint and respect the rights of Palestinians to peacefully protest.

(Letter from Warren and 9 other Senators to PM Netanyahu, 11/29/17) We write today to urge your government not to demolish the Palestinian village of Susiya and the Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar. The displacement of entire communities would be an irreversible step away from a 2-state solution, and we urge your government to abandon its efforts to destroy these villages.

(Also read this – Warren voted $225 million to Israel while it was in the midst of its 2014 invasion of Gaza. This year she cosponsored legislation to give Israel $38 billion.)

23. Marianne Williamson (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) I think there are many countries  including the Untied States that behaves in ways that don’t always meet international standards of human rights. As president of the United States I would have an equally robust commitment to both the legitimate security concerns of Israel and the human rights of the Palestinians and the economic hopes and opportunities and dignity of the Palestinian people.

(Remarks during CNN interview, 4/14/19) With me as president, they will know that they have in the United States a president who listens deeply and totally hears; the leaders of the Palestinian authority will know I listen very deeply. In me, you would have a president who says those settlements are illegal. I would rescind the president’s affirmation of sovereignty of Israel over the Golan Heights…[My] love for Israel is second only to my love for the United States…The alliance of the United States with Israel is extremely important. It should be extremely important to all of us. If I’m president of the United States, the world will know, our greatest ally is humanity itself.

24. Andrew Yang (D)

(New York Times interview question, Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights? 6/19/19) Israel is a very very important ally of the US. Certainly, some of the actions that are being taken there are deeply problematic and run afoul of some of the standards we’d like to see countries meet. I’d hesitant to say they are in violation of those standards.

… and one lone Independent

Bernie Sanders (I)

The killing of Palestinian demonstrators by Israeli forces in Gaza is tragic. It is the right of all people to protest for a better future without a violent response. I’m extremely concerned by reports that President Trump plans to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel. There’s a reason why all past U.S. administrations have avoided making this move, and why leaders from all over the world, including a group of former Israeli ambassadors, have warned Trump against doing it: It would dramatically undermine the prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, and severely, perhaps irreparably, damage the United States’ ability to broker that peace. What the U.S. should be doing now is bringing adversaries in the Middle East together to seek common solutions, not exacerbating tensions in this highly volatile region.

Israel is not, cannot, just simply expand when it wants to expand with new settlements. I think if the expansion was illegal, moving into territory that was not their territory, I think withdrawal from those territories is appropriate. I happen to think that those expansions were illegal.

I think most international observers would say that the attacks against Gaza were indiscriminate and that a lot of innocent people were killed who should not have been killed. Look, we are living, for better or worse, in a world of high technology, whether it’s drones out there that could, you know, take your nose off, and Israel has that technology. And I think there is a general belief that, with that technology, they could have been more discriminate in terms of taking out weapons that were threatening them.

(3/21/16) To my mind, as friends — long term friends with Israel — we are obligated to speak the truth as we see it. That is what real friendship demands, especially in difficult times…But it is important among friends to be honest and truthful about differences that we may have…I am here to tell the American people that, if elected president, I will work tirelessly to advance the cause of peace as a partner and as a friend to Israel. But to be successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to Israel, but to the Palestinian people, where in Gaza unemployment today is 44 percent and we have there a poverty rate which is almost as high. So when we talk about Israel and Palestinian areas, it is important to understand that today there is a whole lot of suffering among Palestinians and that cannot be ignored. You can’t have good policy that results in peace if you ignore one side.

(5/06/17) If a two-state solution fails, Takruri asked Sanders, would he support “one-state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and equal citizenship?” “No, I don’t,” he said. “I mean, I think if that happens, then that would be the end of the state of Israel, and I support Israel’s right to exist.” 

Sanders has gone back and forth on Palestine. Unless his progressive base pushes him, he may continue to straddle the fence.


Kathryn Shihadah is staff writer for If Americans Knew. She blogs at Palestine Home


RELATED READING:

WATCH: Elizabeth Warren supports Israel during its 2014 invasion of Gaza

JTA: Klobuchar’s meeting with Jewish Dem funders, Dear Abby grandson

Joe Sestak, early Democratic critic of Israel, announces presidential run

Presidential candidate offers a bold plan for Israel/Palestine

Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is out to Kill Her Chances

WATCH: Candidates pledge support for Israel in AJC Global Forum videos

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

In Israel the Push to Destroy Jerusalem’s Iconic Al-Aqsa Mosque Goes Mainstream

By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | June 24, 2019

The iconic golden dome of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque, located on the Temple Mount or Haram el-Sharif, is the third holiest site in Islam and is recognized throughout the world as a symbol of the city of Jerusalem. Yet, this ancient site that dates back to the year 705 C.E. is being targeted for destruction by increasingly influential extremist groups that seek to erase Jerusalem’s Muslim heritage in pursuit of colonial ambitions and the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.

Some observers may have noticed the growing effort by some Israeli government and religious officials to remove the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque from the Jerusalem skyline, not only erasing the holy site in official posters, banners and educational material but also physically removing the building itself. For instance, current Knesset member of the ruling Likud Party, American-born Yehuda Glick, was also the director of the government-funded Temple Institute, which has created relics and detailed architectural plans for a temple that they hope will soon replace Al-Aqsa. Glick is also close friends with Yehuda Etzion, who was part of a failed plot in 1984 to blow up Al-Aqsa mosque and served prison time as a result.

“In the end we’ll build the temple and it will be a house of prayer for all nations,” Glick told Israeli newspaper Maariv in 2012. A year later, Israel’s Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel stated that “[w]e’ve built many little, little temples… but we need to build a real Temple on the Temple Mount.” Ariel stated that the new Jewish Temple must be built on the site where Al-Aqsa currently sits “as it is at the forefront of Jewish salvation.” Since then, prominent Israeli politicians have become more and more overt in their support for the end of Jordanian-Palestinian sovereignty over the mosque compound, leading many prominent Palestinians to warn in recent years of plans to destroy the mosque.

In recent years, a centuries-old effort by what was once a small group of extremists has gone increasingly mainstream in Israel, with prominent politicians, religious figures and political parties advocating for the destruction of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque in order to fulfill a specific interpretation of an end-times prophecy that was once considered fringe among practitioners of Judaism.

As Miko Peled, Israeli author and human-rights activist, told MintPress, the movement to destroy Al-Aqsa and replace it with a reimagined Temple “became notable after the 1967 war,” and has since grown into “a massive colonial project that uses religious, biblical mythology and symbols to justify its actions” — a project now garnering support from both religious and secular Israelis.

While the push to destroy Al-Aqsa and replace it with a physical Third Temple has gained traction in Israel in recent years, this effort has advanced at a remarkably fast pace in just the past few weeks, owing to a confluence of factors. These factors, as this report will show, include the upcoming revelation of the so-called “Deal of the Century,” the push for a war with Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and the Trump administration’s dramatic lenience in regards to the activity of Jewish extremist groups and extremist settlements in Israel.

These factors correlate with a quickening of efforts to destroy Al-Aqsa and the very real danger the centuries-old holy site faces. While the U.S. press has occasionally mentioned the role of religious extremism in dictating the foreign policy of prominent U.S. politicians like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, it has rarely shone a light on the role of Jewish extremism in directing Israel’s foreign policy — foreign policy that, in turn, is well-known to influence American policies.

When taken together, the threats to Al-Aqsa are clearly revealed to be much greater than the loss of a physical building, though that itself would be a grave loss for the world’s Muslim community, which includes over 1.8 billion people. In addition, the site’s destruction would very likely result in a regional and perhaps even global war with clear religious dimensions.

To prevent such an outcome, it is essential to highlight the role that extremist, apocalyptic interpretations of both the Jewish and Christian faiths are playing in trends that, if left unchecked, could have truly terrifying consequences. Both of these extremist groups are heavily influenced by colonial ambitions that often supersede their religious underpinning.

In Part I of this two-part series, MintPress examines the growth of extremist movements in Israel that openly promote the destruction of Al-Aqsa, from a relatively isolated fringe movement within Zionism to mainstream prominence in Israel today; as well as how threats to the historic mosque have grown precipitously in just the past month. MintPress interviewed Israeli author and activist Miko Peled; Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta in New York; Imam and scholar of Shia Islam, Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini, of the Islamic Institute of America; and Palestinian journalist and academic Ramzy Baroud for their perspectives on these extremist groups, their growing popularity, and the increasing threats to the current status quo at Haram El-Sharif/Temple Mount.

The second part of this series will detail the influence of this extremist movement in Israeli politics as well as American politics, particularly among Christian Zionist politicians in the United States. The ways in which this movement’s goal have also influenced Israeli and U.S. policy — particularly in relation to the so-called “Deal of the Century,” President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and the push for war against Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah — will also be examined.

Two centuries in the cross-hairs

Though efforts to wrest the contested holy site from Jordanian and Palestinian control have picked up dramatically in recent weeks, the Al-Aqsa mosque compound had long been targeted prior to Israel’s founding and even prior to the formation of the modern Zionist movement.

For instance, Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Kalisher — who promoted the European Jewish colonization of Palestine from a religious perspective well before Zionism became a movement — expounded on an early form of what would later be labeled “religious Zionism” and was particularly interested in the acquisition of Haram el-Sharif (i.e., the Temple Mount) as a means of fulfilling prophecy.

As noted in the essay “Proto-Zionism and its Proto-Herzl: The Philosophy and Efforts of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalisher” by Sam Lehman-Wilzig, Professor of Israeli Politics and Judaic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, Kalisher sought to court wealthy European Jews to finance the purchase of Israel for the purpose of resettlement, particularly the Temple Mount. In an 1836 letter to Baron Amschel Rothschild, Kalisher suggested that the eldest brother of the wealthy banker family use his abundant funds to bring Jewish sovereignty to Palestine, specifically Jerusalem and the Temple Mount:

[E]specially at a time like this, when the Land of Israel is under the dominion of the Pasha… perhaps if his most noble Excellency pays him a handsome sum and purchases for him some other country (in Africa) in exchange for the Holy Land, which is presently small in quantity but great in quality… this money would certainly not be wasted… for when the leaders of Israel are gathered from every corner of the world… and transform it into an inhabited country, the many G-d-fearing and charitable Jews will travel there to take up their residency in the Holy Land under Jewish sovereignty… and be worthy to take up their portion in the offering upon the altar. And if the master (Ibrahim Pasha) does not desire to sell the entire land, then at least he should sell Jerusalem and its environs… or at least the Temple Mount and surrounding areas.” (emphasis added)

Kalisher’s request was met with a noncommittal response from Baron Rothschild, leading Kalisher to pursue other wealthy European Jewish families, like the Montefiores, with the same goal in mind. And, though Kalisher was initially unsuccessful in winning the support of the Rothschild family, other notable members of the wealthy European banking dynasty eventually did become enthusiastic supporters of Zionism in the decades that followed.

Kalisher was also influential in another way, as he was arguably the first modern Rabbi to reject the idea of patiently waiting for God to fulfill prophecy and proposed instead that man should take concrete steps that would lead to the fulfillment of such prophecies, a belief that Kalisher described as “self help.” For Kalisher, settling European Jews in Palestine was but the first step, to be followed by other steps that would form an active as opposed to a passive approach towards Jewish Messianism. These subsequent steps included the construction of a Third Temple, to replace the Second Temple destroyed by the Romans around the year 70 C.E., and the reinitiation of ritual animal sacrifices in that Temple, which Kalisher believed could only be placed on the Temple Mount, where Al-Aqsa then sat and still sits.

Kalisher wasn’t alone in his views, as his contemporary, Rabbi Judah Alkalai, wrote the following in his book Shalom Yerushalayim:

It is obvious that the Mashiach ben David [Messiah of the House of David] will not appear out of thin air in a fiery chariot with fiery horses, but will come if the Children of Israel bend to the task of preparing themselves for him.”

Though Kalisher wasn’t the lone voice promoting these ideas, his beliefs — aside from promoting the physical settlement of European Jews in Palestine — remained relatively fringe for decades, if not more than a century, as secular Jews were hugely influential in the Zionist movement after its official formation. However, prominent religious Zionists did influence the Zionist movement in key ways prior to Israel’s founding. One such figure was Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who sought to reconcile Zionism and Orthodox Judaism as the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, a position he assumed in 1924.

Yet, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish group based in New York that opposes Zionism, told MintPress that many religious Zionists have since latched onto Kalisher’s ideas, which were widely rejected during his lifetime, in order to justify neocolonial actions sought by secular Zionists. “This rabbi, at the time, other rabbis ‘roared’ against him and his beliefs weren’t accepted,” Rabbi Weiss stated, “But now, the ones who are talking about building this Third Temple…. these are Zionists and they have found some rabbi whose ideas benefit them that they have been using to justify Zionist acts” that are not aligned with Judaism “and make them kosher.”

Weiss further expanded on this point, noting that the participants of the modern religious Zionism movement that seek to build a new Jewish temple where Al-Aqsa currently stands are, at their core, Zionists who have used religious imagery and specific interpretations of religious texts as cover for neo-colonial acts, such as the complete re-making of the Temple Mount.

“It’s like a wolf in a sheepskin… These people who want to incorporate the teachings of this rabbi [Rabbi Kalisher] are proudly saying that they are Jewish, but are doing things Jews are forbidden from doing,” such as ascending to and standing upon the Temple Mount, which Rabbi Weiss stated was “a breach of Jewish law,” long forbidden by that law according to a consensus among Jewish scholars and rabbis around the world that continued well beyond the formation of the Zionist movement in the 19th century.

Weiss also told MintPress:

There are only a few sins in Judaism — which has many, many laws, that lead to a Jew being cut off from God — and to go up to the Temple Mount is one of them… This is because you need a certain level of holiness to ascend and… the process to attain that level of holiness and purity cannot be done today, because [aspects of and the items required by] the necessary purity rituals no longer exist today.”

Rabbi Weiss noted that, for this reason, the Muslim community that has historically governed the area where Al-Aqsa mosque stands never had any problems with the Jewish community in relation to the Temple Mount, as it has been known for centuries that Jews cannot ascend to the area where the mosque currently sits and instead prayed only at the Western Wall. He also stated that the prophetic idea of a Third Temple was, prior to Zionism, understood as indicating not a change in physical structures on the Temple Mount, but a metaphysical, spiritual change that would unite all of mankind to worship and serve God in unison.

Rabbi Weiss asserted that the conflict regarding Al-Aqsa mosque started only with the advent of Zionism and the associated neo-colonial ambition to fundamentally alter the status quo and structures present at the site as a means of erasing key parts (i.e., Palestinian parts) of its heritage. “This [the use of religion to justify ascending to and taking control of the Temple Mount] is a trap for conning other people into supporting them,” concluded the Rabbi.

Nonetheless, Kalisher’s impact can be seen in today’s Israel more than ever, thanks to the rise and mainstream acceptance within Israel of once-fringe elements of religious Zionism, which were deeply influenced by the ideas of rabbis like Kalisher and have served in recent decades as an incubator for some of Israel’s most radical political elements.

Meanwhile, as the debate within Judaism over the Temple Mount has changed dramatically since the 19th century, its significance in Islam has remained steadfast. According to Imam Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini, “Al-Aqsa is the third holiest mosque in Islam… it is considered to be the place where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven and has been mentioned in the Qoran, which glorifies that mosque and identifies it as a blessed mosque. All Muslims, whether they are Sunni or Shia, revere that mosque” — a fact that has remained unchanged for over a millennium and continues to today.

Religious Zionism gains political force

The modern rise of the religious Zionist movements that promote the destruction of Al-Aqsa mosque and its replacement with a Third Jewish Temple is most often traced back to the Six Day War of 1967. According to Miko Peled, who recently wrote a piece for MintPress News regarding the threats facing Al-Aqsa, “religious Zionism” as a political force became more noticeable following the 1967 war. Peled told MintPress:

After the ‘heartland’ of Biblical Israel came under Israeli control, the religious Zionists, who before then were marginalized, saw it as their mission to settle those newly conquered lands, and to be the new pioneers, so to speak. They took on the job that the socialist Zionist ideologues had in settling Palestine and ridding it of its native Arab population in the years leading up to Israel’s establishment and up to the early 1950s. They saw the “return” of Hebron, Bethlehem, Nablus, or Shchem and, of course, the Old City of Jerusalem as divine intervention and now it was their turn to make their mark.

It began with a small group of Messianic fanatics who forced the government – who at that point, after 1967, was still secular Zionist – to accept their existence in the highly populated areas within the West Bank. That was how the city of Kiryat Arba [illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank] was established. The government, it is worth noting, was happy to be forced into this. From a small group that people thought were fringe lunatics to a Jewish city in the heart of Hebron region.”

Peled further noted that this model, employed by the religious extremist groups that founded illegal West Bank settlements like Kiryat Arba, “has been used successfully since then and it is now used by the groups that are promoting the new Temple in place of Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.” He continued, pointing out that “whereas 20-30 years ago they were considered a fringe group, this year they expect more than 50,000 people to enter the compound to support the group and their goals. Religious Israeli youth who opt out of military service and choose national service instead may work with the [Third] Temple building organizations.”

Extremist settlers escorted by Israeli after they stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound on July 22, 2018. Mostafa Alkharouf | Anadolu

Dr. Ramzy Baroud — journalist, academic and founder of The Palestine Chronicle — agreed with Peled’s sense that the Third Temple movement or Temple Activist movement has grown dramatically in recent years and has become increasingly mainstream in Israel. Baroud told MintPress:

There has been a massive increase in the number of Israeli Jews who force their way into the Al-Aqsa mosque compound to pray and practice various rituals… In 2017 alone, over 25,000 Jews who visited the compound — accompanied by thousands of soldiers and police officers and provoking many clashes that resulted in the death and wounding of many Palestinians. Since 2017, the increase in Jews visiting the compound has been very significant if compared to the previous year when around 14,000 Jews made that same journey.”

Baroud also noted:

[The Temple Activist movement] has achieved a great deal in appealing to mainstream Israeli Jewish society in recent years. At one point, it was a marginal movement, but with the rise of the far right in Israel, their ideas and ideologies and religious aspirations have also become part of the Israeli mainstream.”

As a result, Baroud asserted:

[There is] an increasing degree of enthusiasm among Israeli Jews that is definitely not happening at the margins [of society], but is very much a part of the mainstream, more so than at any time in the past, to take over the Al-Aqsa mosque, demolish the mosque in order to rebuild the so-called Third Temple.”

However, Rabbi Weiss disagreed with Peled and Baroud that this faction presents a real threat to the mosque, given that the mosque’s destruction is widely rejected by Diaspora Jewry (i.e., Jews living outside of Israel) and that destroying it would not only cause conflicts with the global Muslim community but also numerous Jewish communities outside of Israel.

As Rabbi Weiss told MintPress:

Some of the largest and most religious [i.e. ultra-orthodox] Jewish communities outside of Israel, like the second largest community of religious [ultra-orthodox] Jews in Williamsburg, Brooklyn [in New York], and also in Israel … are opposed to this concept of taking over the Temple Mount and other related ideas.”

Weiss argued that many of these religious Zionists in Israel that are pushing for a new Temple “do not follow Jewish law to the letter and don’t come from the very religious communities, including the settlers…They don’t go to expressly religious schools, they go to Zionist schools. Their whole view is built on Zionism and [secondarily] incorporates the religion,” as opposed to the reverse. As a result, the destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque, in Weiss’ view, could greatly alienate the state of Israel from these more religious and ultra-orthodox communities.

In addition, Rabbi Weiss felt that many Jewish and secular Israelis would also reject such a move because it would create even more conflicts, which many Israelis do not want. He described the Temple Activists as “a vocal minority” that represented a “fringe” among adherents to Judaism and a group within Zionism that has tried to use the Temple Mount “in order to be able to excuse their occupation and to try to portray this [the occupation of Palestine] as a religious conflict,” with the conflict surrounding the Temple Mount being an extension of that.

Weiss believed that the push to take over the Temple Mount was a “scare tactic” aimed at securing the indefinite nature of the occupation, and noted that many Israelis did not want a spike in or renewal of conflict that would inevitably result if the mosque were to be destroyed. He also added that he did not think there was a “real threat” of the mosque being targeted because international rabbinical authorities have stood fast in their opposition to the project promoted by the Temple Activists.

“Tomorrow might be too late”

It is hardly a coincidence that the growth of Temple Activism and associated movements like “neo-Zionism” have paralleled the growth in threats to the Al-Aqsa mosque itself. Many of these threats can be understood through the doctrine developed by Rabbi Kalisher and others in the mid-19th century — the idea that “active” steps must be taken to bring about the reconstruction of a Jewish Temple at Haram El-Sharif in order to bring about the Messianic Age.

Indeed, during the 1967 war, General Shlomo Goren, the chief rabbi of the IDF, had told Chief of Central Command Uzi Narkiss that, shortly after Israel’s conquest of Jerusalem’s Old City, the moment had come to blow up the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. “Do this and you will go down in history,” Goren told Narkiss. According to Tom Segev’s book 1967, Goren felt that the site’s destruction could only be done under the cover of war: “Tomorrow might be too late.”

Goren was among the first Israelis to arrive at the then-recently conquered Old City in Jerusalem and was joined at the newly “liberated” Al-Aqsa compound by a young Yisrael Ariel, who now is a major leader in the Temple Activist movement and head of the Temple Institute, which is dedicated to constructing a Third Temple where Al-Asqa mosque currently stands.

Narkiss rejected Goren’s request, but did approve the razing of Jerusalem’s Moroccan quarter. According to Mondoweiss, the destruction of the nearly seven centuries old Jerusalem neighborhood was done for the “holy purpose” of making the Western Wall more accessible to Jewish Israelis. Some 135 homes were flattened, along with several mosques, and over 700 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed as part of that operation.

Following the occupation of East Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa has come under increasing threat, just as extremist movements who seek to destroy the site have grown. In 1969, a Christian extremist from Australia, Daniel Rohan, set fire to the mosque. Rohan had been studying in Israel and, prior to committing arson, had told American theology student Arthur Jones, who was studying with Rohan, that he had become convinced that a new temple had to be built where Al-Aqsa stood.

Then, in 1984, a group of messianic extremists known as the Jewish Underground was arrested for plotting to use explosives to destroy Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock. Ehud Yatom, who was a security official and commander of the operation that foiled the plot, told Israel’s Channel 2 in 2004 that the planned destruction of the site would have been “horrible, terrible,” adding that it could provoke “the entire Muslim world [into a war] against the state of Israel and against the Western world, a war of religions.”

One of those arrested in 1984 in connection with the bomb plot, former Jewish Underground member Yehuda Etzion, subsequently wrote from prison that his group’s mistake was not in targeting the historic mosque, which he called an “abomination,” but in acting before Israeli society would accept such an act. “The generation was not ready,” Etzion wrote, adding that those sympathetic to the Jewish Underground movement “must build a new force that grows very slowly, moving its educational and social activity into a new leadership.”

“Of course I cannot predict whether the Dome of the Rock will be removed from the Mount while the new body is developing or after it actually leads the people,” Etzion stated, “but the clear fact is that the Mount will be purified [from Islamic shrines] with certainty…”

Upon his release from prison, Etzion founded the Chai Vekayam (Alive and Existing) movement, a group that Al Jazeera’s Mersiha Gadzo described as aimed at “shaping public opinion as a prerequisite for building a Third Temple in the religious complex in Jerusalem’s Old City where Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are located.” Gadzo also notes that “according to messianic belief, building the Third Temple at the Al Aqsa compound — where the First and Second Temples stood some 2,000 years ago — would usher the coming of the Messiah.”

Six years later, another group called the Temple Mount Faithful, which is dedicated to building the Third Temple, provoked what became known as the Al-Aqsa massacre in 1990 after its members attempted to place a cornerstone for the Third Temple on the Temple Mount / Haram El-Sharif, leading to riots that saw Israeli police shoot and kill over 20 Palestinians and wound an estimated 150 more.

This was followed by the riots in 1996 after Israel opened up a series of tunnels that had been dug under Al-Aqsa mosque that many Palestinians worried would be used to damage or destroy the mosque. Those concerns may have been well-founded, given the involvement of then- and current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Third Temple activist groups in creating the tunnels and in subsequent excavations near the holy site, which were and continue to be officially described as “archaeological” in nature. During the 1996 incident, 80 Palestinians and 14 Israeli police officers were killed.

Some Israeli archaeologists have argued that these tunnels have not been built for archaeological or scientific purposes and are highly unlikely to result in any new discoveries. One such Israeli archaeologist, Yoram Tseverir, told Middle East Monitor in 2014 that “the claims that these excavations aim at finding scientific information are marginal” and called the still-ongoing government-sponsored excavations under Al-Aqsa “wrong.” When those “archaeological” excavations at Al-Aqsa resulted in damage to the Western Wall near Al-Aqsa last year, a chorus of prominent Palestinians, including the spokesman for the Fatah Party, claimed that Israel’s government had devised a plan to destroy the mosque.

Since 2000, Al-Aqsa mosque has been the site of incidents that have resulted in new state crackdowns by Israel against Palestinians both within and well outside of Jerusalem. Indeed, the Second Intifada was largely provoked by the visit of the then-Likud candidate for prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who entered Al-Aqsa mosque under heavy guard. Then-spokesman for Likud, Ofir Akounis, was later quoted by CNN as saying that the reason for Sharon’s visit was “to show that under a Likud government it [the Temple Mount] will remain under Israeli sovereignty.”

That single visit by Sharon led to five years of heightened tensions, more than three thousand dead Palestinians and an estimated thousand dead Israelis, as well as a massive and still continuing crackdown on Palestinians living under Israeli occupation and in the blockaded Gaza Strip.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud told MintPress that Sharon’s provocation in particular, and subsequent provocations, are often planned and used by Israeli politicians in order to justify crackdowns and restrictions on Palestinians. He argued:

[Some powerful Israeli politicians] use these regular provocations at Al Aqsa to create the kind of tensions that increase violence in the West Bank and to [then] carry out whatever policies they have in mind. They know exaclty how to provoke Palestinians and there is no other issue that is as sensitive and unifying in the Palestinian psyche as Al-Aqsa mosque.

Not only do we need to be aware of the fact that [provocations at] Al-Aqsa mosque are being used to implement archaic, destructive plans [i.e., destruction of Al-Aqsa and construction of a Third Temple] by certain elements that are now very much at the core of Israeli politics, but also the fact that this type of provocation is also used to implement broader policies pertaining to Palestinians elsewhere.”

Drums beating loud

While there have long been efforts to destroy the historic Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, recent weeks have seen a disturbing and dramatic uptick in incidents that suggest that the influential groups in Israel that have long pushed for the mosque’ s destruction may soon get their way. This reflects what Ramzy Baroud described to MintPress as how support for the construction of the Third Temple where Al-Aqsa currently sits is now “greater than at any time in the past” within Israeli society.

Earlier this month on June 2, a religious adviser to the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Al-Habbash, took to social media to warn of an “Israeli plot against the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” adding that “If the Muslims don’t act now [to save the site]… the entire world will pay dearly.”

Al-Habbash’s statement was likely influenced by a disturbing event that occurred that same day at the revered compound when Israeli police provided cover for extremist Israeli settlers who illegally entered the compound during the final days of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Israeli police used pepper spray and rubber bullets to disperse Palestinian worshippers who had gathered at the mosque during one of Islam’s most important holidays while allowing over a thousand Israeli Jews to enter the compound. Forty-five Palestinians were wounded and several were arrested.

Though such provocative visits by Jewish Israelis to Al-Aqsa have occurred with increasing frequency in recent years, this event was different because it up-ended a long-standing agreement between Jordan’s government, which manages the site, and Israel that no such visits take place during important Islamic holidays. As a consequence, Jordan accused Israel’s government of “flagrant violations” of that agreement by allowing visits from religious nationalists, which Jordan described as “provocative intrusions by extremists.”

Less than a week after the incident, Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister, Miri Regev, a member of the Netanyahu-led Likud Party, called for more settler extremists to storm the compound, stating: “We should do everything to keep ascending to the Temple Mount … And hopefully, soon we will pray in the Temple Mount, our sacred place.” In addition, Regev also thanked Israel’s Interior Security Minister, Gilad Erdan, and Jerusalem’s police chief for guarding the settler extremists who had entered the compound.

In 2013, then-member of the Likud Party Moshe Feiglin told the Knesset that allowing Jewish Israelis to enter the compound is “not about prayer.” “Arabs don’t mind that Jews pray to God. Why should they care? We all believe in God,” Feiglin — who now heads the Zehut, or Identity, Party — stated, adding, “The struggle is about sovereignty. That’s the true story here. The story is about one thing only: sovereignty.”

In other words, Likud and its ideological allies view granting Jewish Israelis entrance to “pray” at the site of the mosque as a strategy aimed at reducing Palestinian-Jordanian control over the site. Feiglin’s past comments give credibility to Rabbi Weiss’ claim, referenced earlier on in this report, that the religious underpinnings and religious appeals of the Temple Activists are secondary to the settler-colonial (i.e., Zionist) aspect of the movement, which seeks to remove Palestinian and Muslim heritage from the Temple Mount as part of the ongoing Zionist project.

Feiglin, earlier this year in April, called for the immediate construction of the Third Temple, telling a Tel Aviv conference, “I don’t want to build a [Third] Temple in one or two years, I want to build it now.” The Times of Israel, reporting on Feiglin’s comments, noted that the Israeli politician is “enjoying growing popularity.”

Earlier this month, and not long after Miri Regev’s controversial comments, an event attended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli mayor of Jerusalem, Moshe Leon, used a banner that depicted the Jerusalem skyline with the Dome of the Rock noticeably absent. Though some may write off such creative photo editing as a fluke, it is but the latest in a series of similar incidents where official events or materials have edited out the iconic building and, in some cases, have replaced it with a reconstructed Jewish temple.

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman poses with a picture of the ‘Third Temple,’ May 22, 2018. Israel Cohen | Kikar Hashabat

The day before that event, Israeli police had arrested three members of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound’s Reconstruction Committee, which is overseen by the government of Jordan. Those arrested included the committee’s head and its deputy head, and the three men were arrested while performing minor restoration work in an Al-Aqsa courtyard. The Jordan-run authority condemned the arrests, for which no official reason was given, and called the move by Israeli police “an intervention in their [the men’s] reconstruction work.” According to Palestinian news agency Safa, Israeli police have also prevented the entry of tools necessary for restoration work to the site and have restricted members of the authority from performing critical maintenance work.

In addition, another important figure at Al-Aqsa, Hanadi Al-Halawani, who teaches at the mosque school and has long watched over the site to prevent its occupation by Israeli forces, was arrested late last month.

Arrests of other key Al-Aqsa personnel have continued in recent days, such as the arrest of seven Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, including guards of the mosque, and their subsequent ban from entering the site. The Palestinians were arrested at their homes last Sunday night in early morning raids and the official reason for their arrest remains unclear. So many arrests in such a short period have raised concerns that, should the spate of arrests of important Al-Aqsa personnel continue, future incidents at the site, such as the mysterious fire that broke out last April at Al-Aqsa while France’s Notre Dame was also ablaze, may not be handled as effectively owing to staff shortages.

Soon after those arrests, 60 members of a settler extremist group entered the al-Aqsa compound under heavy guard from Israeli police. Safa news agency reported that these settlers have recently been accompanied by Israeli intelligence officials in their incursions at the site.

All of these recent provocations and arrests in connection with the mosque come soon after the King of Jordan, Abdullah II, publicly stated in late March that he had recently come under great pressure to relinquish Jordan’s custodianship of the mosque and the contested holy site upon which it is built. Abdullah II vowed to continue custodianship over Christian and Muslim sites in Jerusalem, including Al-Aqsa, and declined to say who was pressuring him over the site. However, his comments about this pressure to cede control over the mosque came just days after he had visited the U.S. and met with American Vice President Mike Pence, a Christian Zionist who believes that a Jewish Temple must replace Al-Aqsa to fulfill an end times prophecy.

In May, an Israeli government-linked research institute, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, wrote that Abdullah II had nearly been toppled in mid-April, just weeks after publicly discussing external pressure to relinquish control over Al-Aqsa. The report stated that Abdullah II had been a target of a “plot undermining his rule,” which led him to replace several senior members of his government. That report further claimed that the plot had been aimed at removing obstacles to the Trump administration’s “Deal of the Century,” which is supported by Israel’s government.

Last year, some Israeli politicians sought to push for a transfer of the site’s custodianship to Saudi Arabia, sparking concern that this could be connected to plans by some Third Temple activists to remove Al-Aqsa from Jerusalem and transfer it piece-by-piece to the Saudi city of Mecca. On Thursday, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs published an article asserting that “tectonic shifts” were taking place in relation to who controls Al-Aqsa, with a Saudi-funded political group making dramatic inroads that could soon alter which country controls the historic mosque compound.

Sayyed Hassan Al-Qazwini told MintPress that, in his view, the current custodianship involving Jordan’s government is not ideal, as control over the Al-Aqsa mosque “should lie in the hands of its people, [and] Al-Aqsa mosque belongs Palestine;” if not, at the very least, a committee of Muslim majority nations should be formed to govern the holy site because of its importance. As for Saudi Arabia potentially receiving control over the site, Al-Qazwini told MintPress that “the Saudis are not qualified as they are not even capable of running the holy sites in Saudi Arabia itself. Every year, there has been a tragedy and many pilgrims have died during hajj time [annual Islamic pilgrimage].”

Once fringe, now approaching consensus

The threat to Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock compound, the third holiest site in Islam and of key importance to three major world religions, is the result of the dramatic growth of what was once a fringe movement of extremists. After the Six Day War, these fringe elements have fought to become more mainstream within Israel and have sought to gain international support for their religious-colonialist vision, particularly in the United States. As this article has shown, the threats to Al-Aqsa have grown significantly in the past decades, spiking in just the past few weeks.

As former Jewish Underground member Yehuda Etzion had called for decades ago, an educational and social movement aimed at gaining influence with Israeli government leadership has been hugely successful in its goal of engineering consent for a Third Temple among many religious and secular Israelis. So successful has this movement been that numerous powerful and influential Israeli politicians, particularly since the 1990s, have not only openly promoted these beliefs, and the destruction of Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, but have also diverted significant amounts of government funding to organizations dedicated to replacing the historic mosque with a new temple.

As the second and final installment of this series will show, this movement has gained powerful allies, not just in Israel’s government, but among many evangelical Christians in the United States, including top figures in the Trump administration who also feel that the destruction of Al-Aqsa and the reconstruction of a Jewish Temple are prerequisites for the fulfillment of prophecy, albeit a different one. Furthermore, given the influence of such movements on the Israeli and U.S. governments, these beliefs of active Messianism are also informing key policies of these same governments and, in doing so, are pushing the world towards a dangerous war.

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Kazakhstan to forgive debts of the poor, end bank bailouts

RT | June 27, 2019

In a first major policy announcement, the newly elected president of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said he will write off bad loans held by as much as a sixth of the country’s population.

As part of the debt forgiveness program he aims to end costly state rescues of private banks. The 66-year-old was elected president on June 9 after longtime leader Nursultan Nazarbayev stepped down as head of state in March.

The Central Asian country has been struggling with a decade-long crisis which forced the government to pump at least $18 billion into lenders as the banking sector was collapsing under the weight of bad debts. Kazakhstan’s central bank is conducting a review of asset quality which prompted speculation that a new round of bailouts could be in the works.

“My attitude is that there should be no governmental bailouts” for lenders, Tokayev told Bloomberg in an interview. “My assessment of this issue as a president is that the government should not get involved any more, any longer, with its loans as far as private banks are concerned.”

He noted that while the debt-relief initiative could help lenders, the total cost was likely to come in at “a bit less than $1 billion.”

According to the Kazakh president, more than three million people in the country of 18 million will get help to get rid of debts. It is aimed at “people who find themselves in very difficult living circumstances,” said Tokayev.

The presidential administration estimated that about 500,000 people are not able to manage their debt. In 86 percent of cases, the loans are less than 1 million tenge ($2,650), while the average debt is about 300,000 ($788) tenge.

Talking about past bailouts Tokayev dismissed any political connections, saying “the lesson has been accepted by us.”

“We will take lessons from the past, from what has happened in the banking system, and I think that in a couple of years you’ll have absolutely new questions,” he added.

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Economics | | 1 Comment

US Approach to Palestine-Israel Peace Unveiled at Manama Workshop ‘Counterproductive’ – Moscow

Sputnik – June 27, 2019

Bahrain hosted a two-day forum on 25-26 June, which sought to encourage rich Arab countries to invest in Palestinian projects as part of US President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century”.

Russian Foreign Ministry on Thursday lambasted the US approach to the Palestine-Israel settlement presented at a workshop in Manama, Bahrain.

According to the ministry, the US stance on the issue appears ‘counterproductive’.

The ministry lamented the fact that the issues of relaunching direct Palestine-Israeli negotiations as well as the creation of an independent Palestinian state within its 1967 borders were excluded from the talks in Manama.

On Wednesday, the two-day meeting concluded in Bahrain’s capital Manama. The forum focused on the economic aspects of the initiative developed by the United States to resolve the Middle East conflict, which the media dubbed the “deal of the century”.

Representatives of the Palestinian Authority boycotted the forum, viewing it as an attempt to bribe them.

The Palestinians have been seeking diplomatic recognition for their independent state on the territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which are partially occupied by Israel, and the Gaza Strip.

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mishaal: Palestinians are unanimous in rejecting deal of the century

Palestine Information Center – June 27, 2019

Former head of Hamas’s political bureau Khaled Mishaal has expressed the Palestinian people’s rejection of the US deal of the century and its economic conference in Bahrain.

In televised remarks on Tuesday, Mishaal described the deal of the century as “suspicious, poisonous and aimed at liquidating the Palestinian cause,” affirming that “the Palestinian people are unanimous in rejecting the deal and will not allow it to take place.”

“The deal of the century has no future and will be doomed to failure, God willing,” he said.

“There are Palestinian constants and red lines our people are adherent to and they will not accept any bargaining over them,” the Hamas official added.

He accused some Arab regimes of attempting to sell out Palestine which he described as “the Jewel of the Arabs” through accepting bribes coming from their own money.

“Those who have internal crises and agendas and want to sacrifice Palestine for their own sake and to please American are mistaken and committing a crime against Palestine. If they want to gamble, they should gamble with what they have,” he stressed.

He said that Israel can never be part of any solution or the region, describing it as an enemy of the Palestinian people and the Arab nation.

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Haniyeh: ‘Palestine is not for sale’

MEMO | June 27, 2019

Head of Hamas’ political bureau Ismail Haniyeh has said that the Manama workshop “secures economic cover for a political attempt to liquidate the Palestinian cause.”

Haniyeh’s statement came in a speech during a conference organised by Palestinian factions on Tuesday, entitled the Palestinian National Conference to face the Deal of the Century and Reject the Manama Workshop held in Gaza.

He added: “We are witnessing a crucial historical moment. Our position is clear: Palestine is not for sale. No for deals which consecrate the occupier’s hegemony over our land.”

He continued: “The Palestinian people stand today in the face of the Manama workshop in a renewed uprising and political revolution, as Palestinians have sensed the unprecedented strategic threat facing the Palestinian cause.”

Haniyeh pointed out that the Manama workshop “grants Israel the green light to expand its occupation efforts and control over the entire West Bank, in addition to paving the way for normalisation with Arab countries and the integration of the occupier in the region.”

He stressed that the workshop “was born dead and frustrated. The Palestinian people today stand unified in the face of these deals.”

Haniyeh continued that “all Arab people stand today to emphasise the significance of the Palestinian cause and that Jerusalem is the compass of the nation.”

On Tuesday evening the Manama Peace to Prosperity Workshop began in Bahrain, looking at the economic aspects of the Middle East peace settlement plan, known as the deal of century, according to US media.

Haniyeh demanded all factions “insist on steadfast adherence to the Palestinian cause, primarily Jerusalem, the right of return and a sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital on the entire national territory.”

Haniyeh said: “We, Hamas, are ready now to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Gaza, in Cairo or anywhere.”

Haniyeh called for “the formation of a government of national accord to run our affairs, and prepare for the presidential and legislative elections as well as the Palestinian National Council.”

The movement’s leader also called for “the reconstruction of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to include all factions under one single leadership.”

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The steal of the century: stolen land, stolen water, stolen images

By Bill Law | MEMO | June 27, 2019

Jared Kushner and Benjamin Netanyahu must have considered it the longest of long shots but what if the Palestinians by some wild stretch of the imagination had called their bluff on the “deal of the century”; what if they had suddenly decided to turn up in Bahrain for the “Peace to Prosperity” workshop this week?

To guard against any such thing happening, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, wrote a deliberately offensive and insulting opinion piece on 24 June that the New York Times was happy to publish. “What’s wrong with Palestinian surrender?” mused Ambassador Danon. “Surrender is the recognition that in a contest, staying the course will prove costlier than submission.” Having backed the Palestinians into a corner from which they could only say no, Kushner then had Danon stick the knife in.

The message, in all its arrogance, was clear: if you don’t take what is on offer, it is going to get a hell of a lot worse. However, we know we have made it impossible for you to take what is on offer, so guess what? The two state solution is well and truly dead; the path to a greater Israel is secured; welcome to the new reality of Palestinian Bantustans in the West Bank and Gaza. And, oh yes, we promise to throw cash at you, $50 billion; that’s a lot of dosh, if you do what is commanded of you. If you don’t, well that money is off the table.

While many commentators have rightly attacked the New York Times for publishing an openly racist and hate-mongering piece, they may have missed the larger significance of what is happening at speed in the killing of the two-state solution. The day before the Danon article, US National Security Advisor John Bolton accompanied the Israeli Prime Minister to land overlooking the Jordan Valley, the most fertile region of the West Bank. Nearly 90 per cent of the valley has been allocated to Israeli settlements and agriculture, in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and international law.

A smiling and nodding Bolton, wearing a baseball cap bedecked with the US and Israeli flags, looked on as Netanyahu argued that the Jordan Valley offered what he called “the minimal strategic depth and height for the defence of our country,” whatever that means. Those who said that restoring the valley to the Palestinians was a prerequisite to peace just didn’t get it, the Israeli Prime Minister argued. No, restoring land to its rightful owners was not going to bring peace; “It will bring war and terror.” So, according to Netanyahu, a just and fair settlement that righted an historic wrong would lead to war. Yet another example of truth turned on its head and a lie declared as truth.

Bolton, resembling one of those bobble-head figures that are given out at American sports events, said that he wished more Americans could come and see for themselves how the Jordan Valley “affects Israel’s critical security position.” He was keen to assure Netanyahu that, “President Trump will take the concerns you have expressed so clearly very much into account.”

It was all eerily reminiscent of another visit that happened in March of this year. On that occasion, Netanyahu was accompanied to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights by the senior Republican senator and Trump ally Lindsey Graham. Graham promised to return to the Senate and “start an effort to recognise the Golan as part of the state of Israel, now and forever.” And so it came to pass, with Netanyahu unveiling a large plaque on the Golan on 16 June announcing the site of a new settlement to be built: in Hebrew and in English it proclaimed that this is now “Trump Heights”.

One could say that it was tacky beyond all belief or you could take the view that in the Trumpian age of impunity, if you are Benjamin Netanyahu you can get away with just about anything. No doubt the Israeli leader was emboldened to massage the presidential ego by the statement made a week earlier by the US Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman. A bankruptcy lawyer who in a previous career had worked for the Trump Organisation (and presumably knows a thing or two about dodgy real estate deals), Friedman had declared that, “Under certain circumstances I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank.”

There you have it: in the eyes of Kushner, Netanyahu, et al, the path to peace lies through the annexation of what is left of most of the West Bank, including its most valuable agricultural asset, the Jordan Valley. It goes without saying, therefore, that Kushner’s Peace to Prosperity document has something to say about real estate and the settling of land claims. It is right there on page 19: “Project one, Property Ownership Resolution: Enhance court capacity to quickly and effectively resolve property disputes and contested-ownership claims.”

So the game is this: annex as much as possible using the guise of pursuing a peace deal; declare those lands and buildings already annexed as legally belonging to Israel; and then go to court to decide who gets whatever is left over. And, of course, you can guess whose courts and whose judges. Peace to Prosperity doesn’t say anything about it, but I think we know the answer.

Read the document a little further on and it gets worse. There is a whole section devoted to agriculture. It sounds wonderful until you reflect that the most valuable agricultural asset is already off the table. True, there is a water irrigation project to help sustain Palestinian farmers, but guess what? The Israelis already control West Bank aquifers including those in the Jordan Valley where they have drilled deep bores circumventing and cutting off Palestinian wells and requiring the Palestinians to buy their own water back from Israel.

Meanwhile, back in Manama, the Israelis had broken through longstanding taboos and met with senior and some not so senior representatives of Arab states. Bahrain’s Foreign Minister told an Israeli interviewer, “We do believe that Israel is a country to stay, and we want better relations with it, and we want peace with it.” That is something that would have been unthinkable before the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House. It is the Israelis and not the Palestinians who are being embraced, and Arab protestations in public about support for a two state solution sound increasingly feeble and unconvincing.

Reading Kushner’s document I was struck by the illustrations and photos of smiling Palestinians, and I wondered if these people give permission for their images to be used. Odd if they had, given the awful way that Kushner and his father-in-law have treated them. Not surprisingly, though, it turns out that no such permission was given; the pictures were lifted from, among other sources, USAid videos about an agricultural project several years ago and from a joint Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation project. USAid to the Palestinians has, of course, been cancelled by Trump, but that didn’t stop the lifting of the photographs.

Stolen land, stolen water, stolen images. The steal of the century.  And the world sits back and lets it all happen.  No wonder Jared Kushner is looking smug.

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | 1 Comment

Monsters Walk the Earth. Why These Three Countries Are the Real Troika of Evil

By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 27, 2019

There are monsters among us. Every day I read about an American “plan” to either invade some place new or to otherwise inflict pain to convince a “non-compliant” foreign government how to behave. Last week it was Iran but next week it could just as easily again be Lebanon, Syria or Venezuela. Or even Russia or China, both of whom are seen as “threats” even though American soldiers, sailors and marines sit on their borders and not vice versa. The United States is perhaps unique in the history of the world in that it sees threats everywhere even though it is not, in fact, threatened by anyone.

Just as often, one learns about a new atrocity by Israelis inflicted on the defenseless Arabs just because they have the power to do so. Last Friday in Gaza the Israeli army shot and killed four unarmed demonstrators and injured 300 more while the Jewish state’s police invaded a Palestinian orphanage school in occupied Jerusalem and shut it down because the students were celebrating a “Yes to peace, no to war” poetry festival. Peace is not in the Israeli authorized curriculum.

And then there are the Saudis, publicly chopping the heads off of 37 “dissidents” in a mass display of barbarity, and also murdering and dismembering a hapless journalist. And let’s not forget the bombing and deliberate starving of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians in Yemen.

It is truly a troika of evil, an expression favored by US National Security Advisor John Bolton, though he was applying it to Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, all “socialist” nations currently on Washington’s “hit list.” Americans, Saudis and Israelis have become monsters in the eyes of the rest of the world even if in their own minds they are endowed with special privilege due to their being “Exceptional,” “Chosen by God” or “Guardians of Mecca and Medina.” All three countries share a dishonest sense of entitlement that supports the fiction that their oppressive and often illegal behavior is somehow perfectly legitimate.

To be sure not all Americans, Saudis or Israelis are individually monsters. Many are decent people who are appalled by what their respective governments are doing. Saudi citizens live under a despotism and have little to say about their government, but there is a formidable though fragmented peace movement in slightly less totalitarian Israel and in the United States there is growing anti-war sentiment. The discomfort in America is driven by a sense that the post 9/11 conflicts have only embroiled the country more deeply in wars that have no exit and no end. Unfortunately, the peace movement in Israel will never have any real power while the anti-war activists in America are leaderless and disorganized, waiting for someone to step up and take charge.

The current foreign policy debate centers around what Washington’s next moves in the Middle East might be. The decision-making will inevitably involve the US and its “close allies” Israel and Saudi Arabia, which should not surprise anyone. While it is clear that President Donald Trump ordered an attack on Iran before canceling the action at the last minute, exactly how that played out continues to be unclear. One theory, promoted by the president himself, is that the attack would have been disproportionate, killing possibly hundreds of Iranian military personnel in exchange for one admittedly very expensive surveillance drone. Killing the Iranians would have guaranteed an immediate escalation by Iran, which has both the will and the capability to hit high value targets in and around the Persian Gulf region, a factor that may also have figured into the presidential calculus.

Trump’s cancelation of the attack immediately produced cries of rage from the usual neoconservative chickenhawk crowd in Washington as well as a more subdued reiteration of the Israeli and Saudi demands that Iran be punished, though both are also concerned that a massive Iranian retaliation would hit them hard. They are both hoping that Washington’s immensely powerful strategic armaments will succeed in knocking Iran out quickly and decisively, but they have also both learned not to completely trust the White House.

To assuage the beast, the president has initiated a package of “major” new sanctions on Iran which will no doubt hurt the Iranian people while not changing government decision making one iota. There has also been a leak of a story relating to US cyber-attacks on Iranian military and infrastructure targets, yet another attempt to act aggressive to mitigate the sounds being emitted by the neocon chorus.

To understand the stop-and-go behavior by Trump requires application of the Occam’s Razor principle, i.e. that the simplest explanation is most likely correct. For some odd reason, Donald Trump wants to be reelected president in 2020 in spite of the fact that he appears to be uncomfortable in office. A quick, successful war would enhance his chances for a second term, which is probably what Pompeo promised, but any military action that is not immediately decisive would hurt his prospects, quite possibly inflicting fatal damage. Trump apparently had an intercession by Fox news analyst Tucker Carlson, who may have explained that reality to him shortly before he decided to cancel the attack. Tucker is, for what it’s worth, a highly respected critic coming from the political right who is skeptical of wars of choice, democracy building and the global liberal order.

The truth is that all of American foreign policy during the upcoming year will be designed to pander to certain constituencies that will be crucial to the 2020 presidential election. One can bank on even more concessions being granted to Israel and its murderous thug prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring in Jewish votes and, more importantly, money. John Bolton was already in Israel getting his marching orders from Netanyahu on the weekend and Pence was effusive in his praise of Israel when he spoke at the meeting in Orlando earlier in the week launching the Trump 2020 campaign, so the game is already afoot. It is an interesting process to observe how Jewish oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson contribute tens of millions of dollars to the politicians who then in turn give the Jewish state taxpayer generated tens of billions of dollars in return. Bribing corrupt politicians is one of the best investments that one can make in today’s America.

Trump will also go easy on Saudi Arabia because he wants to sell them billions of dollars’ worth of weapons which will make the key constituency of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) happy. And he will continue to exert “maximum pressure” on Iran and Venezuela to show how tough he can be for his Make America Great audience, though avoiding war if he possibly can just in case any of the hapless victims tries to fight back and embarrass him.

So, there it is folks. War with Iran is for the moment on hold, but tune in again next week as the collective White House memory span runs to only three or four days. By next week we Americans might be at war with Mongolia.

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | 4 Comments

‘This Is Popular Resistance’: US War With Iran Spells Victory for Houthis in Yemen

Sputnik – June 27, 2019

If the US goes to war with Iran, the biggest losers will be the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen, an Iranian scholar told Sputnik Wednesday. With the Houthis on the offensive already, an Iranian attack on Saudi infrastructure in the early hours of the war would open the door to Houthi invasion.

In recent months, the Houthi rebels in Yemen have stepped up their attacks on Saudi soil, launching ballistic missile attacks as well as drone strikes against nine different urban locations across southwestern Saudi Arabia. While the Saudis and their US allies have tried to point the finger at Iran, accusing it of waging a proxy war against Riyadh by way of its fellow Shiite Houthis, the truth is that for all their technical sophistication, the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen has failed to destroy the resistance to its onslaught and instead steeled Yemeni resolve like never before.

Mohammad Marandi, an expert on American studies and postcolonial literature who teaches at the University of Tehran, told Radio Sputnik’s Loud and Clear Wednesday that as the US and Saudi Arabia have had Yemen under an effective state of siege for years, there has been “really no way for Iran to give them substantial support.”

“My assumption is that Iran does give them support, but that support is almost nothing compared to what the Saudis have and what the Emiratis have. It would be almost nothing in comparison.”

Indeed, Sputnik reported in February on multiple exposes by Amnesty International and CNN that showed the extent to which the United Arab Emirates has supplied its proxies in Yemen with Western-made weapons, including American MRAPs, Serbian machine guns and French-made LeClerc main battle tanks. Among the recipients of that aid was Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which controls substantial territory in southeastern Yemen.

Further, Sputnik reported last week that the type of anti-air missile used by Houthi forces to shoot down a US MQ-9 Reaper drone over Yemen earlier in the month, the Soviet-made SA-6 Kub, is so heavily proliferated across the world that US Central Command’s attempt to use it as proof of Iranian patronage is all but impossible.

“So the fact that the Yemeni people, despite the overwhelming support of Western countries for Saudi Arabia, and the infinite amount of money that the Saudis and the Emiratis have spent on waging war against the Yemeni people – the very fact that they’ve been able to stand up and to prevent the United States’ allies or their clients in the region from winning and taking the country shows that this is not a proxy war; this is a popular resistance,” Marandi said.

However, you wouldn’t be able to tell that if you read the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

“Yemen’s Houthi rebels have accelerated missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia in recent weeks, highlighting the kingdom’s military vulnerabilities in defending itself against an Iranian ally amid a crisis in US-Iran relations,” WSJ’s Jared Malsin wrote.

“Everything points toward the direction that Iran and the Houthis have teamed up for their mutual benefit to increase missile and drone attacks against targets in recent days and weeks,” Fabian Hinz, an independent analyst based in Germany, told the paper for the story.

Marandi told Sputnik the reason why the Western media and Western think tanks call it a proxy war is “because they want to escape the fact that they are not calling out their governments for the crimes against humanity that they are involved in. In other words, they want to create a moral equivalent between the Saudis and the Yemeni people who are being massacred so that they won’t be answerable in the eyes of public opinion.”

“So, they say it’s a proxy war, so it’s, you know, it’s two bad guys fighting each other. This way, when their governments give hundreds of millions of dollars, or in the case of the Europeans, tens of millions of dollars each of weapons to the Saudis or the Emiratis, they don’t have to feel ashamed about it, or they don’t have to shame their governments,” he said.

That said, Marandi told hosts Brian Becker and John Kiriakou that the tide was clearly turning against the Saudi-led alliance, which includes not only the UAE and the Yemeni government-in-exile, but also Sudan, which has sent thousands of warriors from its Janjaweed militia – the paramilitary group responsible for a large part of the genocide in Darfur – to fight in Yemen. Other countries, such as Senegal, have sent troops to fight with the coalition as well.

The conflict broke out slowly in Yemen beginning in September 2014, amid a rising tide of dissent. When Ansar Allah, a militia drawn from northern Yemen’s Zaidi Shiite Muslim minority that followed their late leader Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, joined by supporters of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, seized the capital of Sanaa in March 2015 and forced Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi to flee the country, Hadi escaped to Riyadh, seeking help in returning to power. Saudi airstrikes began almost immediately.

The Houthis’ September Revolution rode on dissent over the outcome of the country’s 2011-12 revolution, part of the Arab Spring uprisings that saw Saleh thrown from power and Hadi, his vice president, assume Saleh’s former office. The revolution promised to address issues of chronic mass unemployment and a poor economy, as well as to restructure the country’s administration for the first time since North and South Yemen were reunited in 1990.

The Houthis helped make the 2012 revolution, but rejected the federalization proposed by Hadi as a move that would entrench, not alleviate, regional poverty. The final straw came in 2014, when a sharp spike in gas prices, combined with a slew of right-wing proposals by Hadi that included slashing social program funding, drove Saleh supporters into the streets and the ranks of the rising Houthis.

“Now, for the first time, we’re beginning to see the Yemenis go on the offensive, and they are striking vulnerable targets inside Saudi Arabia,” Marandi said. He predicted that in the event of an all-out war between the US and Iran, the Saudis and Emiratis would suffer such terrible consequences in just the first few hours of the conflict that the Houthis or other anti-Saudi Yemeni forces would immediately seize the opportunity and likely invade Saudi Arabia “within days.”

“There would be chaos in these countries,” Marandi noted. “Therefore, it’s not simply Iran. If the United States thinks they can wage a war against Iran and that it will be something manageable, they are deeply mistaken.”

June 27, 2019 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment