From South Africa to Israel: personal stories of apartheid
By Jesse Rosenfeld | The National | March 2. 2010
I grew up in an anti-apartheid household in Toronto. My parents met while my father was touring southern Africa as part of a Canadian anti-apartheid organisation, building links with postcolonial African socialist states and the South African liberation movement. On long car journeys, our family would mix Nelson Mandela’s autobiography with Just William children’s story tapes, and my parents would occasionally hire a babysitter so they could attend organising meetings for the international boycott campaign against South Africa.
As much as I was taught about apartheid, the violence of segregation, and the brutality of a state designed only to serve a settler population, I didn’t experience it first-hand until I moved to Ramallah in 2007.
Going to Jerusalem through the Qalandia terminal checkpoint and watching the soldiers harass and degrade Palestinians with Jerusalem IDs – while most of my Ramallah friends were barred from travelling there altogether – was the first I saw of state-run segregation. Walking through the Balata refugee camp on the edge of Nablus was the first township-style ghetto I set foot in. Seeing the Palestinian Authority beat anti-Bush demonstrators in the street during the former president’s visit in 2008 was my first real taste of the bitterness of Inkatha-style divide-and-rule.
In Ramallah I was regularly woken in the middle of the night to the sounds of my neighbours’ gates being blown off, followed by the screams of children as their father or brother was violently taken by the Israeli army. However, it was not until I met Ibrahim Bornat that I really understood the price Israel imposes on Palestinians who demand freedom and equality.
A vocal activist in the West Bank town of Bi’lin, struggling against Israel’s use of the wall to annex village farmland to the nearby Jewish settlement, Ibrahim was arrested on February 2 during a night raid on the village. After appearing regularly in the front lines of the weekly protests against Israel’s barrier, he now sits in Israel’s notorious Ofer military prison alongside other leaders of the town’s Non-Violent Popular Committee, facing a slew of charges in a military court.
I first met Ibrahim – who says he has been shot more than 80 times with steel-coated rubber bullets and tear gas – in Ramallah in 2007 after he was discharged from hospital. He had been shot in the face with a tear-gas canister, leaving a permanent dent in his forehead. His older brother, Ronnie, was paralysed by an Israeli sniper at the beginning of the second Intifada, yet no sooner had the bandages come off than Ibrahim was again marching next to his brother’s wheelchair to defend their family’s farmland.
Then, during a weekly protest in June 2008, Ibrahim was shot three times in the upper leg with live Israeli fragmentation bullets, which almost killed him.
Spending months in hospital, at first he believed his demonstrating days were over, opting to use art to express his resistance while wondering if he would ever walk again. However, while slowly recovering in a rehabilitation centre, he told me that he would return to protest and not let Israel’s violence silence him.
Now, about to face down Israeli military commanders again – this time in the courtroom – it is unlikely that Ibrahim will stand on his porch and watch apartment buildings go up on his family’s olive groves any time soon.
These days I’m based in Jaffa, on the south edge of Tel Aviv’s vibrant metropolis, where the picture of state segregation and displacement has lighter tones. My apartment is on the edge of the historically Arab city’s last majority Palestinian community, in what is effectively Israel’s version of Cape Town’s District Six.
While my neighbours face eviction by landlords looking to turn apartments into condos for Jewish residents from northern Tel Aviv, large development companies are being awarded municipal contracts to build exclusively Jewish apartment complexes on majority Palestinian streets.
Meanwhile Palestinian residents – who hold Israeli citizenship – are denied building and repair permits for their homes in a municipal strategy to pressure them to leave, making space available for wealthier Jewish residents. The Israeli army evicted 90 per cent of Jaffa’s Palestinian inhabitants in 1948 – mostly sending them on boats down to Gaza – but now Israel is entering a new stage of putting Palestinians out of sight.
Despite this, there will not be any Israel Apartheid Week events at Tel Aviv University, which sits atop the Palestinian village of Sheikh Munis. Started at the University of Toronto in 2005, Israel Apartheid Week has become an annual rallying point across the world for students fighting for Palestinian justice. But it is only on the other side of the wall, in Bethlehem and Ramallah, where public events confronting Israeli apartheid take place.
As students around the world this week take a stand for justice in Palestine, like my parents did for South Africa, I think of Nelson Mandela’s clarity when he said: “The UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system. But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
Jesse Rosenfeld is a journalist based in Tel Aviv-Jaffa and Ramallah and the editor of The Daily Nuisance
What it means to go to Ben Gurion airport with an Arab friend
By Lia Tarachansky | March 3, 2010
I’m too distracted to fall asleep. Everyone is quietly snoring. The sun rises ever so slowly and the wings of the plane rudely cut through the calmness of the clouds. It’s hard to believe that the intensity of the sun repeats itself with this beauty every day. That it’s not for this special day that led me to be on this flight, on my way to Barcelona. I guess my mind makes it negligible just to maintain every-day continuity. Can’t comprehend all of chaos theory at once.
So how did I get on this flight? Around 9 p.m. last night I found out that The Real News got an in-kind donation to send me to Barcelona to cover the Russell Tribunal on Palestine. By midnight I was packed up and by 2 am I was at the airport. Someone thought this tribunal was so important and had the kind of faith in my reporting that frankly makes me terrified.
Last month I took international friends to the airport. When internationals fly alone out of Israel, they get a “6” or a “5”. This number is a sticker you get on your passport and bags that helps the Israeli airport security evaluate your level of Zionism. “1” is awesome, “6” is you’re fucked. 1 is reserved for white Jewish Israelis, 2 is for white Jewish non-Israelis and friendly internationals, 3 is a suspicious Israeli or international, 4 is sometimes given to non-white Israelis, 5 is for Arab Israelis or questionable internationals, and 6 is for Palestinians, Muslims, and hostile internationals. Hostile is defined as not Zionist or suspected of questioning Zionism. Anything above a 3 means interrogation. Of course these are my definitions based on the people I’ve talked to who’ve gotten one of the six. I don’t know what the official language they use says.
In most airports they ask you the benign questions of “did you pack your own bag?” In Israel they try to find out how Zionist you are. If you’re an international who’s been here you’ve experienced the invasive questions about your love of Israel so you know it’s always better to bring along an Israeli for protection. My presence with them meant I answered all the questions for them and the fact that I grew up in a settlement landed them a 2- the best grade they could get as non citizens. We rehearsed for hours.
So I enter the line confident and on cloud number nine from excitement. After all, I’m going to Barcelona! To cover the Russell Tribunal! My Israeli-Palestinian roommate tells me he’ll wait while I answer the security lady’s questions. She sees I speak Hebrew, she asks if I packed my own bags and she gives me a “1” as expected. I’m white and I’m an Israeli, therefore I’m probably a Zionist. High from excitement and privilege I ask if my friend can come with me to the check-in. She says of course and asks for his ID. Her face changes.
Where it says the Jewish birthdate the line in his ID is blank. i.e. not Jewish. I.e. Palestinian.
–”you know this man?”
– “yes”
– “how?”
– “he’s my roommate”
– “where?”
– “Jaffa” (a mixed Israeli-Palestinian city)
– “wait here.”
She looks at his last name. It’s Christian, i.e. Arab. She disappears with our passports. The roommate looks at me and we both know what’s going to happen. When she comes back her smile is gone. She tears the “1” off my bags and angrily puts on a “3” as though to say “you didn’t tell me you have an Arab friend!” Her face says “don’t you see you’re fucking it all up for us?!”
She sends me to the “other” line where people get their bags carefully checked. All the black people are in this line, all the Arab-looking people and the non-Zionist internationals. At least they’re not pretending their racial profiling is random. As I wait in line the security manager looks me up and down. He looks confused. Everyone else is a person of colour. So he approaches me.
– “Where did you come from?”
– “Excuse me?”
– “To the airport, where did you come from? Where do you live?”
– “Tel Aviv – Jaffa”
– “And where did you grow up? When did you come to Israel?”
– “I grew up in Ariel [a West Bank settlement], I came to Israel in ‘90/‘91”
– “OH! You’re from Ariel!”
He looks at the “3” sticker on my bag and shrugs. He motions the security lady and whispers something in her ear. The roommate – who was told he’s not allowed to come in after he was discovered as an Arab– looks on from a distance.
– “So you speak Hebrew?” the bag lady asks as she symbolically opens my bag and closes it with disinterest. The Nigerian lady beside me is having her bag checked with special sticks. Every item is laid out and questioned by three security “experts”.
– “I have family in Ariel,” the bag-checking lady tells me with a smile as she motions me to the next line.
– “You see what it means to have an Arab friend?” my roommate says and apologizes for the interrogation that’ll probably follow. I yell at him to never apologize for that again. This week is Israeli Apartheid Week. 40 Cities this year. The only analytical article in Ha’aretz was about a South African (white) anti-Apartheid activist who argued Israel’s bad but not apartheid-bad. For some reason all the white South African activists say it’s not so bad. All the black ones say its worse than they had ever imagined.
Turkmenistan: We don’t want ex-Mossad man as ambassador
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s appointment rejected, new embassy not opened
By Barak Ravid |Haaretz News |March 3, 2010
For four months now Turkmenistan has been delaying the ratification of the appointment of Reuven Dinel, a close associate of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, as Israel’s first ambassador to that country. Sources at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have said this is an unusual diplomatic hint to the effect that Turkmenistan is not interested in the appointment, because Dinel formerly worked at the Mossad. “They are hoping we will get the hint and appoint someone else to the position,” said a top person at the ministry.
At the end of July 2009, Lieberman announced his intention to appoint Dinel as Israel’s ambassador to Ashgabat, the capital of Turkmenistan. The foreign minister attributed particular importance to the appointment in light of the fact that it involves the opening of an embassy in a country that shares a long border with Iran. Lieberman believed this also entails sending a message to Tehran.
In 2003, in his capacity as minister of transportation, Lieberman appointed Dinel, who is considered close to the minister, to head the establishment of the Carmel port in Haifa. Currently Dinel serves as deputy director general for management resources at the Israel Ports Development and Assets Company.
Lieberman saw Dinel’s appointment to Turkmenistan as a highlight of his first year as foreign minister, and pinned many hopes on Dinel and the abilities he would bring to the role of ambassador from his period of service in the Mossad.
On October 25, the government approved the appointment and a few days later, as is customary under diplomatic protocol, Israel send an official letter to Turkmenistan with the details about the new ambassador, together with a request to the government there to agree to the appointment.
The process of granting approval for an ambassador’s appointment is technical and symbolic, and usually does not present any problem. However, Turkmenistan decided exceptionally not to approve the appointment. Nearly four months have passed since the Israeli request was sent, but the Turkmenistani government has not sent back any reply to Jerusalem concerning Dinel’s appointment. The Turkmenistani government’s conduct is causing the foreign minister serious embarrassment, in light of the great importance he has attributed to the appointment and the opening of the new embassy, which he has taken as a personal project.
The background to Turkmenistan’s refusal to accept Dinel as Israel’s ambassador may well lie in an embarrassing affair that has been following him since 1996, when he was serving as the first Mossad envoy to Moscow. That year Dinel was expelled from Russia after security agents in Moscow caught him receiving classified satellite photographs from Russian officers.
Sources at the Foreign Ministry assessed on Sunday that the Russians, who consider Dinel persona non grata, sent messages to the authorities in Turkmenistan indicating they expect that country not to give its agreement to the appointment.
“From the outset this appointment was very strange,” said a senior source at the Foreign Ministry. “They took someone who is a declared espionage person, who had even been thrown out of Russia for that, and put him in Turkmenistan. They did all this without consulting any professional element. What did they expect would happen? There’s no way he would get the approval of the Turkmenistani authorities.”
The Foreign Minister’s Bureau stated in response: “There has been a delay in the opening of the embassy in Turkmenistan because a number of difficulties have arisen, mostly with regard to security matters, as often happens when opening a new delegation. We hope it will be possible to arrange matters in the coming weeks.”
Iran reminds IAEA of West’s broken promises
Press TV – March 1, 2010
Iran has called on the UN nuclear watchdog to bear in mind the West’s past breaches of atomic fuel exchange deals with Tehran while reviewing Iran’s nuclear program.
In a letter to the UN body, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), cited three instances on which Western countries failed to meet their commitments and provide Iran with nuclear fuel.
The letter referred to the American firm AMF, which was stopped by the US government from supplying fuel for the Tehran research reactor in 1980 despite an agreement between the two countries.
AMF did not refund the $2 million paid in advance by Iran for the nuclear fuel.
The letter also mentioned Germany’s failure to provide the fuel for the Bushehr nuclear plant.
It also points out that Iran has received no enriched uranium from France despite being a 10-percent shareholder in the European Gaseous Diffusion Uranium Enrichment Consortium (Eurodif).
Tehran and Paris have also signed a deal, under which France is obliged to deliver 50 tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to Iran — another obligation France has failed to meet.
The IAEA is to meet for talks on Iran’s nuclear energy program later on Monday.
An IAEA proposal would require Iran to send most of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia and subsequently France for further enrichment and conversion into metal fuel rods.
Based on the draft, Iran would receive a shipment of the nuclear fuel at a later time, while the Tehran research reactor, which produces medical radioisotopes for cancer treatment, is already running out of fuel.
After the powers ignored Tehran’s concerns over the absence of necessary guarantees, Iran decided to domestically enrich uranium to a level of 20 percent.
Israel Distributes New Gas Masks to Settlers
Al-Manar – 28/02/2010
Israel on Sunday began distributing new gas masks for settlers to use in a possible chemical or biological attack, the Israeli occupation army said.
Under the plan – drawn up by Col. Yossi Sagiv, head of the Israeli Home Front Command’s Gas Mask and Protection Kits Department – the masks will be returned to private homes by the Israel Postal Company, which beat out seven other companies in a Defense Ministry-issued tender in late 2009. Gas masks were collected from private homes starting in 2007 by a private delivery company.
The distribution is slated to take three years. Israeli officials said that after the distribution is completed in Or Yehuda, the Israeli army will review the operation, implement corrections and improvements and then start distributing the kits in other parts of the country, based on operational considerations of which area is under a more immediate threat.
The public will receive the same rubber gas mask that it had in the past with an improved filter – more effective against chemical and biological threats Israel faces – but without the syringe of Atropine that was in past kits.
Israel has long feared that chemical or biological weapons may be used against it in a future conflict involving Iran or Syria, but officials have insisted the distribution of the masks is not linked to any imminent threat.
The Zionist entity has carried out several large-scale defense exercises in recent years, and last week carried out a military-wide drill responding to a hypothetical attack from Lebanon or Syria.
In October Israel and the United States carried out their largest-ever air drill simulating the response to missile attacks.
All in the Family
By Alison Weir| February 26, 2010
Recent exposés revealing that Ethan Bronner, the New York Times’ Israel-Palestine bureau chief, has a son in the Israeli military have caused a storm of controversy that continues to swirl and generate further revelations. (See my piece for CounterPunch, The NYT’s Ethan Bronner’s Conflict With Impartiality.)
Many people find such a sign of family partisanship in an editor covering a foreign conflict troubling – especially given the Times’ record of Israel-centric journalism.
Times management at first refused to confirm Bronner’s situation, then refused to comment on it. Finally, public outcry forced Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt to confront the problem in a February 7th column.
After bending over backwards to praise the institution that employs him, Hoyt ultimately opined that Bronner should be re-assigned to a different sphere of reporting to avoid the “appearance” of bias. Times Editor Bill Keller declined to do so, however, instead writing a column calling Bronner’s connections to Israel valuable because they “supply a measure of sophistication about Israel and its adversaries that someone with no connections would lack.”
If such “sophistication” is valuable, the Times’ espoused commitment to the “impartiality and neutrality of the company’s newsrooms” would seem to require it to have a balancing editor equally sophisticated about Palestine and its adversary, but Keller did not address that.
Bronner is far from alone
As it turns out, Bronner’s ties to the Israeli military are not the rarity one might expect.
• A previous Times bureau chief, Joel Greenberg, before he was bureau chief but after he was already publishing in the Times from Israel, actually served in the Israeli army.
• Media pundit and Atlantic staffer Jeffrey Goldberg also served in the Israeli military; it’s unclear when, how, or even if his military service ended.
• Richard Chesnoff, who has been covering Mideast events for more than 40 years, had a son serving in the Israeli military while Chesnoff covered Israel as US News & World Report’s senior foreign correspondent.
• NPR’s Linda Gradstein’s husband was an Israeli sniper and may still be in the Israeli reserves. NPR refuses to disclose whether Gradstein herself is also an Israeli citizen, as are her children and husband.
• Mitch Weinstock, national editor for the San Diego Union-Tribune, served in the Israeli military.
• The New York Times’ other correspondent from the region, Isabel Kershner, is an Israeli citizen. Israel has universal compulsory military service, which suggests that Kershner herself and/or family members may have military connections. The Times refuses to answer questions about whether she and/or family members have served or are currently serving in the Israeli military. Is it possible that Times Foreign Editor Susan Chira herself has such connections? The Times refuses to answer.
• Many Associated Press writers and editors are Israeli citizens or have Israeli families. AP will not reveal how many of the journalists in its control bureau for the region currently serve in the Israeli military, how many have served in the past, and how many have family members with this connection.
• Similarly, many TV correspondents such as Martin Fletcher have been Israeli citizens and/or have Israeli families. Do they have family connections to the Israeli military?
• Time Magazine’s bureau chief several years ago became an Israeli citizen after he had assumed his post. Does he have relatives in the military?
• CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, while not an Israeli citizen, was based in Israel for many years, wrote a book whitewashing Israeli spying on the US, and used to work for the Israel lobby in the US. None of this is divulged to CNN viewers.
Tikkun’s editor Michael Lerner has a son who served in the Israeli military. While Lerner has been a strong critic of many Israeli policies, in an interview with Jewish Week, Lerner explains:
“Having a son in the Israeli army was a manifestation of my love for Israel, and I assume that having a son in the Israeli army is a manifestation of Bronner’s love of Israel.”
Lerner goes on to make a fundamental point:
“…there is a difference in my emotional and spiritual connection to these two sides [Israelis and Palestinians]. On the one side is my family; on the other side are decent human beings. I want to support human beings all over the planet but I have a special connection to my family. I don’t deny it.”
For a great many of the reporters and editors determining what Americans learn about Israel-Palestine, Israel is family.
Jonathan Cook, a British journalist based in Nazareth, writes of a recent meeting with a Jerusalem based bureau chief, who explained: “… Bronner’s situation is ‘the rule, not the exception. I can think of a dozen foreign bureau chiefs, responsible for covering both Israel and the Palestinians, who have served in the Israeli army, and another dozen who like Bronner have kids in the Israeli army.”
Cooks writes that the bureau chief explained: “It is common to hear Western reporters boasting to one another about their Zionist credentials, their service in the Israeli army or the loyal service of their children.”
Apparently, intimate ties to Israel are among the many open secrets in the region that are hidden from the American public. If, as the news media insist, these ties present no problem or even, as the Times’ Keller insists, enhance the journalists’ work, why do the news agencies consistently refuse to admit them?
The reason is not complicated.
While Israel may be family for these journalists and editors, for the vast majority of Americans, Israel is a foreign country. In survey after survey, Americans say they don’t wish to “take sides” on this conflict. In other words, the American public wants full, unfiltered, unslanted coverage.
Quite likely the news media refuse to answer questions about their journalists’ affiliations because they suspect, accurately, that the public would be displeased to learn that the reporters and editors charged with supplying news on a foreign nation and conflict are, in fact, partisans.
While Keller claims that the New York Times is covering this conflict “even-handedly,” studies indicate otherwise:
* The Times covers international reports documenting Israeli human rights abuses at a rate 19 times lower than it reports on the far smaller number of international reports documenting Palestinian human rights abuses.
* The Times covers Israeli children’s deaths at rates seven times greater than they cover Palestinian children’s deaths, even though there are vastly more of the latter and they occurred first.
* The Times fails to inform its readers that Israel’s Jewish-only colonies on confiscated Palestinian Christian and Muslim land are illegal; that its collective punishment of 1.5 million men, women, and children in Gaza is not only cruel and ruthless, it is also illegal; and that its use of American weaponry is routinely in violation of American laws.
* The Times covers the one Israeli (a soldier) held by Palestinians at a rate incalculably higher than it reports on the Palestinian men, women, and children – the vast majority civilians – imprisoned by Israel (currently over 7,000).
• The Times neglects to report that hundreds of Israel’s captives have never even been charged with a crime and that those who have were tried in Israeli military courts under an array of bizarre military statutes that make even the planting of onions without a permit a criminal offense – a legal system, if one can call it that, that changes at the whim of the current military governor ruling over a subject population; a system in which parents are without power to protect their children.
* The Times fails to inform its readers that 40 percent of Palestinian males have been imprisoned by Israel, a statistic that normally would be considered highly newsworthy, but that Bronner, Kershner, and Chira apparently feel is unimportant to report.
Americans, whose elected representatives give Israel uniquely gargantuan sums of our tax money (a situation also not covered by the media), want and need all the facts, not just those that Israel’s family members decree reportable.
We’re not getting them.
Visit Alison Weir’s video selections
Dissident Jews: Unwanted in Germany?
By Raymond Deane | Pulse Media | February 25, 2010
A European country that scapegoats a Semitic people, persecutes defenders of human rights by stripping them of employment, and denies freedom of speech to Jews: surely a description of Germany during the Third Reich?
Yes, but unfortunately also a description of Germany at the outset of the 21st century.
In the wake of German Chancellor Merkel’s craven speech to the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) two years ago, I wrote: “a penance is being paid for Germany’s past crimes… by the Palestinians to whose plight Merkel is so indifferent…. By scapegoating the victims of its former victims, Germany is compounding its past crimes.” (Scapegoat upon Scapegoat, Electronic Intifada, 20 March 2008).
Just one year later I described the case of Hermann Dierkes, forced to resign his position as representative of Die Linke (The Left Party) on Duisburg city council after tentatively advocating a boycott of Israeli goods. I commented: “It appears that freedom of speech, supposedly one of the proudest acquisitions of post-Fascist Germany, is readily suppressed when exercised to advocate positive action against the racist, politicidal institutions and actions of the Zionist state.” (A public stoning in Germany, Electronic Intifada, March 2009).
I mentioned as something of an anomaly Thomas Assheuer’s application of the “antisemite” label to Canadian Jewish author Naomi Klein (Die Zeit, 15 January 2009) because of her support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel. In the light of recent developments this seems far less anomalous.
In July 2009 the Bundesverdienstkreuz (Federal Cross of Merit) was awarded to Felicia Langer, German-based Jewish lawyer and former Israeli citizen who has repeatedly defended Palestinians in Israel’s courts. There ensued a virulent if unsuccessful campaign by right-wing German Jews like Ralph Giordano, backed by the neo-conservative American Jewish Committee, to have this decision reversed. Langer called this “a campaign of defamation” designed to stifle criticism of Israel, and described Giordano as “motivated by… a bottomless hatred.”
In November 2009 the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe saw his projected lecture at Munich’s Pedagogical Institute cancelled by the municipality after protests from Zionist lobby groups. In an open letter to the Munich Mayor, Dr Pappe wrote that his father “was silenced in a similar way as a German Jew in the early 1930s”. Like himself, he wrote, his father and his friends were regarded as “‘humanist’ and ‘peacenik’ Jews whose voice had to be quashed and stopped.” Pappe professed himself “worried… about the state of freedom of speech and democracy in present day Germany”.
Norman Finkelstein’s lecture on Gaza scheduled for 26th February 2010 in Berlin, under the auspices of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, was attacked by the neo-conservative lobby group “Honestly Concerned”, which is German despite its English monicker. They described Finkelstein – a US Jewish academic who is the son of Holocaust survivors – as an antisemite engaged in “historical revisionism”. The Foundation promptly withdrew its support.
The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, close to Die Linke and named after a murdered anti-Zionist Jewish Marxist, stepped into the breech. However, after an outcry orchestrated by the Shalom Working Circle (BAK Shalom), a youth faction within Die Linke itself, this support was also withdrawn. Despite a rescue attempt by the leftist daily newspaper junge Welt, Finkelstein cancelled his German trip with the words: “If I come to Germany to speak before a few people in a small room it will be said that free speech was not violated in Germany. I do not want to lend credibility to this lie.” (As a footnote to this: at the time of writing, junge Welt proposes to go ahead with this event anyway; speakers mooted include the abovementioned Hermann Dierkes.)
It would be a serious mistake, however, to conclude that such defamation is exclusively the province of Zionist Jews. They are backed by a slew of small groups, so far to the left that they have ended up on the right, known as the “anti-German” movement.
An understanding of this bizarre phenomenon is essential to an understanding of the political atmosphere in which events such as these can occur. The Anti-Germans reject German nationalism. This leads them to unconditional support for Israel, seen as “representing the Jews”, the main victims of that nationalism in the 1930s and 40s. Next, they offer unconditional support to the USA as Israel’s main sponsor, and to each and every war in which the USA and NATO are implicated. They define these wars in neo-conservative terms as a battle for Western civilization against the forces of barbarism. This has led the Gruppe Morgenthau, an “anti-Nazi” group that vilifies “liberal” Israeli Jews, to call for the lifting of “anti-racist taboos”. The Anti-German newspaper Bahamas has praised Jean-Marie Le Pen of the French far right Front National for his “rational objections… to unlimited Islamisation”, and a Bahamas author – Martin Blumentritt – has described criticism of the West as “the propagation of a racial struggle against the ‘white race’”.
Thus the initial rejection of fascism leads to a new racism and thence back to a kind of fascism. The absolutism with which a rational liberal position has been turned inside out suggests that the anti-Germans couldn’t be more thoroughly German.
Disturbingly, this lunatic fringe does not only thrive on the margins. There is an influential anti-German clique within Die Linke itself, represented by, among others, the above-mentioned BAK Shalom faction, one of whose spokesmen (Benjamin Krüger) wrote that “Finkelstein is internationally popular among antisemites because, merely by describing himself as a Jew and the son of Holocaust survivors, .he is accorded credibility…”, a formulation that it is tempting to describe as antisemitic.
Ralph Giordano, in opposing the award of the Bundesverdienstkreuz to Felicia Langer, accused her of being an inspiration to those Germans “who seek to relieve the pressure of their own guilt by criticizing Israel”. In fact, of course, the exact opposite is happening: unconditional support for Israel caters to the narcissism of those Germans who need constant reassurance that their “penance” – transferred to Palestinian scapegoats – is universally applauded.
Shortly after his tour of Germany in 2002 (it was possible then!), Finkelstein mocked the “operatic courage” of his German critics and accused them of engendering antisemitism among their compatriots. The antics of the anti-Germans and their ilk whip up racial tensions that can only lead to a climate reminiscent of the 1930s. Perhaps the travails of Pappe and Finkelstein may serve ultimately as a wake-up call to activists to place Germany – the most powerful country in the European Union – high on the list of Palestine’s most deadly enemies after Israel and the USA.
Raymond Deane is a composer and activist based in Ireland and Germany
Brown sorry for UK shipping kids to colonies
Press TV – February 24, 2010
In an unprecedented move British Prime Minister Gordon Brown apologized on Wednesday for the UK’s role in sending an estimated 150,000 children to former colonies, where they were abused.
Brown apologized for the treatment of children by the child migrants program — under which thousands of British children were sent to Commonwealth countries including Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
According to estimates released by the British government many as 150,000 children were separated from their parents and shipped off to the former colonies.
Brown also announced that GBP 6 million will be allocated to bring back the families that were torn apart by the scheme together. The practice was in place between the 1920s and the 1960s.
“To all those former child migrants and their families; to those here with us today and those across the world — to each and every one — I say today we are truly sorry. They were let down,” the British Premier said in a statement to the House of Commons.
“And we are sorry that it has taken so long for this important day to come and for the full and unconditional apology that is justly deserved. They were mostly sent without the consent of their mother or father.”
Brown said that the children “endured harsh conditions, neglect and abuse in the often cold and brutal institutions which received them. Those children were robbed of their childhood: those most precious years of life.”
The prime minister announced in November that he would like to apologize for the actions of previous governments, and held discussions with charities representing the former child migrants.
Forty of the survivors of the practice arrived in London earlier to listen to Brown’s formal statement.
One of the survivors, Rex Wade, was sent to Australia when he was 11 and put in a children’s home in Tasmania. He described it as a military camp, while those in other homes referred to it as slave labor.
“There was no love, there was no kindness. The punishments were incredible, the beatings we used to get for stupid things,” he told The BBC.
“I blamed myself for years that I must have done something really bad to be shipped away to another country. I don’t care what they say, even today, it wasn’t for the good of the child. I didn’t even know I had a mother.”
Prior to Brown’s recent statement, no formal apology had been given for Britain’s role in the tragedy.
Harvard Fellow calls for genocidal measure to curb Palestinian births
Report, The Electronic Intifada, 22 February 2010
A fellow at Harvard University’s Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Martin Kramer, has called for “the West” to take measures to curb the births of Palestinians, a proposal that appears to meet the international legal definition of a call for genocide.
Kramer, who is also a fellow at the influential Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), made the call early this month in a speech at Israel’s Herzliya conference, a video of which is posted on his blog (“Superfluous young men,” 7 February 2010).
In the speech Kramer rejected common views that Islamist “radicalization” is caused by US policies such as support for Israel, or propping up despotic dictatorships, and stated that it was inherent in the demography of Muslim societies such as Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip. Too many children, he argued, leads to too many “superfluous young men” who then become violent radicals.
Kramer proposed that the number of Palestinian children born in the Gaza Strip should be deliberately curbed, and alleged that this would “happen faster if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies to Palestinians with refugee status.”
Due to the Israeli blockade, the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza are now dependent on UN food aid. Neither the UN, nor any other agencies, provide Palestinians with specifically “pro-natal subsidies.” Kramer appeared to be equating any humanitarian assistance at all with inducement for Palestinians to reproduce.
He added, “Israel’s present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim — undermine the Hamas regime — but if they also break Gaza’s runaway population growth, and there is some evidence that they have, that might begin to crack the culture of martyrdom which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men.” This, he claimed, would be treating the issue of Islamic radicalization “at its root.”
The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, created in the wake of the Nazi holocaust, defines genocide to include measures “intended to prevent births within” a specific “national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”
The Weatherhead Center at Harvard describes itself as “the largest international research center within Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences.” In addition to his positions at Harvard and WINEP, Kramer is “president-designate” of Shalem College in Jerusalem, a far-right Zionist institution that aspires to be the “College of the Jewish People.”
Pro-Israel speakers from the United States often participate in the the Herzliya conference, an influential annual gathering of Israel’s political and military establishment. This year’s conference was also addressed by The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and, in a first for a Palestinian official, by Salam Fayyad, appointed prime minister of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority.
Kramer’s call to prevent Palestinian births reflects a long-standing Israeli and Zionist concern about a so-called “demographic threat” to Israel, as Palestinians are on the verge of outnumbering Israeli Jews within Israel, and the occupied Palestinian territories combined.
Such extreme racist views have been aired at the Herzliya conference in the past. In 2003, for example, Dr. Yitzhak Ravid, an Israeli government armaments expert, called on Israel to “implement a stringent policy of family planning in relation to its Muslim population,” a reference to the 1.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Israeli assassinations: crime against humanity?
By Rachel Rudolph | Palestine Telegraph | February 21, 2010
Dominating the world news, even in the United States, is the Al-Mabhouh assassination. Israel has a long history of engaging in targeted killings and assassinations, so why has this one sparked media frenzy? Many outlets are focusing on the use of fake passports, while others are condemning the lack of action by those governments whose passports were used. Very few are actually focusing on the act of assassination itself and its consequences under international law. While targeted killings of specific individuals with government approval are permissible under international law under certain conditions, assassinations (an attack on an individual who believes there is no need to fear the attacker) are not. Was the murder of Al-Mabhouh an assassination? If so, is this another Israeli crime against humanity?
While I am sure Palestine Telegraph readers are well acquainted with the murder, a little background should be given to help understand the applicability of international law. Born in the Jabalya camp in the northern Gaza Strip on Feb. 14, 1960, Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh was murdered on Jan. 20 at a hotel in Dubai. There was no reason to suspect that this trip would be his last, as Al-Mabhouh had travelled to Dubai in the past and never encountered any problems. However, while he had no problems travelling to Dubai, Israel’s Mossad had attempted to take his life three times in the past: in 1991, 2004 and 2008. The last attempt followed the Israeli assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, a top military leader with the Lebanese Hizbullah organization. (He was blamed for the kidnapping of Western hostages in Beirut – including the Briton Terry Waite – and a 1983 bombing that killed 240 U.S. marines in the Lebanese capital.)
Al-Mabhouh was murdered by a team consisting of 11 agents. The team of agents changed hotels, arrived from different locations and changed their clothes to thwart identification. All of them had Austrian mobile numbers and conducted encrypted calls from Dubai to Austria. None, however, had prior contact with one another, as all communication went through the Austrian office. Austrian authorities said they intended to open an investigation. Dubai also detained two Palestinian Fatah security officials in connection with the murder.
The team of 11 also used fake passports. Mossad has a history of using foreign passports to carry out its activities. In 1987, Margaret Thatcher deported 13 Israeli diplomats after the assassination of a Palestinian cartoonist in London. In 1997, Israeli agents traveling with fake Canadian passports were arrested in Amman after attempting to assassinate Khaled Meshaal, the elected head of the Hamas politburo. In 1998, Labour’s MP Galloway stated that four members of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq were Mossad agents working under false names and papers.
Israel’s response to Mossad’s involvement in the Al-Mabhouh murder was noncommittal. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said there was no evidence of Israeli involvement, but in any case, Israel never responds, never confirms and never denies. This response or lack thereof was to be expected given Israel’s policy on Mossad actions.
Prior to Efraim Havely becoming the ninth director of Mossad, the prime minister’s approval for such operations was needed. Havely disagreed with this policy, arguing that the prime minister needs “deniability” and must be insulated from any failures as well. While the procedure for selecting targets has not been made public, the overall sense of how decisions are made has emerged. According to Steven R. David (2003), Israeli intelligence agencies rely on the testimony of collaborators to identify those who pose a threat to security. A report on the target’s activities is complied and the potential for him or her to engage in future attacks is assessed. A recommendation is then made to target the individual, which is approved or disapproved by the Israeli government. Once approval is given, no further permission is sought for the operation in terms of timing, location, etc.
History of Israeli Assassinations
The history of Israeli assassinations actually predates the declaration of statehood by Israel. Nachman Ben-Yehuda (1997) examines the political assassinations carried out prior to and after the establishment of the State of Israel. According to his findings, up until 1988, 90 percent of the political assassinations occurred between 1939 and 1948 and were conducted by Hagana, Etzel or Lehi. Most of them (73 percent) targeted Jews rather than Brits or Arabs, motivated by revenge or the target’s reputation as “squealers” or “traitors.” The charge of “traitor/squealer” was used 91.2% of the time. Moreover, Ben-Yehuda’s research finds that the assassinations were all deliberate and planned in advance.
The policy of sanctioning targeted murder did not stop with the establishment of the state of Israel. In the 1970s, there was a wave of killings of pro-Palestinian individuals in Paris, Nicosia, Beirut and Athens; and, in 1978, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was killed. In 1988, during the first Intifada, the PLO’s Khalil al-Wazir was assassinated.
In the 1990s, there were three major waves of Israeli assassinations. Two of the prominent political targets were Fathi Shikaki and Yahya Ayyash. There was also the attempted assassination of Khaled Meshaal. Another wave began in 2000, following the second Intifada. Some of the high-ranking individuals targeted include Abu Ali Mustafa (PFLP), Raed al-Karmi (Tanzim Movement), Salah Shehada (a commander of the military wing of Hamas), Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (one of the founders of Hamas) and Abdel Aziz Rantisi (the leader of Hamas in Gaza in 2004). Then, in 2008, Mossad assassinated Imad Mughniyeh. There were many other figures targeted, but these were the most high-profile. All, including those not listed, were killed without any trial or due process. It should also be noted that in the past, Israel’s policy of systematically targeting individuals has been condemned by Arab countries, Europe, the United Nations and even the United States (David, 2003). In 2002, the European Union even threatened sanctions.
Following the political murder of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, however, there have been no calls for an investigation or threats of sanctions by the International community. It was not until it was revealed that foreign passports were used to carry out the attack that foreign governments –namely, the British, French and Irish governments — called on Israel’s ambassadors to explain the situation. The UK and France have also increased pressure on Israel to provide them with information on the assassination. Britain has also launched an investigation due to the violation of its security and affront to its integrity. The investigation is to be led by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which will work closely with the Emirati authorities. British politicians have also called on Israel to launch an investigation into the matter.
Israeli press commentary suggests that there is no need to be concerned over the “unpleasantness with [the] governments,” since the “State of Israel will emerge from this affair unblemished and the Mossad will continue enjoying a reputation of fearless determination and nearly unstoppable capabilities.” Mossad’s strategy, according to Efraim Havely, is to think outside the box, including penetrating organizations it deems enemies and exploiting the differences between factions, movements and political parties. But is Israel’s systematic practice of political assassinations and willful disregard of the other states’ sovereignty consistent with international law?
Systematic Murder under International law
International law is complex in terms of the protection, rights and treatment of non-state actors, especially when they are the target of state violence. Official state actions are governed by the UN Charter. Article 2 of the charter specifically prohibits the aggressive use of force by states. The only exception to this prohibition is Article 51, which authorizes military action for self-defense. This right, however, can only be invoked when the threat of aggression is imminent and force is necessary as a last resort. If force is used, the state’s response must be proportionate.
It is hard to argue Israel’s applicability of Article 51 in the case of Al-Mabhouh’s murder. First, Israel’s actions were not taken against another state actor. Second, he posed no imminent danger. Al-Mabhouh lived in Syria and was traveling on a diplomatic mission for Hamas. Threat of imminent aggression was not present. Israel, however, argues that it is involved in an ongoing armed conflict with the Palestinians, especially with the political movement Hamas. Therefore, it says, there is a constant, imminent threat of aggression. However, this argument is a stretch for the Al-Mabhouh murder because he was not living inside the Palestinian Territories. This fact in itself reduces the imminent nature of any perceived threat he may have been. Third, Article 51 states that force is to be used only as a means of last resort. The Israeli agents could have subdued and arrested Al-Mabhouh or contacted the Emirati authorities to seek his arrest. The use of force was not proportionate.
In addition, Israel violated Article 2 of the UN Charter. Article 2 requires that states respect the sovereignty of other countries. The use of fake passports of another country and the carrying out of murder on another state’s territory, without its permission, is a clear violation of this article. Israel also violated the sovereignty of Austria, given that its territory was used as the command center for carrying out the attack. There is no plausible argument that Israel can give to justify this violation, particularly since Al-Mabhouh posed no imminent threat.
However, while Article 51 of the UN charter is not plausibly applicable to the Al-Mabhouh murder, the United States has set a precedent in its so-called war on Al-Qaeda. Due to the U.S. targeting of Al-Qaeda, the definition of a non-international conflict has been extended to include one between a state and non-state actor outside the state’s territory. Thus, Article 3 (as well as the Provisions of Additional Protocol II) of the Geneva Conventions are applicable when a state engages in violence against a non-state actor outside of its territory or the territories in which there is ongoing conflict.
Given this U.S. precedent, there are several other criteria that must be met. First, the individuals targeted must be of the armed forces of the non-state actor. And while there is no obligation to attempt to arrest members of the armed forces before they are targeted, combatants can only be killed when they cannot be prevented from perpetrating an attack that endangerw the lives of others. In all other circumstances, combatants should be arrested, prosecuted and punished for their crimes under law. Second, those who play a purely political role for a non-state group cannot be targeted. Third, targeting must meet the requirement of proportionality under customary international law. Fourth, permission must be sought from the government on whose territory an attack is believed to be imminent.
Israel did not seek the permission of the UAE to carry out an attack on its territory and there has been no evidence presented that Al-Mabhouh was planning to perpetrate an attack. Moreover, the Israeli agents were able to locate him at his hotel. Even if Israel attempted to make the weak argument that he was planning to perpetrate an attack, there is no plausible argument that he could not have been prevented from carrying it out. Al-Mabhouh could have been arrested, prosecuted and punished for whatever so-called crimes that Israel claims he violated. Nothing changes the fact that he deserved due process and Israel violated his rights granted under international law. Israel willfully murdered Al-Mabhouh. The question now is whether the murder was in fact an assassination.
Targeted Killing versus Assassination
Targeted killing is the intentional slaying of a specific individual or group of individuals undertaken with explicit government approval. It is permissible to target combatants under international law, especially when a state is in armed conflict. For a targeted killing to be permissible, the targets must be combatants or part of the military chain of command; they must pose an imminent threat to the security of the state; and, the means used must not be “treacherous.” A targeted killing must be an option of last resort and arrest not possible. Finally, when conducted in a foreign territory, permission must be obtained for it to be legal under international law. If it is not, then the act is in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter. This is even the case when the individual targeted is a non-state actor. Therefore, even if Al-Mabhouh’s murder is considered a targeted killing and not an assassination, Israel violated Article 2 because permission was not granted by the UAE. Given the means used to carry out the murder, it is questionable whether it was in fact a targeted killing.
Assassination is defined as “murder by treacherous means”; therefore, the method used is important for determining the legality of the action. Treachery is an attack on an individual who believes there is no need to fear the attacker, especially in incidents when the attacker pretends to be a non-combatant civilian. There was no reason to believe that Al-Mabhouh feared the attackers, who knocked on his hotel room door. The woman who knocked was dressed as a hotel employee and the other agents were all dressed in civilian clothing. Thus, the means used were treacherous and it was an assassination, not a targeted killing. It is clear from the press photos released that Al-Mabhouh was treated in a cruel, humiliating and inhumane way. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment.
A Crime Against Humanity?
A crime against humanity is one that is part of a systematic or widespread pattern of attacks against a civilian population. In addition, if an assassination that targeted a particular person was part of a broader plan to destroy the individual’s entire group, it could be viewed as genocide. As has been demonstrated, there was a systematic use of murder and political assassination carried out before and after the establishment of the state of Israel. Since Israel’s declaration of independence, the Israeli government has engaged in a systematic and widespread pattern of attacks on Palestinian civilians. Moreover, it has engaged in a systematic pattern of assassinations that target particular persons in a group.
Therefore, Israel has engaged in crimes against humanity and genocide. Israel has continuously and systematically violated international law. The British, French, Irish, Austrian and Emirati governments, as well as the international community, have a duty to do more than call for an investigation into Israeli action. Condemnation and sanctions are necessary.
Rachael M. Rudolph, PhD
__________________________
Sources:
Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades-Information Office
BBC News, “Dubai suspects on Interpol list,” 18 February 2010.
BBC News, “UK inquiry into ‘fake ID’ murder, 17 February 2010.
BBC News, “Arab press glee at ‘Mossad exposed,” 18 February 2010.
Havely, E. (2006). Man in the Shadows, St. Martin’s Press.
BBC News, “UK: ‘Undercover Mossad agents in UN team,” 3 November 1998.
David, S (2003). “Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing,” Ethics and International Affairs.
Ben-Yehuda, N (1997). “Political Assassination Events as a Cross-Cultural Form of Alternative Justice,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology.
BBC News, “Long History of Israel’s covert killing,” 29 January 2010.
BBC World Service, “Dubai Hamas killing: ‘fraudulent’ passports fuel Mossad suspicion,” 17 February 2010.
BBC News, “UK ‘outrage’ at passport killing, 18 February 2010.
BBC News, “Israel press on Hamas killing,” 18 February 2010.
Cullen, P (2008). “The Role of Targeted Killing in the Campaign Against Terror,” JFQ: National Defense University.
Mossad’s Murderous Reach: The Larger Political Issues
By James Petras | 02.21.2010
On January 19 Israel’s international secret police, the Mossad, sent an eighteen member death squad to Dubai using European passports, supposedly ‘stolen’ from Israeli dual citizens and altered with fake photos and signatures, in order to assassinate the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud al Mabhouh.
The evidence is overwhelming: The Dubai police presentation of detailed security videos of the assassins was corroborated by the testimony of Israeli security experts and applauded by Israel’s leading newspapers and columnists. The Mossad openly stated that Mabhouh was a high priority target who had survived three previous assassination attempts. Israel did not even bother to deny the murder. Furthermore, the sophisticated communication system used by the killers, the logistics and planning surrounding their entry and exit from Dubai and the scope and scale of the operation have all the characteristics of a high-level state operation.
Furthermore, only Mossad would have access to the European passports of its dual citizens! Only Mossad would have the capacity, motivation, stated intent and willingness to provoke a diplomatic row with its European allies, knowing full well that Western European governments’ anger would blow over because of their deep links to Israel. After meticulous investigation and the interrogation of 2 captured Palestinian Mossad collaborators, the Dubai police chief has stated he is sure the Mossad was behind the killing.
The Larger Political Issues
Israel’s policy of overseas assassination raises profound issues that threaten the basis of the modern state: sovereignty, rule of law and national and personal security.
Israel has a publicly-stated policy of violating the sovereignty of any and all countries in order to kill or abduct its opponents. In both proclamation and actual practice, Israeli law, decrees and actions abroad supersede the laws and law enforcement agencies of any other nation. If Israel’s policy becomes the common practice world-wide, we would enter a savage Hobbesian jungle in which individuals would be subject to the murderous intent of foreign assassination squads unrestrained by any law or accountable national authority. Each and every state could impose its own laws and cross national borders in order to murder other nation’s citizens or residents with impunity. Israel’s extra-territorial assassinations make a mockery of the very notion of national sovereignty. Extra-territorial secret police elimination of opponents was a common practice of the Nazi Gestapo, Stalin’s GPU and Pinochet’s DINA and has now become the sanctioned practice of the US “Special Forces” and the CIA clandestine division. Such policies are the hallmark of totalitarian, dictatorial and imperialist states, which systematically trample on the sovereign rights of peoples.
Israel’s practice of extra-judicial, extra-territorial assassinations, exemplified by the recent murder of Mahmoud al Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room, violates all the fundamental precepts of the rule of law. Extra-judicial killings ordered by a state, mean its own secret police are judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner, unrestrained by sovereignty, law and the duty of nations to protect their citizens and visitors. Evidence, legal procedures, defense and cross examinations are obliterated in the process. State-sponsored, extra-judicial murder completely undermines due process. Liquidation of opponents abroad is the logical next step after Israel’s domestic show trials, based on the application of its racial laws and administrative detention decrees, which have dispossessed the Palestinian people and violated international laws.
Mossad death squads operate directly under the Israeli Prime Minister (who personally approved the recent murder).The vast majority of Israelis proudly support these assassinations, especially when the killers escape detection and capture. The unfettered operation of foreign state-sponsored death squads, carrying out extra-judicial assassinations with impunity, is a serious threat to every critic, writer, political leader and civic activist who dares to criticize Israel.
Mossad Murders – Zionist Fire
The precedent of Israel killing its adversaries abroad, establishes the outer boundaries of repression by its overseas supporters in the leading Zionist organizations, most of whom have now and in the past supported Israel’s violation of national sovereignty via extra-judicial killings. If Israel physically eliminates its opponents and critics, the 51 major American Jewish organizations economically repress Israel’s critics in the US. They actively pressure employers, university presidents and public officials to fire employees, academics and professionals who dare to speak or write against Israeli torture, killing and systematic dispossession of Palestinians.
So far, most critical comments, in Israel and elsewhere, of Mossad’s recent murder in Dubai focus on the agents’ “incompetence”, including allowing their faces to be captured on numerous security videos as they clumsily changed their wigs and costumes under the camera gaze . Other critics complain that the bungling Mossad is “tarnishing Israel’s image” as a democratic state and providing ammunition for the anti-Semites. None of these superficial criticisms have been repeated by the US Congress, White House or the Presidents of the Major Jewish American organizations, where the mafia rule of Omerga, or silence, reigns supreme and criminal complicity is the rule
Conclusion
While the critics bemoan the clumsy Mossad job, making it harder for Western powers to provide Israel with diplomatic cover for its operations abroad, the fundamental issue is never addressed: The Mossad’s acquisition and alteration of official British, French, German and Irish passports of dual Israeli citizen’s underscores the cynical and sinister nature of Israel’s exploitation of its dual citizens in the pursuit of its own bloody foreign policy goals. Mossad’s use of genuine passports issued by four sovereign European nations to its citizens in order to murder a Palestinian in a Dubai hotel room raises the question of to whom ‘dual’ Israeli citizens really owe their allegiance and just how far they are willing to go in defending or promoting Israel’s overseas assassinations.
Thanks to Israel’s use of British passports to enter Dubai and murder an adversary, every British businessperson or tourist traveling in the Middle East will be suspected of links to Israeli death squads. With elections this year and the Labor and Conservative parties counting heavily on Zionist millionaires for campaign funding, it remains to be seen whether Prime Minister Gordon Brown will do more than whimper and cringe!
Featured Video
What We Learned This Week /Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How Bill Gates Premeditated COVID Vaccine Injury Censorship
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | March 30, 2021
In 2000, everything about Bill Gates’ public persona changed. He morphed from a hardnosed and ruthless technology monopolizer into a soft, fuzzy and incredibly generous philanthropist when he and his wife launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.1
It was a public relations coup. May 18, 1998, the U.S. Justice Department, in collaboration with 20 state attorneys, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.2 At that time, the company was 23 years old and was ruling the personal computer market. The Seattle Times described the fallout from the antitrust lawsuit:3
“The company barely escaped being split up after it was ruled an unlawful monopolist in 2000 for using its stranglehold on the PC market with its Windows operating system to cripple competitors, such as Netscape’s Navigator Web browser.”
How would the world be different today if the company had been split? Yale law professor George Priest described the antitrust lawsuit as “one of the most important antitrust cases of its generation.”4 In 2002, a court settlement placed restrictions on Microsoft to curb some of its practices for five years.
It was later extended twice and then expired May 12, 2011. The lawsuit had a dramatic effect on “the emergence of an entirely new field called IP (intellectual property) antitrust,” Iowa law professor Herbert Hovenkamp told the Seattle Times.5
Later, large sums donated from the foundation made the news multiple times, including $9.5 million to GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines), a second $7.5 million to GAVI and $6.8 million to the World Health Organization in 2017.6
By June 2020, in the middle of a global pandemic, the Gates Foundation’s donations totaled 45% of WHO’s funding from nongovernmental sources.7 Once mainstream media’s attention was no longer on Gates’ antitrust activities and focused on the philanthropist actions of the foundation, Gates publicly turned his attention to vaccinating the world, long before COVID-19.8
Event 201: A Preplanned Pandemic
In a deep dive into the Gates Foundation’s charitable donations, The Nation found there were $250 million in grants to companies where the foundation held corporate stocks, including Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi and Medtronic. The money was directed at supporting projects “like developing new drugs and health monitoring systems and creating mobile banking services.”9 … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Talks would resume if US accepts 3-phase framework Iran put forward
- Israeli forces raid Syria’s Dara’a, Quneitra countryside, set up checkpoints
- IRGC says to reverse engineer 15 undetonated US missiles uncovered in southern Iran
- Liberation From War
- Major fire erupts at UK base used for US bombers
- What Is Asthma?
- When a Train Ticket Costs Your Passport: The Eurail Breach and the Digital ID Problem
- Seyed M. Marandi: The Strike That Wiped Out Trump’s Plan (It’s Over)
- Court Forces German Chancellor Merz to Open Files on 300 “Insult the Chancellor” Cases
- ‘Territorial Theft With Better Branding’: Israel Keeps Advancing Its ‘Yellow Line’ in Gaza
- If Americans Knew
- Six Months into Gaza Ceasefire, Setting the Record Straight About Aid
- ‘Silent suffering’: Why children in Gaza are losing their ability to speak
- In Gaza, 17,000 infections linked to rodents and external parasites – Daily Update
- Lobby group taking journalists on propaganda tours of Israel
- The Shattered Figure of Jesus Is Not an Exception. It’s a Pattern
- Israel’s idea of ceasefire includes killing 21 in one day – Daily Update
- Christians in Israel and Palestine, past and present
- Israel eager to restart Iran war, Gaza genocide – Daily Update
- Meet the Top “Content” Producers Linked to Canary Mission
- Lebanese Journalist Amal Khalil Bombed and Left to Die by Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
Aletho News 