The 'Gharqad Tree' is symbolic.
In the last hour, all of creation will turn against the unbelieving, wicked Jews, even the land itself. They will hide behind rocks and stones but the stones will speak and point to the Jew. The talking of the stone and tree is a metaphor for the common conscience, that is, the common voice of the people of the world. However, there will be a nation that will approve the aggression of Jews, that will support and protect them and that will fight for them. That nation is described as the 'Gharqad tree'.

 ‘Work with our diplomats or deal with US military’ Mattis warns: Explicitly stating DC defense strategy of last 30+ years

The US will counter any “threat to America’s democracy experiment,” including using military force, the Pentagon chief said unveiling the new defense strategy that sidelines the war on terror in favor of “inter-state competition.”

Unveiling the Trump administration’s new National Defense Strategy, Jim Mattis said the main focus for US defense was competition with resurgent powers Russia and China which, he said, want to impose an authoritarian model of government on other nations.

FILE PHOTO © U.S. Marine Corps

 ‘Getting Europe ready to fight tonight’: US Army brings back Stinger MANPAD, trains over 60 teams

“We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national security,” says the summary of the new NDS published simultaneously.

The strategy says that the combination of "a robust constellation of allies and partners" and "a more lethal, resilient, and rapidly innovating Joint Force" will help sustain American influence.

He said that ISIS has been defeated, but “violent extremist organizations” including Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda continue to be a threat to America and a matter of concern for the Department of Defense.

But the most damage was done to the US military over the past 16 years not by an adversary but by the defense spending cuts and lack of predictability of the defense budget. He called on US lawmakers to address that problem.

source

 


US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said Tuesday that it's Washington’s aggressive foreign policy – agitating for regime change around the world – that's lead to the tense situation with North Korea.

It's “very possible” that the standoff with North Korea might not be resolved peacefully, Donald Trump said in an exclusive interview with Reuters, adding, that he is not sure if the talks will lead to “anything meaningful.” *

Beware of a False Flag on the Desperate Path to Persia

 NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark disclosed in a 2007 interview that the Ministry of Defense had decided in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to “take out seven countries in five years,” starting with Iraq, continuing with other countries like Syria, Lebanon and Libya that were indeed targeted next, “and finishing off [with] Iran.”

newsbud.com January 15, 2018

“Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.
The ideal scenario in this case would be that the United States and the international community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime reject it. In a similar vein […], the best way to minimize international opprobrium [condemnation] and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer – one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down.Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians ‘brought it on themselves’ by refusing a very good deal.”[8]

 The Invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Green Movement in Iran, the proxy war on Syria, the genocidal massacre of the Yemeni people, the now aborted resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, the Saudi purge spearheaded by Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman, the Israeli-Saudi rapprochement; all should be properly understood in containing Iran and paving the way for regime change against the Persian country.

 The recent Iran protests are no different. Although primarily of economic nature, the Trump administration and the obedient media have capitalised on the protests and tried to rebrand them according to Washington’s regime change agenda in order to justify Trump’s renunciation of the Iranian nuclear deal and keeping alive the sanctions regime. Just like so many of American foreign policy utterances in the Middle East, however, the endeavour did not pay off. 

The war hawks’ empty words of support for the Iranian people are not being bought by the rest of the world, not in the least by the Iranian people themselves. Thus, we need to be aware of the only thing that can still reverse the tide on the desperate path to Persia. As hinted by many official sources, a false flag is on the table.

American intervention in the petroleum-rich nation of Iran is of course nothing new. In the 1953 Operation Ajax, the CIA along with British intelligence orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Muhammed Mossadegh, whose parliament had nationalised the country’s oil industry after the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now part of BP) refused to cooperate in Mossadegh’s endeavour to limit the British company’s control over Iran’s rich petroleum reserves.

 The CIA hired notorious mobsters to wreak havoc, stage pro-shah demonstrations and take over the streets of Tehran, after which Mossadegh and many of his supporters were arrested and Shah Muhammed Reza Pahlavi reconsolidated his dictatorial rule. The CIA and Mossad consequently helped to set up the feared SAVAK intelligence service, which cracked down on dissent by torturing and executing opponents of the regime.

The Iranians increasingly, and not without reason, saw the ruthless shah as an American puppet, resulting in a unified opposition of intellectual elites, leftists, workers, nationalists, centrists and the religious right that managed to paralyse the country. In early 1979, finally, a popular revolution unseated the monarchy and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power. In subsequent months, Khomeini not only executed elements of the shah’s regime but cracked down on dissenting groups and people that initially supported the revolution, thereby consolidating his rule and installing an Islamist theocracy. 

Although he advertised himself as an uncompromising adversary of “the great Satan” that was the American government, recently declassified documents revealed a secret backchannel he had with the White House dating all the way back to 1963 throughout his exile in Europe into the Iranian Revolution, during which he assured President Carter that “you will see that we are not in any particular animosity with the Americans” and that “the oil flow will continue after the establishment of the Islamic Republic.”[1]

Additionally, FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has revealed CIA foreknowledge of the infamous hostage crisis in which a group of students took over the US embassy in Tehran in the wake of the revolution and held 52 American diplomats and citizens in custody for 444 days. 

Described in the history books as a detrimental point in deteriorating Iranian-American relations which strengthened the prestige of the new theocratic government in Iran and indirectly led to the election of Ronald Reagan in the US, all high-level CIA personnel at the embassy were ordered to leave Iran several days before the hostage taking as recounted to Edmonds by a former CIA agent who was among those forewarned.[2] 

 Just like was the case with Egypt’s Gamel Abdel Nasser, who consolidated his power and managed to outmanoeuvre the first Egyptian president and fellow Free Officer Muhammed Naguib with the help of the CIA in the early 1950s,[3] by way of trying to gain as much influence during a tangibly popular revolution American intelligence actually helped in the establishment of a new autocratic government ostensibly hostile to the West.

Minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president in January 1981, the hostages were formerly released. Shortly thereafter, the Reagan administration secretly allowed the Israeli’s to supply American weapons to Tehran in the context of the Iran-Iraq war, which had kicked off a couple of months earlier when the Iraqi army invaded Iran.

 Later in the war, Israel again shipped weapons to Iran with the permission of senior American officials in a scandal that would become known as the Iran-Contra affair, whereby part of the profit was used to fund death squads collectively known as the Contra’s fighting the socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. From the moment Iran gained the upper hand in the war in the spring of 1982, however, Washington also began to provide intelligence to Iraq and facilitated the sale of American-made weapons through its allies to Saddam Hussein. 

Most notoriously, later Secretary of Defense but then envoy for President Reagan Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein to build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons all the while the CIA was aware Iraq was “almost daily” employing chemical agents against the Iranians. Without any remorse for the estimated million people that lost their lives in the war that ended in 1988, Washington thus simultaneously backed both Iran and Iraq because, according to a former State Department official, “we wanted to avoid victory by both sides.”[4]

Still, Iran had been under constant unilateral US sanctions, which were tightened in the 1990s under the Clinton administration. Meanwhile, neoconservative and Israeli-friendly politicians began to hype up the alleged Iran threat again in the lead up to the George W. Bush presidency, especially in such influential policy papers as the Clean Break report presented to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Project of a New American Century’s Rebuilding America’s defences. Following 9/11, President Bush then loyally included Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, in the “axis of evil” that was allegedly sponsoring terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). 

 While ensuing regional developments such as the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq starting in 2003, the Israeli bombings and invasion of Lebanon in 2006, the proxy war against Syria following the so-called Arab Spring and the relentless Saudi war against Yemen since 2015 all have multiple causes and follow more than one agenda, they are widely recognised as part of a regional US-Israeli-Saudi proxy war against Iran.

 Indeed, retired four-star general and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark disclosed in a 2007 interview that the Ministry of Defense had decided in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to “take out seven countries in five years,” starting with Iraq, continuing with other countries like Syria, Lebanon and Libya that were indeed targeted next, “and finishing off [with] Iran.”[5]

Overall, mainly because of the unpopularity of the disastrous and despicable foreign policy of the West in the Middle East, Iran’s influence in the region has strengthened – not weakened. Even the years-long vigorous propaganda campaign concerning Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program eventually fizzled. 

Despite Israeli and American politicians and media continuously claiming the contrary, the fact that Iran has not been building a nuclear bomb was not only confirmed repeatedly by the IAEA over the years, but by two National Intelligence Estimates of all 16 American intelligence agencies in 2007 and 2010 and even by leaked cables of Mossad in 2012.[6]  

In fact, Iran’s religious leadership has always sincerely regarded WMDs as contrary to Islam, most clearly evidenced in Khomeini forbidding the Iranian military to retaliate in kind after Iraq’s continuous usage of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and civilians in the course of the Iran-Iraq war, as well as by a fatwa issued by his successor Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini against the acquisition, development and use of nuclear weapons.

[7] Still, because Israel and its lobby in the US wanted to prevent the mere ability of Iran obtaining the technology with which a nuclear bomb can be made that could serve as a deterrent against Israel’s nuclear arsenal, the threat kept being pushed, and US, EU and UN Security Council nuclear-related sanctions remained intact. 

In order to relinquish these crippling sanctions, Iran agreed to limit its peaceful nuclear program with the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal – between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany and the EU.

In a 2009 report of the Brookings Institute, one of Washington’s most influential think tanks, authored by analysts linked to multiple arms of the American foreign policy establishment such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), RAND Corporation, Israel, the State Department, the National Security Council and the CIA, the case was made to combine a number of ways to overthrow the Iranian government. The first option discussed in Which path to Persia? described the “persuasion” policy of the then incoming Obama administration that eventually led to the JCPOA, but revealed that a potential Iranian refusal of such an ostensibly generous offer could benefit “those who favor regime change or a military attack on Iran:”

“Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.
 The ideal scenario in this case would be that the United States and the international community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime reject it. In a similar vein […], the best way to minimize international opprobrium [condemnation] and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer – one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down.
 Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians ‘brought it on themselves’ by refusing a very good deal.”[8]

Too bad for the war hawks, Iran did accept the deal, however unfair it was. Moreover, the IAEA, the nuclear watchdog that is the only agency that is actually charged by the agreement to verify Iran’s compliance to it, has endlessly maintained that Iran is indeed in compliance.[9] In fact, the US is arguably the only party that violates “the spirit of the deal” as non-nuclear separate American sanctions remain in place and Trump has been trying to get other countries to stop doing business with Iran. All other signatories of the deal, however, have tirelessly reaffirmed their commitment to it.[10]

As the Trump administration is clearly looking for a fight with Iran, it must resort to other actions. Which path to Persia? weighs several very disturbing ones, such as a full-scale invasion, a targeted air strike campaign and trying to trigger regime change, either by covertly supporting ethnic groups and/or formerly US-designated terrorist organisation MEK, or by a full-blown military coup. Ideally, several of these options should be combined to succeed in overthrowing the Iranian government, the authors claim. At the same time, they recognise that either of these actions are not going to be accepted easily by the international community, let alone the Iranian people. 

In order to “garner greater international support, galvanize U.S. domestic support, and/or provide a legal justification for an invasion,” the Brookings Institute therefore argues that “it would be best to wait for an Iranian provocation.” But since the authors acknowledge that Iran “has never willingly provoked an American military response,” they hint that provoking Iran into a provocation – the most helpful of which would be “a Tehran-sponsored 9/11” – might be the only workable method to justify American aggression:[11]

“Although the Iranians typically have been careful to avoid crossing American red lines, they certainly could miscalculate, and it is entirely possible that their retaliation for U.S. regime activities would appear to Americans as having crossed just such a threshold.


For example, if Iran retaliated with a major terrorist attack that killed large numbers of people or a terrorist attack involving WMDs – especially on U.S. soil – Washington might decide that invasion was the only way to deal with such a dangerous Iranian regime. Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion.”[12]

Provoking Iran covertly to provoke an overt action that would then be used as a casus belli to start a war – in other words, staging a false flag event – is mentioned by other insiders as an option that is on the table. One of them is Patrick Clawson, director of research at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy (WINEP), a principal pro-Israel think tank set up in 1985 by leading members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) whose board of advisors include the likes of former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and Condoleezza Rice, former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle and ex-CIA director James Woolsey. Speaking at a policy forum on “how to build US-Israeli coordination on preventing an Iranian nuclear breakout” in 2012, he blatantly suggested killing Iranian marines to provoke an overt response:

“We could step up the pressure. I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down; some day one of them might not come up who would know why? We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier.”[13]

Because “it is very hard for me to see how the United States could get us to go to war with Iran,” Clawson continued, he asked his audience to take in mind “the traditional way of [how] America gets to war,” such as the explosion of the USS Maine that kickstarted the Spanish-American War, the sinking of the Lusitania by the Germans and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour which respectively brought the US into the First and Second World War and the Gulf of Tonkin incident that escalated the Vietnam War. As I detailed in an article published last summer, these events were all to some extent orchestrated false flag incidents that were designed to bring the US into war.

In 2007 already, CFR member Gary Hart likewise cited the USS Maine and the Gulf of Tonkin assaults to warn Iran in a mock advisory letter that it should be wary of “the justification [the Bush administration] is seeking to attack your country.” Specifically, he advised Iran to keep its forces “far away from the Iraqi border,” hinting that the US could attempt to engineer a provocative incident there.[14] Hart was not new to such blunt wording. A day after 9/11, he proclaimed that George W. Bush could “use this disaster to carry out […] a new world order.”[15] When confronted by citizen reporters of We Are Change to comment on these statements, Hart was forced to elaborate:

“Well, what I was tongue-in-cheek saying was that we have an administration in Washington that is dying for a reason to bomb Iran. […] I was trying to communicate to the American people what our own government was trying to plan, and that was to find a reason for bombing Iran. And I was simply saying – in effect, to the American people through this mock letter – ‘be careful about this administration creating a USS Maine incident or a Gulf of Tonkin incident that would justify bombing Iran,’ that’s all.[16]

A year later, Seymour Hersh, a famous investigative journalist with extensive contacts familiar with the deep state dealings of the American government, exposed an idea that was considered during a meeting in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office whereby navy seals would be dressed up as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them with the intention to draw Iran into war:

“There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build – we in our shipyard – build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of – that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation.”[17]

The Iranian protests in and of themselves, which are primarily of economic nature and not phenomenal in number, will not cause a political revolution as hoped for by the Trump administration.[18] It is undeniable, however, that the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia are doing everything in their power to thwart Iran in a well-coordinated fashion. Multiple high-level officials from both the Israeli and Saudi government have confirmed secret cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel with the express intention of curbing Iranian influence in the region in spite of the absence of official bilateral relations.[19] 

Former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta even recently called for the two sides to establish a joint military operation centre along with the US.[20] Meanwhile, the CIA created a special unit that would exclusively focus on Iran in June,[21] and just before year’s end the US and Israel agreed on joint strategies to target Iran during a secret meeting in late December.[22] Finally, Mossad chief Yossi Cohen exclaimed in the midst of the Iranian protests that “we have eyes and ears, even inside Iran.”[23] 

Given all of this, and given the rich history of foreign intervention in Iran, Iranian government accusations stating that foreign agents from these three countries are politicising the protests and inciting violence should not be dismissed out of hand.[24] As history is riddled with false flags that triggered wars that could otherwise not be sold to the public, and as selling war with Iran is a tough sell, it is plausible that the covert background dealings between the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel involve a more sinister plot. In other words, beware of a false flag on the desperate path to Persia!

Israel reportedly has well over 200 nukes all “pointed at Iran.

Iranian President Hassan Rohani with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Iran Joins Russia In Opposing U.S. Plan To Guard Syrian Border


  Pentagon officials have been indicating for quite some time that they have no intention of leaving Syria, but Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, on Wednesday, finally set out the new US policy goals aimed at justifying what he described as an “open-ended” deployment.



Rex Tillerson
Instead of a “counter-terror” operation focused on ISIS, the US presence is now also intended to generally fight against Iranian influence, to facilitate refugee returns to Syria and, most scandalously, to “ensure the departure of the Assad regime.”
The US has long insisted on regime change in Syria, but never before suggested that their military deployment in the country was anything to do with that, let alone that the US might try to impose regime change militarily.
With the legal justification for the US deployment in Syria already shaky, at best, with no authorization from the Syrian government, re-positioning the war away from ISIS and toward a war with the Syrian government and its allies makes an open-ended deployment even less tenable.
While US invasions trying to impose regime change are nothing unfamiliar in this day and age, this would be a particularly bizarre variant of that, with the US getting the troops into the country first then announcing the goal long after the fact.
The level of insanity has reached an all new high when your diplomatic representative to the rest of planet Earth makes it clear that she is, in fact, beholden to a foreign government. 



Watch as she panders to the Zionist! She goes the extra mile to make sure that they understand that serving Israel comes first, everything else is secondary.
She is an embarrassment to her country.

found at uprootedpalestinian
Image result for demonic israelis

Undeniably, the views of Ariel, Bennett and Caspit are not angry statements uttered in a moment of rage. They are all reflections of real policies that have been carried out for over 70 years. Indeed, killing, raping and imprisoning for life are features that have accompanied the state of Israel since the very beginning.

Not a day passes without a prominent Israeli politician or intellectual making an outrageous statement against Palestinians. Many of these statements tend to garner little attention or evoke rightly deserved outrage.

Just recently, Israel’s Minister of Agriculture, Uri Ariel, called for more death and injuries on Palestinians in Gaza.

“What is this special weapon we have that we fire and see pillars of smoke and fire, but nobody gets hurt? It is time for there to be injuries and deaths as well,” he said.

Ariel’s calling for the killing of more Palestinians came on the heels of other repugnant statements concerning a 16-year-old teenager girl, Ahed Tamimi. Ahed was arrested in a violent Israeli army raid at her home in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh.

A video recording showed her slapping an Israeli soldier a day after the Israeli army shot her cousin in the head, placing him in a coma.

Israeli Education Minister, Naftali Bennett, known for his extremist political views, demanded that Ahed and other Palestinian girls should “spend the rest of their days in prison”.

A prominent Israeli journalist, Ben Caspit, sought yet more punishment. He suggested that Ahed and girls like her should be raped in jail.

“In the case of the girls, we should exact a price at some other opportunity, in the dark, without witnesses and cameras”, he wrote in Hebrew.

This violent and revolting mindset, however, is not new. It is an extension of an old, entrenched belief system that is predicated on a long history of violence.

Undeniably, the views of Ariel, Bennett and Caspit are not angry statements uttered in a moment of rage. They are all reflections of real policies that have been carried out for over 70 years. Indeed, killing, raping and imprisoning for life are features that have accompanied the state of Israel since the very beginning.

This violent legacy continues to define Israel to this day, through the use of what Israeli historian Ilan Pappe describes as ‘incremental genocide.’

Throughout this long legacy, little has changed except for names and titles. The Zionist militias that orchestrated the genocide of the Palestinians prior to the establishment of Israel in 1948 merged together to form the Israeli army; and the leaders of these groups became Israel’s leaders.

Israel’s violent birth in 1947- 48 was the culmination of the violent discourse that preceded it for many years. It was the time when Zionist teachings of prior years were put into practice and the outcome was simply horrifying.

“The tactic of isolating and attacking a certain village or town and executing its population in a horrible, indiscriminate massacre was a strategy employed, time and again, by Zionist bands to compel the population of surrounding villages and towns to flee,” Ahmad Al-Haaj told me when I asked him to reflect on Israel’s past and present.

Al-Haaj is a Palestinian historian and an expert on the Nakba, the ‘Catastrophe’ that had befallen Palestinians in 1948.

The 85-year-old intellectual’s proficiency in the subject began 70 years ago, when, as a 15-year-old, he witnessed the massacre of Beit Daras at the hands of Jewish Haganah militia.

The destruction of the southern Palestinian village and the killing of dozens of its inhabitants resulted in the depopulation of many adjacent villages, including al-Sawafir, Al-Haaj’s home village.

“The notorious Deir Yasin massacre was the first example of such wanton killing, a model that was duplicated in other parts of Palestine,” Al-Haaj said.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine at the time was orchestrated by several Zionist militias. The mainstream Jewish militia was the Haganah which belonged to the Jewish Agency.

The latter functioned as a semi-government, under the auspices of the British Mandate Government, while the Haganah served as its army.

However, other breakaway groups also operated according to their own agenda. Two leading bands amongst them were the Irgun (National Military Organization) and Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang). These groups carried out numerous terrorist attacks, including bus bombings and targeted assassinations.

Russian-born Menachem Begin was the leader of the Irgun which, along with the Stern Gang and other Jewish militants, massacred hundreds of civilians in Deir Yassin.

‘Tell the soldiers: you have made history in Israel with your attack and your conquest. Continue this until victory. As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest,” Begin wrote at the time. He described the massacre as a “splendid act of conquest.”

The intrinsic link between words and actions remain unchanged.

Nearly 30 years later, a once wanted terrorist, Begin became Prime Minister of Israel. He accelerated land theft of the newly-occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, launched a war on Lebanon, annexed Occupied Jerusalem to Israel and carried out the massacre of Sabra and Shatilla in 1982.

Some of the other terrorists-turned-politicians and top army brass include Begin, Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Ariel Sharon, Rafael Eitan and Yitzhak Shamir. Each one of these leaders has a record dotted with violence.

Shamir served as the Prime Minister of Israel from 1986 – 1992. In 1941, Shamir was imprisoned by the British for his role in the Stern Gang. Later, as Prime Minister, he ordered a violent crackdown against a mostly non-violent Palestinian uprising in 1987, purposely breaking the limbs of kids accused of throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers.

So, when government ministers like Ariel and Bennett call for wanton violence against Palestinians, they are simply carrying on with a bloody legacy that has defined every single Israeli leader in the past. It is the violent mindset that continues to control the Israeli government and its relationship with Palestinians; in fact, with all of its neighbors.


"In our hands is the greatest power of our day — gold. We shall not  fail with such wealth to prove that all the evil we have had to commit  has served to bringing everything into order."

In case you missed it

  Real Zionist News

Portions of the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion were brought to light in the late 19th Century in France. It is a fascinating story, presented here in a unique, unprecedented and thoroughly documented fashion. Months of intense research has gone into this work.

In 1884, a Mademoiselle Justine Glinka, the daughter of a Russian general, was engaged in Paris in gathering political information for the court of Tzar Alexander III.

Glinka employed a Jewish agent named Joseph Schoerst, alias Shapiro, who had passed himself off as a Freemason and a member of the Mizraim Lodge, a Jewish Masonic order with its own particular rites and protocols. None other than Solomon Rothschild, scion of the Jewish banking dynasty, was a prominent member of the French Freemasons.

Schoerst offered to Glinka for the sum of 2,500 francs, a document which he said would interest her greatly. This document contained extraordinary dictated writings from assorted speeches which would later be included in the final compilation of the Protocols of Zion.

Glinka quickly passed the document to her immediate superior in Paris, General Orgeyevski, who sent them, in turn, to General Cherevin, Minister of the Interior, for transmission directly to the Imperial Court in St Petersburg.

Upon Cherevin’s death in 1896, he willed a copy of his memoirs containing the Protocols to Tzar Nicholas II. (View Sources Here, Here & Here.)

Glinka’s information eventually found its way into the hands of one Sergei Nilus, a highly educated Russian mystic attached to Tsar Nicholas II’s court who served as Minister of Foreign Religions.

In 1902, Nilus published, “The Rule of Satan on Earth - Notes of an Orthodox Believer,” in which he cites excerpts from this early aggregation of the material first purchased by Madame Glinka.

Next stop for the Protocols occurred in 1903 when a prominent publisher by the name of Pavel Krusheva quoted writings from the Protocols in his daily newspaper, Znamya. After its publication, Krusheva suffered an attempt on his life and from that moment on, he lived in constant fear and had to carry weapons for his own protection. He also took the step of being accompanied by a personal cook to prevent being poisoned.

In 1905, Sergei Nilus published a new edition of his “Rule of Satan” which included a complete version of the Protocols as the final chapter. This was the first time a full compilation of the Protocols had been made available to the general public in book form.

In 1917, (the same year of the final Russian Revolution), Nilus had prepared a final edition – fully documented - but before he could distribute it, Kerensky, a half-Jew, who had succeeded to power after the Revolution, had most of the copies destroyed. Anyone caught by the Bolsheviks in possession of The Protocols was shot on the spot.

In 1918, the Protocols appeared again in a Moscow periodical, The Sentinel, marked by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks as a counter-revolutionary newspaper. In February, 1919, the Bolsheviks ordered the newspaper shut down.

In 1924, Professor Nilus was arrested by the Jewish-dominated “Cheka,” imprisoned, and then tortured. He was told by the president of the court (who was Jewish) that this treatment was meted out to him for “having done them (the Zionist Bolshevik Jews) incalculable harm in publishing the Protocols.” (View Sources Here, Here, Here, Here, Here & Here.)

THE PROTOCOLS
OF GINSBERG & PINSKER

THE DOMINATING FIGURE of the growing Zionist movement of the late 1800s, was a Jew by the name of Asher Ginsberg, who adopted the pseudonym, “Achad Ha’am,” meaning “one of the people.”

The son of a Jewish tax collector, Ginsberg was born in Kiev and later settled in Odessa, the Jewish center of activist agitation. Here he established in 1889 his Zionist group, “Sons Of Moses.”

Steeped in the works of Nietzsche, it was to the Sons of Moses that Ginsberg delivered his “protocols” for the annihilation of Christian culture and the ascendancy of Jewish nationalism based on Nietzsche’s own nationalistic vision for Germany.
The meetings of this secret society were held in Ginsberg’s house. Among the first members were: Ben Avigdor, Zalman Epstein, Louis Epstein, and Jacob Eisenstaat.

In early 1889, Ginsberg had broken with the more conservative forces of Zionism and moved into a radical position with his pamphlet, “This Is Not The Way.”
The intent of Ginsberg’s pamphlet was to oppose the “politically expedient” views of his former mentor, Leon Pinsker, a leader of the Lovers of Zion movement. Ginsberg wanted to first form a “national consciousness” in diaspora Jewry and the revival of conversational Hebrew prior to using political influence, as Pinsker promoted, for the establishing of a Jewish state.

Differences notwithstanding as regards timing, Pinsker did not differ from Ginsberg in the use of power to achieve their shared Zionist goals. In his book, “Auto-Emancipation,” Pinsker described the master-method to bring about this “self-emancipation” and to “restore the Jewish nation:”
Leon Pinsker: “The struggle to achieve our ends must be entered upon in such a spirit as to exert an irresistible pressure upon international politics.” (View Entire Story Here, Here, Here & Here.)
A striking similarity to Pinsker’s political programme is found in Protocol No. 1:
From The Protocols: “Only force and cunning conquers in political affairs. Therefore we must not stop at bribery, deceit, and treachery for the attainment of our end. In politics one must know how to seize the rule of others if by it we secure submission and sovereignty.” (View Entire Story Here.)
Following in the footsteps of his mentor, Ginsberg’s forceful rhetoric, yet with a novel and direct appeal to fanaticism, also resembled the style of The Protocols when he insisted:
Asher Ginsberg: “Jews must first become consciously, aggressively national.” (View Entire Story Here.)
Ginsberg’s call for an aggressive Jewish nationalism is clearly mirrored in Protocol No. 5:
From The Protocols: “We shall so wear down the Goyim that they will be compelled to offer us an international authority which by its position will enable us to absorb all the governmental forces of the world and thus form a super-government.” (View Entire Story Here.)
It is through persons who lived in Odessa at that time that information was obtained that a manuscript of the “Protocols” in Hebrew was circulated among the Jews.
Later, a Jew by the name of Herman Bernstein, publisher of the “Free Press” of Detroit, while claiming the Protocols to be a forgery, admitted in the presence of William Cameron secretary to Henry Ford, that he had personally read the Protocols in their published Hebrew form in Odessa.
During the Jewish-led Bolshevik Revolution, few towns were so torn as Odessa, where Ginsberg taught the destruction of Christian society, a basic tenet of The Protocols.
Among other outrages such as the raping of Christian women and girls, a Christian orphanage was destroyed and all the children shot to death. Racism and a deadly mockery of non-Jewish life was already an established practice of world Zionism. (View Sources Here, Here, Here & Here.)

LEARNED ELDERS

CLASSIFIED US INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENTS investigating international financial issues surrounding WW I were compiled in August 1919. These sensitive documents were given SECRET classification until 1973.

A hard copy of this document may be obtained from US National Archives in Washington DC - its number is 245-1.

On page 5 of the document, the public writings of Theodore Herzl, hailed as the father of world political Zionism, are cited as having “identity of thought found in the Protocols.”

This long-suppressed, finally declassified document, displays striking similarities between Herzl’s essay published in 1897 titled “The Jewish State” and Protocols 1 and 20:

Theodore Herzl: “Every point which arises in the relations between nations is a question of might. I do not here surrender any portion of our prescriptive right when I make this statement.

In the world as it now is and will probably remain, might precedes right. For us to be loyal patriots as were the Huguenots who were forced to emigrate is therefore useless. The Jews must acquire economic power sufficiently great to overcome prejudice against them.

When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, but when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.” (View Entire Story Here, Here & Here.)

From The Protocols: “According to the law of being, might is right. Our right lies in force. Through our financial dominance we will manipulate capital, create depressions, and bankrupt Gentile states.

In our hands is the greatest power of our day — gold. We shall not fail with such wealth to prove that all the evil we have had to commit has served to bringing everything into order.

We shall contrive to prove that we are benefactors who have restored to the mangled earth the true good of the person, on the condition, of course, of strict observance of the laws established by us.” (View Entire Story Here & Here.)

CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THEODORE HERZL, was Max Nordau, who convinced the Zionist leader to organize the First Zionist Congress of 1897.

Nordau was born Simcha Sudfeld in 1849 in Budapest and later changed his name to create a “Gentile” public face. It was at the First Zionist Congress, held in Basel, Switzerland, that Nordau was elected to serve as Vice President to the Presidency of Herzl.

At the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903, Nordau announced the Zionist plan as a fait accompli for the next two decades:

Max Nordau: “The rungs of our ladder lead upward and upward: The First Zionist Congress - The English Proposition For A Jewish Homeland - The Future World War - The Peace Conference By Which A Jewish Palestine Will Be Created “ (View Entire Story Here.)

Herein are displayed the “rungs” of both the Zionist and Protocols ladder … a preconceived plan to be put into motion by controlling the levers of international politics.

History does not lie. Nor do the words of the Jews who foretold what they would be forging in the century ahead.

And those words have been accurately recorded for us

in perhaps the most deadly and dominating document in history,

now formally known as:

“The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion.”

The Zionists destroyed the homes of the poor Jews, herded them into concentration camps by proxy and them on ships to the unknown Palestine just to to do the same to the Palestinians. Has there ever been a people more evil than the Zionists? I don't blame the European Jews so much.

Image result for jewish selection lines

Jews undergoing the selection process

Israel - In 1958, then-foreign minister Golda Meir raised the possibility of preventing handicapped and sick Polish Jews from immigrating to Israel, a recently discovered Foreign Ministry document has revealed.

“A proposal was raised in the coordination committee to inform the Polish government that we want to institute selection in aliyah, because we cannot continue accepting sick and handicapped people. Please give your opinion as to whether this can be explained to the Poles without hurting immigration,” read the document, written by Meir to Israel’s ambassador to Poland, Katriel Katz.

Related image

The letter, marked “top secret” and written in April 1958, shortly after Meir became foreign minister, was uncovered by Prof. Szymon Rudnicki, a Polish historian at the University of Warsaw.

Rudnicki has been researching documents shedding light on Israeli-Polish relations between 1945 and 1967. The document had not been known to exist before this time, and scholars of the mass immigration from Poland to Israel that took place from 1956 to 1958 were unaware of Israel’s intent to impose a selection process on Jews leaving Poland - survivors of the Holocaust and its death camps.

The “coordination committee” Meir refers to was a joint panel consisting of representatives of the government and the Jewish Agency.

Rudnicki concedes that the content of the document surprised him as a scholar and a Jew. “This is a very cynical document,” he said. “It is known that Golda was a brutal politician who defended interests more than people.” Katz died more than 20 years ago, and no proof has been found that anything was done regarding the foreign minister’s query.

Image result for israel apartheid state
Never a democracy

 The myth that a democratic Israel ran into trouble in 1967 but still remained a democracy has no historical foundation.

  Before 1967, Israel definitely could not have been depicted as a democracy.  The state subjected one-fifth of its citizenship to military rule based on draconian British Mandatory emergency regulations that denied the Palestinians any basic human or civil rights.

Local military governors were the absolute rulers of the lives of these citizens: they could devise special laws for them, destroy their houses and livelihoods, and send them to jail whenever they felt like it. Only in the late 1950s did a strong Jewish opposition to these abuses emerge, which eventually eased the pressure on the Palestinian citizens.

For the Palestinians who lived in prewar Israel and those who lived in the post-1967 West Bank and the Gaza Strip, this regime allowed even the lowest-ranking soldier in the IDF to rule, and ruin, their lives. They were helpless if such a solider, or his unit or commander, decided to demolish their homes, or hold them for hours at a checkpoint, or incarcerate them without trial. There was nothing they could do.

At every moment from 1948 until today, there had been some group of Palestinians undergoing such an experience.

The first group to suffer under such a yoke was the Palestinian minority inside Israel. It began in the first two years of statehood when they were pushed into ghettos, such as the Haifa Palestinian community living on the Carmel mountain, or expelled from the towns they had inhabited for decades, such as Safad. In the case of Isdud, the whole population was expelled to the Gaza Strip.

In the countryside, the situation was even worse. The various Kibbutz movements coveted Palestinian villages on fertile land. This included the socialist Kibbutzim, Hashomer Ha-Zair, which was allegedly committed to binational solidarity.

Long after the fighting of 1948 had subsided, villagers in Ghabsiyyeh, Iqrit, Birim, Qaidta, Zaytun, and many others, were tricked into leaving their homes for a period of two weeks, the army claiming it needed their lands for training, only to find out on their return that their villages had been wiped out or handed to someone else.

This state of military terror is exemplified by the Kafr Qasim massacre of October 1956, when, on the eve of the Sinai operation, forty-nine Palestinian citizens were killed by the Israeli army. The authorities alleged that they were late returning home from work in the fields when a curfew had been imposed on the village. This was not the real reason, however.

Later proofs show that Israel had seriously considered the expulsion of Palestinians from the whole area called the Wadi Ara and the Triangle in which the village sat. These two areas — the first a valley connecting Afula in the east and Hadera on the Mediterranean coast; the second expanding the eastern hinterland of Jerusalem — were annexed to Israel under the terms of the 1949 armistice agreement with Jordan.

As we have seen, additional territory was always welcomed by Israel, but an increase in the Palestinian population was not. Thus, at every juncture, when the state of Israel expanded, it looked for ways to restrict the Palestinian population in the recently annexed areas.

Operation “Hafarfert” (“mole”) was the code name of a set of proposals for the expulsion of Palestinians when a new war broke out with the Arab world. Many scholars today now think that the 1956 massacre was a practice run to see if the people in the area could be intimidated to leave.

The perpetrators of the massacre were brought to trial thanks to the diligence and tenacity of two members of the Knesset: Tawaq Tubi from the Communist Party and Latif Dori of the Left Zionist party Mapam. However, the commanders responsible for the area, and the unit itself that committed the crime, were let off very lightly, receiving merely small fines. This was further proof that the army was allowed to get away with murder in the occupied territories.

Systematic cruelty does not only show its face in a major event like a massacre. The worst atrocities can also be found in the regime’s daily, mundane presence.

Palestinians in Israel still do not talk much about that pre-1967 period, and the documents of that time do not reveal the full picture. Surprisingly, it is in poetry that we find an indication of what it was like to live under military rule.

Natan Alterman was one of the most famous and important poets of his generation. He had a weekly column, called “The Seventh Column,” in which he commented on events he had read or heard about. Sometimes he would omit details about the date or even the location of the event, but would give the reader just enough information to understand what he was referring to. He often expressed his attacks in poetic form:

The news appeared briefly for two days, and disappeared. And no one seems to care, and no one seems to know. In the far away village of Um al-Fahem,
Children — should I say citizens of the state — played in the mud And one of them seemed suspicious to one of our brave soldiers who
shouted at him: Stop!
An order is an order
An order is an order, but the foolish boy did not stand, He ran away
So our brave soldier shot, no wonder And hit and killed the boy.
And no one talked about it.

On one occasion he wrote a poem about two Palestinian citizens who were shot in Wadi Ara. In another instance, he told the story of a very ill Palestinian woman who was expelled with her two children, aged three and six, with no explanation, and sent across the River Jordan. When she tried to return, she and her children were arrested and put into a Nazareth jail.

Alterman hoped that his poem about the mother would move hearts and minds, or at least elicit some official response. However, he wrote a week later:

And this writer assumed wrongly
That either the story would be denied or explained But nothing, not a word.

There is further evidence that Israel was not a democracy prior to 1967. The state pursued a shoot-to-kill policy towards refugees trying to retrieve their land, crops, and husbandry, and staged a colonial war to topple Nasser’s regime in Egypt. Its security forces were also trigger happy, killing more than fifty Palestinian citizens during the period from 1948–1967.


Subjugation of Minorities in Israel Is Not Democratic

The litmus test of any democracy is the level of tolerance it is willing to extend towards the minorities living in it. In this respect, Israel falls far short of being a true democracy.

For example, after the new territorial gains several laws were passed ensuring a superior position for the majority: the laws governing citizenship, the laws concerning land ownership, and most important of all, the law of return.

The latter grants automatic citizenship to every Jew in the world, wherever he or she was born. This law in particular is a flagrantly undemocratic one, for it was accompanied by a total rejection of the Palestinian right of return — recognized internationally by the UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948. This rejection refuses to allow the Palestinian citizens of Israel to unite with their immediate families or with those who were expelled in 1948.

Denying people the right of return to their homeland, and at the same time offering this right to others who have no connection to the land, is a model of undemocratic practice.

Added to this was a further layering of denial of the rights of the Palestinian people. Almost every discrimination against the Palestinian citizens of Israel is justified by the fact that they do not serve in the army. The association between democratic rights and military duties is better understood if we revisit the formative years in which Israeli policy makers were trying to make up their minds about how to treat one-fifth of the population.

Their assumption was that Palestinian citizens did not want to join the army anyway, and that assumed refusal, in turn, justified the discriminatory policy against them. This was put to the test in 1954 when the Israeli ministry of defense decided to call up those Palestinian citizens eligible for conscription to serve in the army. The secret service assured the government that there would be a widespread rejection of the call-up.

To their great surprise, all those summoned went to the recruiting office, with the blessing of the Communist Party, the biggest and most important political force in the community at the time. The secret service later explained that the main reason was the teenagers’ boredom with life in the countryside and their desire for some action and adventure.

Notwithstanding this episode, the ministry of defense continued to peddle a narrative that depicted the Palestinian community as unwilling to serve in the military.

Inevitably, in time, the Palestinians did indeed turn against the Israeli army, who had become their perpetual oppressors, but the government’s exploitation of this as a pretext for discrimination casts huge doubt on the state’s pretense to being a democracy.

If you are a Palestinian citizen and you did not serve in the army, your rights to government assistance as a worker, student, parent, or as part of a couple, are severely restricted. This affects housing in particular, as well as employment — where 70 percent of all Israeli industry is considered to be security-sensitive and therefore closed to these citizens as a place to find work.

The underlying assumption of the ministry of defense was not only that Palestinians do not wish to serve but that they are potentially an enemy within who cannot be trusted. The problem with this argument is that in all the major wars between Israel and the Arab world the Palestinian minority did not behave as expected. They did not form a fifth column or rise up against the regime.

This, however, did not help them: to this day they are seen as a “demographic” problem that has to be solved. The only consolation is that still today most Israeli politicians do not believe that the way to solve “the problem” is by the transfer or expulsion of the Palestinians (at least not in peacetime).


The claim to being a democracy is also questionable when one examines the budgetary policy surrounding the land question. Since 1948, Palestinian local councils and municipalities have received far less funding than their Jewish counterparts. The shortage of land, coupled with the scarcity of employment opportunities, creates an abnormal socioeconomic reality.

For example, the most affluent Palestinian community, the village of Me’ilya in the upper Galilee, is still worse off than the poorest Jewish development town in the Negev. In 2011, the Jerusalem Post reported that “average Jewish income was 40 percent to 60 percent higher than average Arab income between the years 1997 to 2009.”

Today more than 90 percent of the land is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Landowners are not allowed to engage in transactions with non-Jewish citizens, and public land is prioritized for the use of national projects, which means that new Jewish settlements are being built while there are hardly any new Palestinian settlements. Thus, the biggest Palestinian city, Nazareth, despite the tripling of its population since 1948, has not expanded one square kilometer, whereas the development town built above it, Upper Nazareth, has tripled in size, on land expropriated from Palestinian landowners.

Further examples of this policy can be found in Palestinian villages throughout Galilee, revealing the same story: how they have been downsized by 40 percent, sometimes even 60 percent, since 1948, and how new Jewish settlements have been built on expropriated land.

Elsewhere this has initiated full-blown attempts at “Judaization.” After 1967, the Israeli government became concerned about the lack of Jews living in the north and south of the state and so planned to increase the population in those areas. Such a demographic change necessitated the confiscation of Palestinian land for the building of Jewish settlements.

Worse was the exclusion of Palestinian citizens from these settlements. This blunt violation of a citizen’s right to live wherever he or she wishes continues today, and all efforts by human rights NGOs in Israel to challenge this apartheid have so far ended in total failure.

The Supreme Court in Israel has only been able to question the legality of this policy in a few individual cases, but not in principle. Imagine if in the United Kingdom or the United States, Jewish citizens, or Catholics for that matter, were barred by law from living in certain villages, neighborhoods, or maybe whole towns? How can such a situation be reconciled with the notion of democracy?

The Occupation Is Not Democratic

Thus, given its attitude towards two Palestinian groups — the refugees and the community in Israel — the Jewish state cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be assumed to be a democracy.

But the most obvious challenge to that assumption is the ruthless Israeli attitude towards a third Palestinian group: those who have lived under its direct and indirect rule since 1967, in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. From the legal infrastructure put in place at the outset of the war, through the unquestioned absolute power of the military inside the West Bank and outside the Gaza Strip, to the humiliation of millions of Palestinians as a daily routine, the “only democracy” in the Middle East behaves as a dictatorship of the worst kind.

The main Israeli response, diplomatic and academic, to the latter accusation is that all these measures are temporary — they will change if the Palestinians, wherever they are, behave “better.” But if one researches, not to mention lives in, the occupied territories, one will understand how ridiculous these arguments are.

Israeli policy makers, as we have seen, are determined to keep the occupation alive for as long as the Jewish state remains intact. It is part of what the Israeli political system regards as the status quo, which is always better than any change. Israel will control most of Palestine and, since it will always include a substantial Palestinian population, this can only be done by nondemocratic means.

In addition, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Israeli state claims that the occupation is an enlightened one. The myth here is that Israel came with good intentions to conduct a benevolent occupation but was forced to take a tougher attitude because of the Palestinian violence.

In 1967, the government treated the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a natural part of “Eretz Israel,” the land of Israel, and this attitude has continued ever since. When you look at the debate between the right- and left-wing parties in Israel on this issue, their disagreements have been about how to achieve this goal, not about its validity.

Among the wider public, however, there was a genuine debate between what one might call the “redeemers” and the “custodians.” The “redeemers” believed Israel had recovered the ancient heart of its homeland and could not survive in the future without it. In contrast, the “custodians” argued that the territories should be exchanged for peace with Jordan, in the case of the West Bank, and Egypt in the case of the Gaza Strip. However, this public debate had little impact on the way the principal policy makers were figuring out how to rule the occupied territories.

The worst part of this supposed “enlightened occupation” has been the government’s methods for managing the territories. At first the area was divided into “Arab” and potential “Jewish” spaces. Those areas densely populated with Palestinians became autonomous, run by local collaborators under a military rule. This regime was only replaced with a civil administration in 1981.

The other areas, the “Jewish” spaces, were colonized with Jewish settlements and military bases. This policy was intended to leave the population both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in disconnected enclaves with neither green spaces nor any possibility for urban expansion.

Things only got worse when, very soon after the occupation, Gush Emunim started settling in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, claiming to be following a biblical map of colonization rather than the governmental one. As they penetrated the densely populated Palestinian areas, the space left for the locals was shrunk even further.

What every colonization project primarily needs is land — in the occupied territories this was achieved only through the massive expropriation of land, deporting people from where they had lived for generations, and confining them in enclaves with difficult habitats.

When you fly over the West Bank, you can see clearly the cartographic results of this policy: belts of settlements that divide the land and carve the Palestinian communities into small, isolated, and disconnected communities. The Judaization belts separate villages from villages, villages from towns, and sometime bisect a single village.

This is what scholars call a geography of disaster, not least since these policies turned out to be an ecological disaster as well: drying up water sources and ruining some of the most beautiful parts of the Palestinian landscape.

Moreover, the settlements became hotbeds in which Jewish extremism grew uncontrollably — the principal victims of which were the Palestinians. Thus, the settlement at Efrat has ruined the world heritage site of the Wallajah Valley near Bethlehem, and the village of Jafneh near Ramallah, which was famous for its freshwater canals, lost its identity as a tourist attraction. These are just two small examples out of hundreds of similar cases.

Destroying Palestinians’ Houses Is Not Democratic

House demolition is not a new phenomenon in Palestine. As with many of the more barbaric methods of collective punishment used by Israel since 1948, it was first conceived and exercised by the British Mandatory government during the Great Arab Revolt of 1936–39.

This was the first Palestinian uprising against the pro-Zionist policy of the British Mandate, and it took the British army three years to quell it. In the process, they demolished around two thousand houses during the various collective punishments meted out to the local population.

Israel demolished houses from almost the first day of its military occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The army blew up hundreds of homes every year in response to various acts undertaken by individual family members.

From minor violations of military rule to participation in violent acts against the occupation, the Israelis were quick to send in their bulldozers to wipe out not only a physical building but also a focus of life and existence. In the greater Jerusalem area (as inside Israel) demolition was also a punishment for the unlicensed extension of an existing house or the failure to pay bills.

Another form of collective punishment that has recently returned to the Israeli repertoire is that of blocking up houses. Imagine that all the doors and windows in your house are blocked by cement, mortar, and stones, so you can’t get back in or retrieve anything you failed to take out in time. I have looked hard in my history books to find another example, but found no evidence of such a callous measure being practiced elsewhere.


Crushing Palestinian Resistance Is Not Democratic

Finally, under the “enlightened occupation,” settlers have been allowed to form vigilante gangs to harass people and destroy their property. These gangs have changed their approach over the years.

During the 1980s, they used actual terror — from wounding Palestinian leaders (one of them lost his legs in such an attack), to contemplating blowing up the mosques on Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem.

In this century, they have engaged in the daily harassment of Palestinians: uprooting their trees, destroying their yields, and shooting randomly at their homes and vehicles. Since 2000, there have been at least one hundred such attacks reported per month in some areas such as Hebron, where the five hundred settlers, with the silent collaboration of the Israeli army, harassed the locals living nearby in an even more brutal way.

From the very beginning of the occupation then, the Palestinians were given two options: accept the reality of permanent incarceration in a mega-prison for a very long time, or risk the might of the strongest army in the Middle East. When the Palestinians did resist — as they did in 1987, 2000, 2006, 2012, 2014, and 2016 — they were targeted as soldiers and units of a conventional army. Thus, villages and towns were bombed as if they were military bases and the unarmed civilian population was shot at as if it was an army on the battlefield.

Today we know too much about life under occupation, before and after Oslo, to take seriously the claim that nonresistance will ensure less oppression. The arrests without trial, as experienced by so many over the years; the demolition of thousands of houses; the killing and wounding of the innocent; the drainage of water wells — these are all testimony to one of the harshest contemporary regimes of our times.

Amnesty International annually documents in a very comprehensive way the nature of the occupation. The following is from their 2015 report:


In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli forces committed unlawful killings of Palestinian civilians, including children, and detained thousands of Palestinians who protested against or otherwise opposed Israel’s continuing military occupation, holding hundreds in administrative detention. Torture and other ill-treatment remained rife and were committed with impunity.

The authorities continued to promote illegal settlements in the West Bank, and severely restricted Palestinians’ freedom of movement, further tightening restrictions amid an escalation of violence from October, which included attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians and apparent extrajudicial executions by Israeli forces. Israeli settlers in the West Bank attacked Palestinians and their property with virtual impunity. The Gaza Strip remained under an Israeli military blockade that imposed collective punishment on its inhabitants. The authorities continued to demolish Palestinian homes in the West Bank and inside Israel, particularly in Bedouin villages in the Negev/Naqab region, forcibly evicting their residents.


Let’s take this in stages. Firstly, assassinations — what Amnesty’s report calls “unlawful killings”: about fifteen thousand Palestinians have been killed “unlawfully” by Israel since 1967. Among them were two thousand children.


Imprisoning Palestinians Without Trial Is Not Democratic

Another feature of the “enlightened occupation” is imprisonment without trial. Every fifth Palestinian in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has undergone such an experience.

It is interesting to compare this Israeli practice with similar American policies in the past and the present, as critics of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement claim that US practices are far worse. In fact, the worst American example was the imprisonment without trial of one hundred thousand Japanese citizens during World War II, with thirty thousand later detained under the so-called “war on terror.”

Neither of these numbers comes even close to the number of Palestinians who have experienced such a process: including the very young, the old, as well as the long-term incarcerated.

Arrest without trial is a traumatic experience. Not knowing the charges against you, having no contact with a lawyer and hardly any contact with your family are only some of the concerns that will affect you as a prisoner. More brutally, many of these arrests are used as means to pressure people into collaboration. Spreading rumors or shaming people for their alleged or real sexual orientation are also frequently used as methods for leveraging complicity.

As for torture, the reliable website Middle East Monitor published a harrowing article describing the two hundred methods used by the Israelis to torture Palestinians. The list is based on a UN report and a report from the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. Among other methods it includes beatings, chaining prisoners to doors or chairs for hours, pouring cold and hot water on them, pulling fingers apart, and twisting testicles.


Israel Is Not a Democracy

What we must challenge here, therefore, is not only Israel’s claim to be maintaining an enlightened occupation but also its pretense to being a democracy. Such behavior towards millions of people under its rule gives the lie to such political chicanery.

However, although large sections of civil societies throughout the world deny Israel its pretense to democracy, their political elites, for a variety of reasons, still treat it as a member of the exclusive club of democratic states. In many ways, the popularity of the BDS movement reflects the frustrations of those societies with their governments’ policies towards Israel.

For most Israelis these counterarguments are irrelevant at best and malicious at worst. The Israeli state clings to the view that it is a benevolent occupier. The argument for “enlightened occupation” proposes that, according to the average Jewish citizen in Israel, the Palestinians are much better off under occupation and they have no reason in the world to resist it, let alone by force. If you are a noncritical supporter of Israel abroad, you accept these assumptions as well.

There are, however, sections of Israeli society that do recognize the validity of some of the claims made here. In the 1990s, with various degrees of conviction, a significant number of Jewish academics, journalists, and artists voiced their doubts about the definition of Israel as a democracy.

It takes some courage to challenge the foundational myths of one’s own society and state. This is why quite a few of them later retreated from this brave position and returned to toeing the general line.

Nevertheless, for a while during the last decade of the last century, they produced works that challenged the assumption of a democratic Israel. They portrayed Israel as belonging to a different community: that of the nondemocratic nations. One of them, the geographer Oren Yiftachel from Ben-Gurion University, depicted Israel as an ethnocracy, a regime governing a mixed ethnic state with a legal and formal preference for one ethnic group over all the others. Others went further, labeling Israel an apartheid state or a settler-colonial state.

In short, whatever description these critical scholars offered, “democracy” was not among them.







.jacobinmag.com

More

Search This Blog

“All I saw in Israel was cowards with guns”

Image result for Palestine history animated gif

Jews attack in gangs only with US taxpayer funded state protection.
Image result for jerusalem animated gif
Jerusalem is the capital. Palestine, currently under occupation, is located on the East coast of the Mediterranean Sea, West of Jordan and to the south of Lebanon. The territory of Palestine covers around 10,435 square miles.
Incredible bravery!

Total Pageviews