“Speaker McCarthy wants to rewrite history but the apartheid state of Israel was born out of violence and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians,” Tlaib said Monday on Twitter.
“75 years later, the Nakba continues to this day.”
Tlaib’s tweet, which was in response to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s post noting the “special relationship” between Israel and the U.S., was the subject of an instant fact check by Twitter, with notes below the post pointing out several errors.
To bolster the second point, the Twitter fact check linked to the State Department’s official history of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.
The last note pointed out that Israel has over 20% Arab citizens who have “full and equal rights,” linking to a Democracy Institute study that found the country’s Arab residents had declining rates of infant mortality and rising life expectancies.
Twitter’s “Community Notes” system has been expanded by new platform owner Elon Musk, who announced last month that there would be “no exceptions” to fact checks for those who post “materially false statements on this platform.”
Musk pointed out that anyone could be fact checked under the system, including heads of states and even the billionaire owner himself.
Say hello to the ‘new Jews’
The fact check of Tlaib, a high-profile Democratic member of the progressive “Squad,” comes after conservatives have long argued social media companies unfairly target conservative views for arbitrary fact checks and bans, something that is evidently changing at Twitter under the leadership of Musk.
Tlaib’s tweet also received scorn from other users of the platform, including former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who argued the Michigan Democrat was “a bit off” on the facts.
“You’re a bit off on this congresswoman,” Friedman said in a response on Twitter.
“Actually, the State of Israel was born notwithstanding the unsuccessful Palestinian attempts at ethnic cleansing to remove the Jews, through acts of terror and collaboration with Hitler (whose dear friend was Grand Mufti of Jerusalem).”
The tweet was also condemned by Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Gilad Erdan, who told Fox News Digital the comments were an example of the Democrat’s “antisemitic lies.”
“Tlaib’s ignorance and hatred toward the Jewish people and the State of Israel know no bounds,” Erdan said.
“The facts are clear: the Arabs rejected the UN’s resolution to establish a Jewish state and started a war to annihilate the Jews in Israel.
“We wish to express our definite opposition to a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem (1867-1948)
Since then, for the past 75 years, the Palestinians are bringing upon themselves a Nakba by continuing to incite hate and terrorism and rejecting every peace plan,” Erdan continued.
“Tlaib is rewriting history and her antisemitic lies ignore the fact that the only ethnic cleansing took place against the 850,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab countries following Israel’s establishment.”
‘Israel’ is the most important proxy army the USA have in the Middle East.
Such a vital ally is not going to be attacked for a few sins like apartheid, random killing or ethnic cleansing, practices the USA knows all about.
And has vast experience with.
South Africa has taken a hardline stance against Israel and staunchly supports the Palestinians. In 2019 it downgraded its embassy in Tel Aviv and pulled out its ambassador.
South Africans protest against Israeli attacks on Palestinians in Gaza, outside parliament in Cape Town, South Africa, Wednesday, May 12, 2021. Violence escalated between Israel and Palestine sparked by unrest at Jerusalem’s flashpoint Al-Aqsa Mosque. (AP Photo/Nardus Engelbrecht)
Those who assume the USA acts on the basis of values are immensely wrong.
It acts on yes or no service to its global domination.
If the the answer is yes, the USA will support you.
Apartheid regimes, murderous regimes, random imprisonment regimes, bulldozering regimes, they can count on the US of America.
The situation in Ukraine is worse than in Afghanistan and Syria
Ukraine is teeming with explosives that have been placed in the ground. The repercussions of this catastrophe will affect future generations
Since February of last year, when Russia launched its military offensive in the country, mine explosions have killed about 200 civilians in Ukraine, while hundreds more have been injured.
The UN has already called Ukraine the most heavily mined state in the world. Yet the contamination continues to grow because of how positional warfare is carried out.
With the conflict far from over, the further laying of explosives could have disastrous consequences.
Official reports claim that 250,000 square kilometers (almost 62 million acres) of Ukrainian territory have been mined.
This is equal to the entirety of the UK (244,000 square kilometers). According to Prime Minister Denis Shmigal, his country has become the world’s largest minefield, which has even spurred the government to create a special center to deal with the fallout.
Experts believe that the situation in Ukraine is worse than in Afghanistan and Syria.
The number of unexploded ordnance, anti-personnel, anti-tank, and other mines and explosive shells is estimated to be in the millions of units.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s minefields are growing exponentially.
In the past year, the entire length of the front line on both sides has been mined.
They are often laid in a scattered manner and without mapping. Given Ukraine’s large size, this greatly complicates the process of finding and neutralizing them.
“Indeed, there is a chance that the mined territories may expand further, both due to the prolongation of the conflict and the likely offensive from either side, which may move hostilities to previously unaffected territories,” Maxim Semenov, a political analyst and specialist in conflicts in the post-Soviet space, told RT.
Official sources also report that the contaminated area is expanding.
Last summer, the Ukrainian Deminers Association stated that minefields covered about 133,000 square kilometers of Ukraine, but the number recently announced by Shmigal is already double that.
Meanwhile, there are no solutions that can be totally effective, and most importantly, quick and simple.
Demining is the exclusive job of sappers.
For example, back in the 2000s, an average of 50 people a day were blown up on anti-personnel objects in Angola, one of the most heavily mined countries in the world.
To this day, about 500,000 explosive devices remain, despite the fact that dozens of sapper units from all around the world have helped out in the country.
It’s also worth noting that both the fighting and the scope of contamination in Angola were a lot less severe than in Ukraine.
BREAKDOWN: What is known about the status of Ukraine’s much-hyped ‘counteroffensive’ against Russia?
“We should note the experience of African and Asian countries, and even of the Soviet Union, where, decades after the end of war, mine explosions occasionally happened.
It is impossible to provide guarantees that an area is completely clear of mines.
The army may not make maps of minefields, as has been the case with the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Donbass since 2014.
Or the maps may be inaccurate, they may get lost, etc.
All this complicates the work of the sappers,” notes Semenov, adding that even decades after an area is cleared, mines can still pop up in the most unexpected places. Even sappers cannot guarantee that all mines and shells are found and cleared.
For war-affected regions, this creates enormous problems in the transition to peacetime life, not to mention the possible deaths of civilians and challenges in normalizing the economy.
“[This concerns] both agriculture, the industrial sector, and infrastructure.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine have been known to mine civilian objects, as for example, in Mariupol, where Russian sappers are still clearing plants, residential buildings, and courts,” the expert added.
In other words, it may take decades. Back in June of last year, Ukraine’s then-Interior Minister Denis Monastyrsky said that partial demining would take from five to ten years.
So far, this problem remains in the background because of Ukraine’s total media censorship, the focus on news reports from the front, and people’s understandable desire to stay away from the fighting.
But when the heated phase of the armed conflict comes to an end or if the conflict becomes frozen, the problem will emerge as a key issue.
South Africa calls for Israel to be declared an ‘apartheid state’
The South African government has remained a strong ally of Palestine, providing both material and public support for its liberation cause.
The South African government has expressed concerns that Israel’s continued occupation of “significant portions of the West Bank” and the development of new settlements there “are glaring examples of violations of international law” as the longrunning Israel-Palestine conflict goes on.
“The Palestinian narrative evokes experiences of South Africa’s own history of racial segregation and oppression,” Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s minister of international relations and cooperation, said at the second meeting of the Palestinian Heads of Mission in Africa, held in the capital Pretoria.
(1) South Africans Condemn Israeli Aggression Against the Palestinians. ANC, COSATU maintains long held position in opposition to Zionist occupation Quote: “While Israel says it fights Hamas because it is a terror organization that does not recognize its existence as a Jewish state, it unleashes the same violence on virtually any Palestinian. It practices ruthless collective punishment. It opposes unity among Palestinians ostensibly because this includes Hamas, but it acts just as harshly against other political movements in the Palestinian territory. The latest escalation of violence against Palestinians comes just over a month since they established a unity government, which was then recognized by many world governments to the chagrin of the state of Israel. Hamas has become a convenient explanation for indiscriminate violence visited on Palestinians before unity efforts.”
“As oppressed South Africans, we experienced firsthand the effects of racial inequality, discrimination and denial and we cannot stand by while another generation of Palestinians are left behind,” she said.
Pandor said Pretoria believes Israel should be classified as an apartheid state and that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) should establish a committee to verify whether it satisfies the requirements.
Palestinian foreign minister Riad Malki, who attended the forum, spoke to the state-run South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) after the session.
“If there is any country or countries that can comprehend the suffering and the struggle for freedom and independence of Palestine, it is the African continent and the people of Africa,” Malki said.
Ties that bind
The first Palestinian embassy in South Africa was accredited in 1995, marking the beginning of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
Over the years, the South African government has remained a strong ally of Palestine, providing both material and public support for its liberation cause.
“Our position on Palestine has always been clear, consistent, and convergent with the international community,” Pandor said.
According to a recent report by the Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights, a civil organisation with headquarters in the Gaza Strip, approximately 5,418 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military operations in the embattled Gaza Strip during the past 15 years, including 1,246 children and 488 women.
A recent UN commission of inquiry to investigate violations in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, determined in its report that Israel is responsible for severe human rights violations against Palestinians.
“These reports are significant in raising global awareness of the conditions that Palestinians are subjected to and they provide credence and support to an overwhelming body of factual evidence, all pointing to the fact that the State of Israel is committing crimes of apartheid and persecution against Palestinians”, said Pandor while referencing the reports.
Global campaign for Shireen
Pandor was the first representative of the South African government to denounce the killing of Palestinian-American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in May by Israeli forces during a raid in the West Bank.
At the time of Abu Akleh’s death, she compared the violent disruption of her funeral procession by Israeli police to the cruelty of the South African apartheid military.
After Tuesday’s conference session, she told SABC that “we can’t leave the matter of Shireen Abu Akleh untouched.”
“We will push the Palestinian cause at the UN General Assembly and we need also civil society to join us,” said Pandor.
The BRICS leaders spoke against continuous construction and expansion of settlements “in the Occupied Palestinian Territories by the Israeli Government”
Of course, it is absurd to believe that one people can make peace with their occupiers. Israel is an occupation not country. Occupations are not peaceful by nature! Israel has to go because peace means letting the Palestinians back to their natural homes.
FORTALEZA, July 16. /ITAR-TASS/. The BRICS countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, have called on Israel and Palestine to resume negotiations leading to the creation of a viable Palestinian state that can exist side by side with Israel.
“We reaffirm our commitment to contribute to a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of the universally recognized international legal framework, including the relevant UN resolutions, the Madrid Principles and the Arab Peace Initiative.
We believe that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a fundamental component for building a sustainable peace in the Middle East,” the BRICS leaders said in a resolution adopted on Tuesday at the summit meeting in the Brazilian city of Fortaleza.
“We call upon Israel and Palestine to resume negotiations leading to a two-State solution with a contiguous and economically viable Palestinian State existing side by side in peace with Israel, within mutually agreed and internationally recognized borders based on the 4 June 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital,” the declaration said.
The BRICS leaders spoke against continuous construction and expansion of settlements “in the Occupied Palestinian Territories by the Israeli Government, which violates international law, gravely undermines peace efforts and threatens the viability of the two-State solution”.
Israel’s failure to respect the right to return for Palestinians who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 is a flagrant violation of international law that has fueled decades of suffering on a mass scale for Palestinian refugees across the region, said Amnesty International, marking 71 years since the Nakba (catastrophe), as it is known to Palestinians.
Letter dated 7 December 2011 from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
On 24 November 2011, the Deputy Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa met in Moscow in the format of BRICS to discuss the situation in the Middle East and North Africa.
The participants at the meeting underlined the legitimacy of the aspirations of the peoples of the region for greater political and social rights.
They agreed that the transformation processes in the region created the need to search for ways of addressing crises in countries in the Middle East and North Africa within the framework of international law and only through peaceful means, without resorting to force, through establishing a broad national dialogue with due respect for the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the countries in the region.
They rejected violence as a means of achieving political goals.
They emphasized the need for full respect of human rights by all sides, especially by the authorities, in protecting unarmed civilians.
The role of the United Nations Security Council was emphasized, since it bears the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.
It was noted that all parties should strictly implement the decisions of the Security Council.
They noted that it was inadmissible to impose solutions on the States in the Middle East and North Africa through outside intervention in the internal political processes.
The participants agreed that the period of fundamental transformation taking place in the States of the Middle East and North Africa should not be used as a pretext to delay resolution of lasting conflicts but that it should rather serve as an incentive to settle them, in particular the Arab-Israeli one.
Resolution of this and other long-standing regional issues would generally improve the situation in the Middle East and North Africa.
Thus, at the meeting, the participants confirmed their commitment to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of the universally recognized international legal framework, including the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid principles and the Arab Peace Initiative.
The BRICS States support the resumption of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations aiming at the establishment of an independent, viable and territorially contiguous Palestinian State with full sovereignty within the 1967 borders, with agreed-upon territorial swaps and with East Jerusalem as its capital.
They also encouraged the Quartet to intensify its efforts towards early realization of these goals.
The participants supported Palestinian efforts to achieve membership in the United Nations.
They also underscored the importance of direct negotiations between the parties to reach final settlement.
They called upon Palestinians and Israelis to take constructive measures, to rebuild mutual trust and to create the right conditions for restarting negotiations, while avoiding unilateral steps, in particular settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
They advocated the earliest reunification of the Palestinians. A united position of the Palestinians, based on the PLO principles and the Arab Peace Initiative, would contribute to progress towards a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, achieving lasting peace and providing security for all the countries and peoples of the region.
The participants agreed on the convenience of regular consultations on the Middle East and North Africa issues in different forums, including the United Nations, and reaffirmed their support for informal meetings among their representatives.
In this regard, I have the honour to request your kind assistance in having the contents of the present letter circulated as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda item 36, and of the Security Council.
Today, January 27th is International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
It is a day we remember the victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution.
It is a day designated by the United Nations General Assembly and commemorates the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration and extermination camp.
The Secretary General of the Council of Europe noted in 2020, that it is a day when we renew our commitment to do “our duty to ensure that such things can happen never again: that we do everything possible to prevent and to counter the hatred and prejudice that breeds violence and discrimination”.
There are those who seek to falsify history and deny or distort understanding of what occurred.
The spread of Holocaust misinformation, particularly online, is a threat not only to memory, but to the commitment against the spread of hatred and prejudice.
It is often inspired by a desire to glorify and repeat that dark past.
The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) is proud to be represented in Australia’s delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and to contribute to that inter-government organisation’s work in remembrance, education, and research.
This year, on the 20th of January 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution which rejects and condemns without any reservation any denial and distortion of the Holocaust as a historical event.
A spokesperson for the UN Secretary General issued a statement saying, “we can never let down our guard in the face of increasing attempts to deny, distort or minimize the Holocaust.
We must also adapt and respond to new forms of antisemitism fueled by ignorance or conspiracy theories, also circulating online.
Today’s resolution, adopted by consensus, makes it clear that all Member States must condemn and actively combat Holocaust denial.”
In a recent briefing we discussed the UN resolution and the way it highlights the danger of misinformation and disinformation, particularly online, and how this can lead to hate and violence.
Online Hate Prevention Institute
The Online Hate Prevention Institute’s s CEO has been leading the fight against the spread of Holocaust denial and distortion on social media since 2008, including a 2011 call to Facebook to ban Holocaust denial (see Appendix B).
The Online Hate Prevention Institute took on this work when we were established in 2012.
Our very first report in 2012 started with an investigation into a video by a Holocaust denier which was banned repeatedly from YouTube.
We have now been working on the problem of Holocaust denial and distortion online for over a decade.
Holocaust denial, distortion, and misinfomation continues to spread online. Gab, for example, has a large number of explicit neo-Nazi individuals and groups that glorify Nazism.
Despite changes in policy, Holocaust denial and distortion also continue to exists on mainstream social media platforms.
Changes in policy do, however, make it easier to get the content removed.
Today we are releasing a collection of 17 items of Holocaust denial content that, as of this week, was still Facebook.
The content is documented below and we are working with Meta (Facebook) to secure its removal.
You can support this work tracking and removing Holocaust denial material like that below by making a donation to the Online Hate Prevention Institute’s campaign on Antisemitism and Holocaust denial below.
Monthly donations and donations for other areas of our work can be made via our donations page.
The documented examples of Holocaust denial can be seen below.
The recent Saudi-Iran rapprochement brokered by China is another huge concern for Israel and its supporters because it portends an ever-wider coalition arrayed against the West—China and Russia (which are already allied), Iran (allied with Russia), Syria (the Saudis had been supporting the rebels, while Iran and Russia have been supporting Assad), other Arab countries (Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are reviewing the relations with Israel, undoing Jared Kushner’s work in the Trump administration), and quite possibly India—Prime Minister Modi recently spoke of India’s “unbreakable friendship” with Putin and pushed to avoid any joint communique because of disagreement about the war in the recent G7 meetings.
What this confrontation is really about is the globalist, woke West still tolerant of Israel versus nations that reject the Western model of exporting wokeness in defense of their own traditions and culture. Putin’s recent speech emphasizes this:
Look what they are doing to their own people.
It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children, including pedophilia, all of which are declared normal in their life.
They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages. Bless their hearts, let them do as they please.
Here is what I would like to say in this regard.
Adult people can do as they please.
We in Russia have always seen it that way and always will: no one is going to intrude into other people’s private lives, and we are not going to do it, either. …
The Western imposition of wokeness is already happening in Ukraine.
Few people have paid attention to how rapidly Ukrainian society has been evolving since the Maidan protests [of 2014].
In a recent interview in the New Left Review, the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko described a power bloc that has lately come into being, uniting Ukraine’s globalizing oligarchs, Western-funded progressive foundations, and Ukrainian nationalists.
The latter argued for ripping up the Minsk accords and ripping out the Russian roots of Ukrainian public life and high culture, leaving Ukraine with a hard-line form of [pro-Western] political correctness.
Opponents were driven out of public life.
All of these countries have traditional cultures that are out of step with the West’s wokeness.
Recently Putin complained that NATO is proposing to expand to countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, further exacerbating Russian paranoia.
Putin’s claim that the West has sought to perpetuate its dominance resulting from the fall of the Soviet Union is quite correct.
In the 1990s Jewish neoconservatives saw a unipolar world as in the interests of Israel, surrounded by hostile countries in the Middle East.
With the end of the Cold War, neoconservatives at first advocated a reduced role for the U.S., but this stance switched gradually to the view that U.S. interests required the vigorous promotion of democracy in the rest of the world.
This aggressively pro-democracy theme, which appears first in the writings of Charles Krauthammer and then those of Elliot Abrams, eventually became an incessant drumbeat in the campaign for the war in Iraq.
Krauthammer also broached the now familiar themes of unilateral intervention and he emphasized the danger that smaller states could develop weapons of mass destruction which could be used to threaten world security.
A cynic would argue that this newfound interest in democracy was tailor-made as a program for advancing the interests of Israel.
After all, [despite the reality of Israel as an apartheid state], Israel is advertised as the only democracy in the Middle East, and democracy has a certain emotional appeal for the United States, which has at times engaged in an idealistic foreign policy aimed at furthering the cause of human rights in other countries. …
Krauthammer was on the cutting edge of neocon thinking on how to respond to the unipolar world created by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Krauthammer has consistently urged that the U.S. pursue a policy to remake the entire Arab world—a view that represents the “party line” among neoconservatives (e.g., Michael Ledeen, Norman Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, David Frum, and Richard Perle).
In a speech at the AEI in February 2004, Krauthammer argued for a unilateral confrontation with the entire Arab-Muslim world (and nowhere else) in the interests of “democratic globalism.”
He advocated a U.S. foreign policy that is not “tied down” by “multilateralism”: “the whole point of the multilateral enterprise: To reduce American freedom of action by making it subservient to, dependent on, constricted by the will—and interests—of other nations.
To tie down Gulliver with a thousand strings. To domesticate the most undomesticated, most outsized, national interest on the planet—ours.”
Krauthammer’s claim that this is in “our” interests is clearly an attempt—common among neoconservatives—to present themselves as American patriots, but his declaring war on the Islamic world is clearly far more in the interests of Israel than it is in the interests of the United States. Continuing from my 2004 paper:
Democratic globalism is aimed at winning the struggle with the Arab-Islamic world [quoting Krauthammer]:
Beyond power. Beyond interest. Beyond interest defined as power. That is the credo of democratic globalism.
Which explains its political appeal: America is a nation uniquely built not on blood, race or consanguinity, but on a proposition—to which its sacred honor has been pledged for two centuries….
Today, post-9/11, we find ourselves in an … existential struggle but with a different enemy: not Soviet communism, but Arab-Islamic totalitarianism, both secular and religious.
Meanwhile, neoconservatives with their post-racial framing of the West welcome Third World immigration throughout the West from Muslim countries.
Again, it’s hard to see how this is in “our” interests.,
This post-racial neocon interest in “promoting democracy continues today, except that once again, as in Soviet days when a formative influence on the neocon movement was that Jews were gradually being pushed out of the Soviet elite.
But now the target is Russia.
It’s interesting that Max Boot, formerly a self-described neocon, has recanted, tweeting: “I was wildly overoptimistic about the prospects of exporting democracy by force, underestimating both the difficulties and the costs of such a massive undertaking.”
But he’s all in on the Ukraine war which has also been advertised as a war for democracy.
In fact, he’s become a liberal interventionist typical of MSNBC and CNN and fits right in with The Washington Post, where he puts out op-eds quite compatible with their far-left views.
The neocons (or whatever they call themselves now that the term has come into disrepute because of previous disasters like the Iraq war) attempt to dominate both sides of U.S. foreign policy, as the Israel Lobby has always done.
They are now well ensconced in the Biden Administration, the notorious Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (main operative in the 2014 coup against the pro-Russian government), Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken—all Jewish and all involved in masterminding the war in Ukraine.
The neocon interest in destroying the Arab-Muslim world intersects with their interest in destroying Russia via victory in the Ukraine war.
As noted, Russia has supported both Iran and Syria, both of which, especially Iran, are seen as enemies of Israel.
The Saudi-Iran deal is important because for decades Israel has been attempting to make peace with the Arab world while continuing to oppress the Palestinians.
The agreement also signals that the Arab world is pulling away from the U.S. and the West, likely reasoning, like Russia and probably China, that aligning with the West intent exporting wokeness is definitely not in their interest.
The U.S. is once again complaining about Israeli behavior, as they have done since the 1967 war, but this will have no effect on the fanatics now running Israel and the powerful Israel Lobby will continue to dominate US foreign policy in the Middle East.
The multipolar world is coming into being and is being speeded up by the war in Ukraine.
For the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy, it’s an existential moment because their much yearned for unipolar world run by the U.S. in close alliance with Israel may be unraveling, in large part because of their own ambitions to destroy Russia—a hatred borne of old grievances specific to the long sojourn of Jews in Russia, where anti-Jewish attitudes have a long history, as recounted in Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his 200 Years Together, and even under Bolshevism.
Ukraine’s transformation under Zelensky is paradigmatic. This transformation is clearly top-down exactly like those that have occurred in all Western countries beginning with the elite media and academic culture.
I suppose that this transformation has a long way to go to capture the hearts and minds of Ukrainians, but, as with the West, control of the media and academic culture along with Zelensky’s heavy-handed methods of handling dissent (banning political parties and religions that dissent from the war despite constantly be advertised in the West as a democracy) may prevail in the long run in whatever is left of Ukraine.
In summary, there is quite a bit of evidence that U.S. hegemony has become intolerable for much of the world and this hostility is rapidly creating a multipolar world centered around the China, Russia, Iran and the Arab countries, and perhaps the emerging economic powers of India and Brazil at a time of U.S. decline. The BRICS coalition
has become the hottest ticket in geopolitics. Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (the BRICS) have been toying with the idea of forming a political/monetary counterweight to U.S. dominance since 2001. But beyond some aggressive gold buying by Russia and China, there was more talk than action.
Then the floodgates opened.
Whether due to the pandemic’s supply chain disruptions, heavy-handed sanctions imposed by US-led NATO during the Russia-Ukraine war, or just the fact that de-dollarization was an idea whose time had finally come, the BRICS alliance has suddenly become the hottest ticket in town.
[Brazil and China have agreed to trade in their own currencies, and Russia is using the yuan to trade with Africa, Latin America, and Asia.]
In just the past year, Argentina, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Egypt have either applied to join or expressed an interest in doing so. And new bilateral trade deals that bypass the dollar are being discussed all over the place.
Combine the land mass, population, and natural resources of the BRICS countries with those of the potential new members and the result is more or less half the world. …
If the BRICS have the commodities and the US and its allies are left with finance, pricing power for crucial things like oil and gold will shift to Russia, China, and the Middle East.
Falling demand for dollar-denominated bonds as reserve assets will send trillions of dollars now outside the US back home, raising domestic prices (which is to say lowering the dollar’s purchasing power and exchange rate).
The loss of its weaponized reserve currency will lessen the US’ ability to impose its will on the rest of the world (witness China as Middle-East peacemaker and India buying Russian oil with rupees).
None of these countries has any particular love for Israel.
And since Israel is linked to the West, it would also hurt Israel, as it will remain an outsider in this rising alliance.
The Israel Lobby remains in the driver’s seat because of its financial clout, but surely at some point, wiser heads will see that neoconservative foreign policy centered around wokeness and the interests of Israel is an ongoing disaster.
Nevertheless, the U.S. political system runs on money, and there is no evidence that Jewish financial clout—~75% of Democrat money and ~ 50% of Republican money—is diminishing.
That ratty Jew came to America – and he still refused to put on a shirt!
He was in the Congress speaking in a green sweatshirt!
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy told the U.S. Congress on Wednesday that the tens of billions of dollars of aid it had approved to help it fight a Russian invasion was not charity, but an investment in global security.
In his first visit out of his country since the war began in February, Zelenskiy told lawmakers in the soaring House of Representatives chamber that he hoped they would continue to support Ukraine on a bipartisan basis – a major point as Republicans are due to take the majority in the House on Jan. 3.
“Your money is not charity,” Zelenskiy said, clad in the khaki fatigues that have been his public uniform throughout the 300 days of conflict. “It is an investment in the global security and democracy.”
Following a meeting at the White House with Democratic President Joe Biden, Zelenskiy’s speech needed to resonate with House Republicans, who have voiced increasing skepticism about continuing to send so much aid to Ukraine.
Zelenskiy’s arrival was greeted with multiple raucous ovations in the nearly full chamber. Three members held up a large Ukrainian flag as he walked in.
“It is a great honor for me to be at the U.S. Congress and speak to you and all Americans.
Against all doom and gloom scenarios, Ukraine did not fall. Ukraine is alive and kicking,” said Zelenskiy.
“We defeated Russia in the battle for the minds of the world,” he said.
This is literally not true.
Neither India nor China support this war, and when you combine that with the Third World countries opposing it, you have an overwhelming majority of the world calling bullshit on this stupid hoax.
He’s also not winning the battle on the battlefield. The “gains” he made were at the cost of completely destroying his own military.
He pushed the goyim into a meat-grinder.
The Jewish neo-Nazis are doing press-gangs, showing up at night clubs force-conscripting goyim.
Remember: Jews were allowed to leave the country after Zelensky said the goyim had to go fight his war.
Virtually the entire Ukrainian military has been wiped out, and most of the fighters are now Poles, Americans, and others.
They did this for political reasons so they could point to lines on a map. Russia, conversely, kept their army totally intact and is consistently strengthening their forces.
Hoholistan is headed for a massive and overwhelming crushing defeat when this rape really gets started.
That sickening Jew dwarf Zelensky also did a fireside meeting with Brandon, where they discussed the agenda for endless war for no reason.
These two freaks literally did an Avengers photoshoot.
Zelensky looked very happy meeting his Jew cousin Antony Blinken.
We say “cousin” just to mean “kinsman,” but there is a 100% chance these two share an ancestor who lived in the last 200 years.
Zelensky appears to have brought drugs with him.
What a wreck.
This country is a joke.
Notice that top Jews Victoria Nuland and Merrick Garland are also in attendance at his dinner.
Why would you even bring the Attorney General to a foreign policy meeting like this – other than because he’s a Russian Jew?
This Ukraine thing is all just complete fantasy land and it doesn’t even make any sense.
The amount of lies surrounding it literally surpasses the amount of lies surrounding the coronavirus hoax.
It’s difficult to comprehend that it is actually happening – that they can go out there and say this stuff about how Russia is committing a genocide against democracy, but the Ukrainians are winning.
There is not one thing they say about the war that is not a lie. I have not seen one single thing.
The reality situation is, point by point, the diametric opposite of what they say.
The Ukraine is not a democracy, the Ukraine is committing atrocities beyond anything we’ve ever seen in the modern age, Ukraine Jewish neo-Nazi groups are calling for a genocide of Russians, and the Ukraine is losing the war.
Russia, meanwhile, has their hands tied behind their backs trying to fight the friendly war – and they are still winning by a lot. They completely destroyed the entire Ukraine military.
When Ursula von der Leyen accidentally told the truth about the casualty count; they edited it out of the official copy of the speech.
It’s beyond the pale that this dwarven Jew comes to my country and the leaders of my country welcome him, inviting him to do even more begging while promoting his campaign of atrocities.
The importance of the United States to Israel’s national security cannot be overstated.
Washington is usually the first, and often the sole, port of call for strategic consultation – almost always the foremost one, and inevitably the primary means of addressing the challenges Israel faces.
America is the be-all and end-all of most policy deliberations in Israeli national-security decision-making forums.
Some four decades into this ‘special relationship’, the price of a truly remarkable partnership has been a significant loss of Israeli independence.
Indeed, Israel’s dependence on the US has become so deep that it is questionable whether the country could even survive today without it.
For Americans and Israelis alike, these are controversial assertions.
Many Americans are critical of what they perceive to be ongoing Israeli disregard for US policy preferences, and even acts of defiance, despite an entirely asymmetric relationship and vast American aid.
This is particularly true at a time when Israel is led by a hardline government.
Israelis, for their part, do not wish to be this dependent on a foreign power, even one as friendly and well meaning towards Israel as the US, and they view Israel’s ongoing freedom of decision and maneuver as vital to its national security.
In America, we have an oligarch problem, and it’s much bigger than the oligarch problem that Putin faced when he became president in 2000.
The entire West is now in the grips of billionaire elites who have a stranglehold on the media, the political establishment and all of our important institutions.
In recent years we have seen these oligarchs expand their influence from markets, finance and trade to politics, social issues and even public health.
The impact this group has had on these other areas of interest, has been nothing short of breathtaking.
Establishment elites and their media not only stood foursquare behind Russiagate, the Trump impeachment, the BLM riots and the January 6 fiasco, they also had a hand in the Covid hysteria and the host of repressive measures that were imposed in the name of public health.
What we’d like to know is to what extent this group is actively involved in the shaping of other events that are aimed at transforming the American Republic into a more authoritarian system?
In other words, are the mandated injections, the forced lockdowns, the aggressive government-implemented censorship, the dubious presidential elections, the burning of food processing plants, the derailing of trains, the attacks on the power grid, the BLM-Antifa riots, the drag queen shows for schoolchildren, the maniacal focus on gender issues, and glitzy public show-trials merely random incidents occurring spontaneously during a period of great social change or are they, in fact, evidence of a stealthily orchestrated operation conducted by agents of the state acting on behalf of their elite benefactors?
We already know that the FBI, the DOJ and the intel agencies were directly involved in Russiagate –which was a covert attack on the sitting president of the United States.
So, the question is not “whether” these agencies are actively involved in other acts of treachery but, rather, to what extent these acts impact the lives or ordinary Americans, our politics and the country?
But before we answer that question, take a look at this quote from from a recent interview by Colonel Douglas MacGregor:
I was reading a document that was authored by George Soros over 10 years ago in which he talks specifically about this all-out war that would ultimately come against Russia because he said this ‘was the last nationalist state that rests on a foundation of orthodox christian culture with Russian identity at its core.
That has to be removed.
So I think that the people who are in charge in the west and the people in charge in Washington think they have successfully destroyed the identities of the European and American peoples, that we have no sense of ourselves, our borders are undefended, we present no resistance to the incoming migrants from the developing world who essentially roll over us as though we owe them a living and that our laws do not count.
Thus, far I would say that is an accurate evaluation of what we’ve been doing. And I think that’s a great victory for George Soros and the globalists, the anti-nationalists; those who want open borders what they call it an “Open Society” because you end up with nothing, an amorphous mass of people struggling to survive who are reduced to the lowest levels of subsistence …
(Soros) even goes so far as to talk about how useful it would be if it was east Europeans whose lives were expended in this process and not west Europeans who simply won’t take the casualties.
This is not a minor matter.
This is the kind of thinking that is so destructive and so evil, in my judgement, that that’s what we’re really dealing with in our own countries and I think Putin recognizes that.” (Douglas Macgregor – A Huge Offensive”, You Tube;, 11:20 minute)
The reason I transcribed this comment from MacGregor was because it sums up the perceptions of a great many people who see things the same way.
It expresses the hatred that globalist billionaires have toward Christians and patriots, both of which they see as obstacles to their goal of a borderless one-world government.
MacGregor discusses this phenom in relation to Russia which Soros sees as “the last nationalist state that rests on a foundation of orthodox Christian culture with Russian identity at its core.”
But the same rule could be applied to the January 6 protestors, could it not?
Isn’t that the real reason the protestors were rounded up and thrown into the Washington gulag.
After all, everyone knows there was no “insurrection” nor were there any “white supremacists”.
The protestors were locked up because they’re nationalists (patriots) which are the natural enemy of the globalists.
The MacGregor quote lays it out in black and white.
Elites don’t believe that nationalists can be persuaded by propaganda,.
They must be eradicated through incarceration or worse.
Isn’t that the underlying message of January 6?
The other underlying message of January 6, is that ordinary people are no longer allowed to challenge the authority of the people in power.
Again, political legitimacy in the US has always been determined by elections.
What January 6 indicates, is that legitimacy no longer matters.
What matters is power, and the person who can have you arrested for questioning his authority, has all the power he needs.
Check out this excerpt from a post on Substack by political analyst Kurt Nimmo:
“Klaus Schwab, a student of the war criminal Henry Kissinger, is a mentor to power-hungry and narcissistic sociopaths.
The WEF “Great Reset” is designed to turn the world into an impoverished social concentration camp, where destitute serfs “own nothing” and this, in true Orwellian fashion, will set them free…
I challenge people to investigate the WEF’s Global Redesign Initiative.
According to the Transnational Institute in the Netherlands, this “initiative” proposes
a transition away from intergovernmental decision-making towards a system of multi-stakeholder governance.
In other words, by stealth, they are marginalizing a recognized model where we vote in governments who then negotiate treaties which are then ratified by our elected representatives with a model where a self-selected group of ‘stakeholders’ make decisions on our behalf. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, large transnational corporate “stakeholders” will be deciding where you live, what you eat (insects and weeds), how you reproduce (or not reproduce; children produce carbon emissions), and what you can “rent” from them, or not be allowed to rent if you complain about an unelected globalist “economic” cartel driving humanity into serfdom, worldwide poverty, and depopulation.”
What Nimmo is saying is that these billionaire elites are now so powerful, that they can openly say they’re going to “transition away from intergovernmental decision-making” (ie– representative government”) to a system of “multi-stakeholder governance.”
If I’m not mistaken, that is a pretty unambiguous declaration of a new form of supra-national government, in which only the billionaire stakeholders have a vote in what policies are implemented.
But isn’t that the way things work already?
On any number of topics from ESG, to digital currencies, to vaccine passports, to AI, to gain-of-function research, to 15-minute cities, to transhumanism, to war with Russia; the decisions are all being made by a handful of people of whom we know every little and who were never voted into office.
And that brings us back to our original question: How many of these oddball events (in recent years) were conjured up and implemented by agents of the deep state to advance the elitist agenda?
This seem like an impossible question since it’s hard to find a link between these dramatically divers events.
For example, what is the link between a Drag Queen Children’s Hour and, let’s say, firebombing a food processing plant in Oklahoma?
Or the relentless political exploitation of gender issues and the January 6 public show trials?
If there was a connection, we’d see it, right?
Not necessarily, because the link might not have anything to do with the incident itself, but instead, with its impact on the people who experience it.
In other words, all of these events could be aimed at generating fear, uncertainty, anxiety, alienation and even terror.
Have the intelligence agencies launched such destabilizing operations before?
Indeed, they have, many times. Here’s an excerpt from an article that will help you to see where I’m going with this.
It’s from a piece at The Saker titled Operation Gladio: NATO’s Secret War for International Fascism.”
See if you notice any similarities with the way things have been unfolding in America for the last few years:
Yves Guerin-Serac: the Black Ops Grandmaster behind Operation Gladio…. wrote the basic training and propaganda manuals which can be fairly described as the Gladio order of battle.”…
Guerin-Serac was a war hero, agent provocateur, assassin, bomber, intelligence agent, Messianic Catholic, and the intellectual grandmaster behind the ‘Strategy of Tension’ essential to the success of Operation Gladio.
Guerin-Serac published via Aginter Press the Gladio manual, including Our Political Activity in what can aptly be described as Gladio’s First Commandment:
“Our belief is that the first phase of political activity ought to be to create the conditions favoring the installation of chaos in all of the regime’s structures…
In our view the first move we should make is to destroy the structure of the democratic state under the cover of Communist and pro-Soviet activities…
Moreover, we have people who have infiltrated these groups.”
“Two forms of terrorism can provoke such a situation [breakdown of the state]: blind terrorism (committing massacres indiscriminately which cause a large number of victims), and selective terrorism (eliminate chosen persons)…
This destruction of the state must be carried out under the cover of ‘communist activities.’
After that, we must intervene at the heart of the military, the juridical power and the church, in order to influence popular opinion, suggest a solution, and clearly demonstrate the weakness of the present legal apparatus.
Popular opinion must be polarized in such a way, that we are being presented as the only instrument capable of saving the nation.”
Anarchic random violence was to be the solution to bring about such a state of instability thus allowing for a completely new system, a global authoritarian order.
Yves Guerin-Serac, who was an open fascist, would not be the first to use false-flag tactics that were blamed on communists and used to justify more stringent police and military control from the state….”
Repeat: the first phase of political activity ought to be to create the conditions favoring the installation of chaos in all of the regime’s structures…
This destruction of the state must be carried out under the cover of (communist) activities….
Popular opinion must be polarized in such a way, that we are being presented as the only instrument capable of saving the nation.”
In other words, the objective of the operation is to completely disrupt all social relations and interaction, cultivate feelings of uncertainty, polarization and terror, find a group that can be scapegoated for the wide societal collapse, and, then, present yourself (elites) as the best choice for restoring order.
Is this what’s going on?
It’s very possible. It could all be part of a Grand Strategy aimed at “wiping the slate clean” in order to “transition away from intergovernmental decision-making” to a system of “multi-stakeholder governance.”
That could explain why there has been such a vicious and sustained attack on our history, culture, traditions, religious beliefs, monuments, heroes, and founders.
They want to replace our idealism with feelings of shame, humiliation and guilt.
They want to erase our past, our collective values, our heritage, our commitment to personal freedom, and the very idea of America itself.
They want to raze everything to the ground and start over.
That is their basic Gameplan writ large.
The destruction of the state is being carried out behind the cover of seemingly random events that are spreading chaos, exacerbating political divisions, increasing the incidents of public mayhem, and clearing the way for a violent restructuring of the government.
They can’t build a new world order until the old one is destroyed.
THANKS TO THE ONGOING conflict in Ukraine, we indeed seem to be rushing headlong into a major war—possibly a World War Three, possibly the world’s first (and perhaps last) nuclear war.
Ukraine leadership and their Western backers seem hell-bent on fighting to the last man, and Vladimir Putin, as an old-school Cold Warrior, seems equally determined to press ahead until achieving “victory.”
The cause seems hopeless for Ukraine, who cannot reasonably expect to prevail in an extended conflict with one of the largest militaries on Earth.
At best, they may bleed Russia over a period of months or years, but only at the cost of massive blood-letting themselves.
It seems that Ukraine will be the loser in this struggle, no matter what comes.
In the Western media, we are presented with a remarkably simplified storyline: Putin is an evil warmonger who simply wants to extend Russian territory; to this end, he is exploiting events in Ukraine, deploying his military ostensibly to support the Russian-speaking districts of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.
But this is just cover, they say, for his mad quest to rebuild the Russian empire.
In pursuit of his goal, he is willing to inflict any amount of material damage and kill any number of civilians.
Fortunately, say our media, Putin has thus far been largely contained; the brave Ukrainian fighters are constantly “reclaiming” land, Russia’s advance has “stalled,” and indeed, Russia seems to be in danger of losing.
Consequently, the US and its allies must do all they can to “aid” and “support” the brave Ukrainians and their beleaguered but heroic leader, Volodymyr Zelensky.
No amount of money, no assortment of deadly weaponry, no military intelligence, is too much.
Like World War Two, this “war” is an unconditional struggle of Good versus Evil; therefore the West, as the moral paragon of the world, must step up, undergo sacrifice, and ensure that Good prevails.
And indeed, the financial support from just the United States is breathtaking: As of early May, Congress has approved $13.6 billion in aid, much of it for direct Ukrainian military support.
And yet this would only cover costs through September.
Thus, president Biden recently called for an additional package of $33 billion, which would include over $20 billion in military and security aid, and, surprisingly, $2.6 billion for “the deployment of American troops to the region,” in order to “safeguard NATO allies.”
Incredibly, Congress responded by approving $40 billion, bringing the total aid thus far to $54 billion.
For perspective, this represents over 80% of Russia’s annual defense budget of $66 billion.
(By contrast, America allocates well over $1 trillion—that is, $1,000 billion—annually in direct and indirect military expenditures.)
Notably, such unconditional support and defense of Ukraine is a virtually unanimous view across the American political spectrum, and throughout Europe.
Right and left, conservative and liberal, working class or wealthy elite, all sectors of society are apparently united in opposition to the evil Putin.
In an era when virtually no issue garners unanimous support, the Ukrainian cause stands out as an extremely rare instance of bipartisan, multi-sector agreement.
The rare dissenters—such as Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and a handful of alt-right renegades—are routinely attacked as “Russian assets” or “tools of Putin.”
There is no room for disagreement, no space for debate, no opposing views allowed.
In fact, though, this is yet another case of what I might call the “unanimity curse”: when all parties in American society are united on a topic, any topic, then we really need to worry.
Here, it seems that the reality is of a potent Jewish Lobby, exerting itself (again) in the direction of war, for reasons of profit and revenge against a hated enemy.
There is, indeed, a Jewish hand at work here, one that may well drive us into another world war, and even a nuclear war—one which, in the worst case, could mean the literal end of much of life on this planet.
The unanimity comes when all parties are subject, in various ways, to the demands of the Lobby, and when the public has been misled and even brainwashed by a coordinated Jewish media into believing the standard narrative.
The best cure for this catastrophic situation is unrestricted free speech.
The Lobby knows this, however, and thus takes all possible measures to inhibit free speech.
Normally, such a struggle ebbs and flows according to the issue and the times; but now, the situation is dire.
Now more than ever, a lack of free speech could be fatal to civilized society.
Context and Run-Up
To fully understand the Jewish hand in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, we need to review some relevant history.
Over the centuries, there have been constant battles over the lands of present-day Ukraine, with Poles, Austro-Hungarians, and Russians alternately dominating.
Russia took control of most of Ukraine in the late 1700s and held it more or less continuously until the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991; this is why Putin claims that the country is “part of Russia.”
For their part, Jews have experienced a particularly tumultuous relationship with Russia, one that ranged from disgust and detestation to a burning hatred.
As it happened, Jews migrated to Russia in the 19th century, eventually numbering around 5 million.
They were a disruptive and agitating force within the nation and thus earned the dislike of Czars Nicholas I (reign 1825 to 1855), Alexander II (1855 to 1881, when he was assassinated by a partly-Jewish anarchist gang), and especially Nicholas II (1894 to 1917)—the latter of whom was famously murdered, along with his family, by a gang of Jewish Bolshevists in 1918.
Already in 1871, Russian activist Mikhail Bakunin could refer to the Russian Jews as “a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite”.
The assassination of Alexander initiated a series of pogroms that lasted decades, and which set the stage for a lingering Jewish hatred of all things Russian.
For present purposes, though, we can jump to the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election (I note that Ukraine also has a prime minister, but unlike most European countries, he typically has limited powers).
In 2004, it came down to “the two Viktors”: the pro-Western V. Yushchenko and the pro-Russian V. Yanukovych.
The first round was nearly tied, and thus they went to a second round in which Yanukovych prevailed by around three percentage points.
But amid claims of vote-rigging, Western Ukrainians initiated an “Orange Revolution”—backed by the Ukrainian Supreme Court—that annulled those results and mandated a repeat runoff election.
The second time, the tables were turned, and the pro-West Yushchenko won by eight points.
The West was elated, and Putin naturally mad as hell.
The following years witnessed financial turmoil and, unsurprisingly, constant harassment from Russia.
By 2010, Ukrainians were ready for a change, and this time Yanukovych won handily, over a Jewish female competitor, Yulia Timoshenko—notably, she had “co-led the Orange Revolution.” Russia, for once, was satisfied with the result.
But of course, in the West, Europe and the US were mightily displeased, and they soon began efforts to reverse things yet again.
Among other strategies, they apparently decided to deploy the latest in high tech and social media.
Thus in June 2011, two of Google’s top executives—Eric Schmidt and a 30-year-old Jewish upstart named Jared Cohen—went to visit Julian Assange in the UK, then living under house arrest.
It is well-known, incidentally, that Google is a Jewish enterprise, with Jewish founders Sergei Brin and Larry Page running the ship.
The nominal purpose of the trip was to conduct research for a book that Schmidt and Cohen were working on, regarding the intersection of political action and technology—in plain words, how to foment revolutions and steer events in a desired direction.
As Assange relates in his 2014 book When Google Met Wikileaks, he was initially unaware of the deeper intentions and motives of his interviewers.
Only later did he come to learn that Schmidt had close ties to the Obama administration, and that Cohen was actively working on political upheaval.
As Assange wrote, “Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s ‘director of regime change’.” Their immediate targets were Yanukovych in Ukraine and Assad in Syria.
By early 2013, the American Embassy in Kiev was training right-wing Ukrainian nationalists on how to conduct a targeted revolt against Yanukovych.
It would not be long until they had their chance.
In late 2013, Yanukovych decided to reject an EU-sponsored IMF loan, with all the usual nasty strings attached, in favor of a comparable no-strings loan from Russia.
This apparent shift away from Europe and toward Russia was the nominal trigger for the start of protest actions.
Thus began the “Maidan Uprising,” led in large part by two extreme nationalist groups: Svoboda and Right Sector. Protests went on for nearly three months, gradually accelerating in intensity; in a notable riot near the end, some 100 protestors and 13 police were shot dead.
As the Uprising reached its peak, at least one American Jew was highly interested: Victoria Nuland.
As Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State (first under Hillary Clinton, and then under the half-Jew John Kerry), Nuland had direct oversight of events in eastern Europe.
And for her, it was personal; her father, Sherwin Nuland (born Shepsel Nudelman), was a Ukrainian Jew.
She was anxious to drive the pro-Russian Yanukovych out of power and replace him with a West-friendly, Jew-friendly substitute.
And she had someone specific in mind: Arseniy Yatsenyuk. On 27 January 2014, as the riots were peaking, Nuland called American Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt, to urgently discuss the matter.
Nuland pulled no punches: “Yats” was her man. We know this because the call was apparently tapped and the dialogue later posted on Youtube. Here is a short excerpt:
Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step? […]
Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
It was clear to both of them, though, that the EU leadership had other ideas.
The EU was much more anxious to be a neutral party and to avoid direct intervention in Ukrainian affairs so as to not unduly antagonize Russia.
But in time-tested Jewish fashion, Nuland did not give a damn.
A bit later in the same phone call, she uttered her now-famous phrase: “F___ the EU.” So much for Jewish subtlety.
But there was another angle that nearly all Western media avoided: “Yats” was also Jewish.
In a rare mention, we read in a 2014 Guardian story that “Yatsenyuk has held several high-profile positions including head of the country’s central bank, the National Bank of Ukraine…
He has played down his Jewish-Ukrainian origins, possibly because of the prevalence of antisemitism in his party’s western Ukraine heartland.”
For some reason, such facts are never relevant to Western media.
As the Maidan Uprising gave way to the Maidan Revolution in February 2014, Yanukovych was forced out of office, fleeing to Russia.
Pro-Western forces then succeeded in nominating “Yats” as prime minister, effective immediately, working in conjunction with president Oleksandr Turchynov.
This provisional leadership was formalized in a snap election in May 2014 in which the pro-Western candidate Peter Poroshenko won.
(The second-place finisher was none other than Yulia Timoshenko—the same Jewess who had lost to Yanukovych in 2010.)
It was under such circumstances that Putin invaded and annexed Crimea, in February 2014.
It was also at this time that Russian separatists in Donbass launched their counter-revolution, initiating a virtual civil war in Ukraine; to date, eight years later, around 15,000 people have died in total, many civilians.
With this American-sponsored coup finished, Ukrainian Jews began to reach out to the West to increase their influence.
Thus it happened that just a few months after Maidan, the wayward son of the American vice president got in touch with a leading Ukrainian Jew, Mykola Zlochevsky, who ran a large gas company called Burisma.
In this way, Hunter Biden incredibly found himself on the board of a corporation of which he knew nothing, in an industry of which he knew nothing, and which nonetheless was able to “pay” him upwards of $500,000 per year—obviously, for access to father Joe and thus to President Obama.
Hunter carried on in this prestigious role for around five years, resigning only in 2019, as his father began his fateful run for the presidency.
Despite a rocky tenure, Yatsenyuk managed to hold his PM position for over two years, eventually resigning in April 2016.
His replacement was yet another Jew, Volodymyr Groysman, who served until August 2019. The Jewish hand would not be stayed. All this set the stage for the rise of the ultimate Jewish player, Volodymyr Zelensky.
This situation is particularly remarkable given that Jews are a small minority in Ukraine.
Estimates vary widely, but the Jewish population is claimed to range from a maximum of 400,000 to as low as just 50,000.
With a total population of 41 million, Jews represent, at most, 1% of the nation, and could be as small as 0.12%.
Under normal conditions, a tiny minority like this should be almost invisible; but here, they dominate.
Such is the Jewish hand.
Enter the Jewish Oligarchs
In Ukraine, there is a “second government” that calls many of the shots.
This shadow government is an oligarchy: a system of rule by the richest men.
Of the five richest Ukrainian billionaires, four are Jews: Igor (or Ihor) Kolomoysky, Viktor Pinchuk, Rinat Akhmetov, and Gennadiy Bogolyubov.
Right behind them, in the multi-millionaire class, are Jews like Oleksandr Feldman and Hennadiy Korban.
Collectively, this group is often more effective at imposing their will than any legislator.
And unsurprisingly, this group has been constantly enmeshed in corruption and legal scandals, implicated in such crimes as kidnapping, arson and murder.
Of special interest is the first named above. Kolomoysky has long been active in banking, airlines and media—and in guiding minor celebrities to political stardom.
In 2005 he became the leading shareholder of the 1+1 Media Group, which owns seven TV channels, including the highly popular 1+1 channel.
(The 1+1 Group was founded in 1995 by another Ukrainian Jew, Alexander Rodnyansky.)
Worth up to $6 billion in the past decade, Kolomoysky’s current net wealth is estimated to be around $1 billion.
Not long after acquiring 1+1, Kolomoysky latched on to an up-and-coming Jewish comedian by the name of Volodymyr Zelensky.
Zelensky had been in media his entire adult life, and even co-founded a media group, Kvartal 95, in 2003, at the age of just 25.
Starring in feature films, he switched to television by the early 2010s, eventually coming to star in the 1+1 hit show “Servant of the People,” where he played a teacher pretending to be president of Ukraine.
Then there was the notable 2016 comedy skit in which Zelensky and friends play a piano with their penises—in other words, typical low-brow scatological Jewish humor, compliments of Zelensky and Kolomoysky.
[Zelensky also appeared in a trashy “music” video in which he simulates a grotesque homosexual “come on.” — Ed.]
By early 2018, the pair were ready to move into politics.
Zelensky registered his new political party for the upcoming 2019 election, and declared himself a presidential candidate in December 2018, just four months prior to the election.
In the end, of course, he won, with 30% of the vote in the first round, and then defeating incumbent Poroshenko in the 2nd round by a huge 50-point margin.
Relentless favorable publicity by 1+1 was credited with making a real difference.
Notably, the third-place finisher in that election was, yet again, the Jewess Yulia Timoshenko—like a bad penny, she just keeps coming back.
His Kvartal 95 media company earned him some $7 million per year.
He also owns a 25% share of Maltex Multicapital, a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands, as part of a “web of off-shore companies” he helped to establish back in 2012.
A Ukrainian opposition politician, Ilya Kiva, suggested recently that Zelensky is currently tapping into “hundreds of millions” in funding that flows into the country, and that Zelensky himself is personally earning “about $100 million per month.”
A Netherlands party, Forum for Democracy, recently cited estimates of Zelensky’s fortune at an astounding $850 million.
Apparently the “Churchill of Ukraine” is doing quite well for himself, even as his country burns.
In any case, it is clear that Zelensky owes much to his mentor and sponsor, Kolomoysky.
The latter even admitted as much back in late 2019, in an interview for the New York Times.
“If I put on glasses and look back at myself,” he said, “I see myself as a monster, as a puppet master, as the master of Zelensky, someone making apocalyptic plans.
I can start making this real” (Nov 13). Indeed—the Kolomoysky/Zelensky apocalypse is nearly upon us.
Between rule by Jewish oligarchs and manipulations by the global Jewish lobby, modern-day Ukraine is a mess of a nation—and it was so long before the current “war.”
An international corruption-ranking agency had recently assessed that country at 142nd in the world, worse than Nigeria and equal to Uganda.
As a result, Ukraine’s economy has suffered horribly.
Before the current conflict, their per-capita income level of $8700 put them 112th in the world, below Albania ($12,900), Jamaica ($9100), and Armenia ($9700); this is by far the poorest in Europe, and well below that of Russia ($25,700 per person).
Impoverished, corrupt, manipulated by Jews, now in a hot war—pity the poor Ukrainians.
Hail the American Empire
Enough history and context; let’s cut to the chase.
From a clear-eyed perspective, it is obvious why Zelensky and friends want to prolong a war that they have no hope of winning: They are profiting immensely from it.
As an added benefit, the actor Zelensky gets to perform on the world stage, which he will surely convert into more dollars down the road.
Every month that the conflict continues, billions of dollars are flowing into Ukraine, and Zelensky et al. are assuredly skimming their “fair share” off the top.
Seriously—who, making anywhere near $100 million per month, wouldn’t do everything conceivable to keep the gravy train running?
The fact that thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are dying has no bearing at all in Zelensky’s calculus; in typical Jewish fashion, he cares not one iota for the well-being of the White Europeans.
If his soldiers die even as they kill a few hated Russians, so much the better. For Ukrainian Jews, it is a win-win proposition.
Why does no one question this matter?
Why is Zelensky’s corruption never challenged?
Why are these facts so hard to find?
We know the answer: It is because Zelensky is a Jew, and Jews are virtually never questioned and never challenged by leading Americans or Europeans.
Jews get a pass on everything (unless they are obviously guilty of something heinous—and sometimes even then!).
Jews get a pass from fellow Jews because they cover for each other.
Jews get a pass from media because the media is owned and operated by Jews.
And Jews get a pass from prominent non-Jews who are in the pay of Jewish sponsors and financiers.
Zelensky can be as corrupt as hell, funneling millions into off-shore accounts, but as long as he plays his proper role, no one will say anything.
So the “war” goes on, and Zelensky and friends get rich.
What does Europe get from all this?
Or rather, worse than nothing: They get a hot war in their immediate neighborhood, and they get an indignant Putin threatening to put hypersonic missiles in their capital cities in less than 200 seconds.
They get to deal with the not-so-remote threat of nuclear war.
They get to see their currency decline—by 10% versus the yuan in a year and by 12% versus the dollar.
They get a large chunk of their gas, oil, and electricity supplies diverted or shut off, driving up energy prices.
And they get to see their Covid-fragile economies put on thin ice.
But perhaps they deserve all this.
As is widely known, the European states are American vassals, which means they are Jewish vassals.
European leaders are spineless and pathetic lackeys of the Jewish Lobby.
Judenknecht like Macron, Merkel, and now Scholz, are sorry examples of humanity; they have sold out their own people to placate their overlords.
And the European public is too bamboozled and too timid to make a change; France just had a chance to elect Le Pen, but the people failed to muster the necessary will.
Thus, Europe deserves its fate: hot war, nuclear threat, cultural and economic decline, sub-Saharan and Islamic immigrants—the whole package.
If it gets bad enough, maybe enough Europeans will awaken to the Jewish danger and take action. Or so we can hope.
What about the US? We could scarcely be happier.
Dead Russians, the hated Putin in a tizzy, and the chance to play “world savior” once again.
American military suppliers are ecstatic; they don’t care that most of their weapons bound for Ukraine get lost, stolen or blown up, and that (according to some estimates) only 5% make it to the front.
For them, every item shipped is another profitable sale, whether it is used or not.
And American congressmen get to pontificate about another “good war” even as they approve billions in aid.
And perhaps best of all, we get to press for an expansion to that American Empire known as NATO.
We need to be very clear here: NATO is simply another name for the American Empire.
The two terms are interchangeable.
In no sense is NATO an “alliance among equals.”
Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Albania have absolutely nothing to offer to the US.
Do we care if they will “come to our aid” in case of a conflict?
That is a bad joke, at best.
In reality, what such nations are is more land, more people, and more economic wealth under the American thumb.
They are yet more places to station troops, build military outposts, and run “black sites.”
NATO always was, and always will be, the American Empire.
The push for Ukraine to join NATO by the West-friendly Zelensky was yet another blatant attempt at a power grab by the US, this one on Russia’s doorstep.
Putin, naturally, took action to circumvent that.
But of course, now the push moves to Sweden and Finland, both of whom are unwisely pursuing NATO membership in the illusory quest for security, when in reality they will simply be selling what remains of their national souls to the ruthless Judeo-American masters.
For their sake, I hope they are able to avoid such a future.
And all the while, American Jews and a Jewish-American media play up the “good war” theme, send more weapons, and press ever further into the danger zone.
Ukrainian-American Jews like Chuck Schumer are right out front, calling for aid, for war, for death.
“Ukraine needs all the help it can get and, at the same time, we need all the assets we can put together to give Ukraine the aid it needs,” said Schumer recently, eager to approve the next $40 billion aid package.
As Jews have realized for centuries, wars are wonderful occasions for killing enemies and making a fast buck.
Perhaps it is no coincidence that the present proxy war against Jewish enemies in eastern Europe began not long after the 20-year war against Jewish enemies in Afghanistan ended.
Life without war is just too damn boring, for some.
If more than a minuscule fraction of the public knew about such details, they would presumably be outraged.
But as I mentioned, the Jewish-controlled Western media does an excellent job in restricting access to such information, and in diverting attention whenever such ugly facts pop up.
The major exception is Tucker Carlson, who is able to reach some 3 million people each night; this is by far the widest reach for anything like the above analysis.
But Carlson falls woefully short—pathetically short—in defining the Jewish culprit behind all these factors.
Jews are never outed and never named by Carlson, let alone ever targeted for blame.
This crucial aspect is thus left to a literal handful of alt-right and dissident-right websites that collectively reach a few thousand people, at best.
And even if, by some miracle, all 3 million Tucker viewers were enlightened to the Jewish danger here, this still leaves some 200 million American adults ignorant and unaware.
The mass of people believe what they see on the evening news, or in their Facebook feeds, or Google news, or on CNN or MSNBC, or in the New York Times—all Jewish enterprises, incidentally.
This is why, when polled, 70% of the American public say that current aid to Ukraine is either “about right” or even “too little.”
This, despite the fact that around 50% claim to be “very concerned” about nuclear war; clearly they are unable to make the necessary connections.
And for many, it is even worse than this: around 21% would support “direct American military intervention” against Russia, which means an explicit World War Three, with all the catastrophic outcomes that this entails.
Our Jewish media have done another fine job in whipping up public incitement.
In sum, we can say that our media have cleverly constructed a “philo-Semitic trap”: Any mention or criticism of the Jewish hand in the present conflict is, first, highly censored, and then, if necessary, is dismissed as irrational anti-Semitism.
Sympathy toward the (truly) poor, suffering Ukrainians is played up to the hilt, and Putin and the Russians relentlessly demonized.
Leading American Jews, like Tony Blinken and Chuck Schumer, are constantly playing the good guys, pleading for aid, promising to help the beleaguered and outmanned Ukrainian warriors.
Who can resist this storyline?
Thus, we have no opposition, no questioning, no deeper inquiries into root causes.
Jews profit and flourish, Ukrainians and Russians suffer and die, and the world rolls along toward potential Armageddon.
The reality is vastly different.
Global Jews are, indeed, “planetary master criminals,” as Martin Heidegger long ago realized.
They function today as they have for centuries: as advocates for abuse, exploitation, criminality, death and profits.
This is self-evidently true: If the potent Jewish Lobby wanted true peace, or flourishing humanity, they would be actively pushing for such things and likely succeeding.
Instead, we have endless mayhem, war, terrorism, social upheaval and death, even as Jewish pockets get ever-deeper.
And the one possible remedy for all this—true freedom of speech—recedes from our grasp.
On the one hand, I fear greatly for our future.
On the other, I feel that we get what we deserve.
When we allow malicious Jews to dominate our nations, and then they lead us into war and global catastrophe, well, what can we say?
Perhaps there is no other way than to await the inevitable conflagration, exact retribution in the ensuing chaos, and then rebuild society from scratch—older and wiser.
Most Zionist diplomacy takes place in secret, through corruption and blackmail (euphemistically called “lobbying”).
Most Zionist diplomacy takes place in secret, through corruption and blackmail (euphemistically called “lobbying”).
But sometimes it is deemed appropriate that some statement be written down by some government representative in support of Zionism.
The Goyim who write these statements may think them of little consequence, but Zionists know very well how to capitalize on them.
The most famous such document is the short letter written by the British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, president of the Zionist Federation, on November 2, 1917. Prime Minister Lloyd George later explained the deal in those terms:
“Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to give facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause.
They kept their word.”
Less known than the Balfour Declaration is the letter obtained by Nahum Sokolow, head of the World Zionist Organization, from the French Foreign minister Jules Cambon.
Dated June 4, 1917, it not only anticipated the Balfour Declaration but cleared the way for it.
It states that the French government “feels sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is linked to that of the allies.”
The cause in question is “the development of the Israeli colonization in Palestine” and “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.”
Back in London, Sokolow deposited the Cambon letter at the Foreign Office, where it stimulated a spirit of competition.
In January 1918, he returned to Paris, this time with the aim of securing a public French declaration in support of the Balfour Declaration.
A magnificent example of the efficiency of Zionist transnational diplomacy for war profiteering.
If Balfour thought that, after the war, his letter, cautiously worded and typed on unmarked paper, would be of little consequence, he was wrong.
Zionists made it a cornerstone to their project.
When the British government proved reluctant to deliver after the Versailles Treaty, they invested on the ambitious, unscrupulous and bankrupt Winston Churchill (1874-1965), whose thoughts were, in his own words, “99 percent identical” with Chaim Weizmann’s.
During WWII, Churchill and Weizmann conspired to repeat the winning strategy of the Balfour declaration in WWI, attempting to monetize Jewish influence to bring the United States into the war.
In a letter to Churchill dated September 10, 1941, Weizmann wrote: “I have spent months in America, traveling up and down the country […].
There is only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out-aid’ for her: the five million American Jews. […]
It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favor of Great Britain.
They are keen to do it—and may do it—again.”
As soon as he had become Prime Minister in May 1940, Churchill instructed his War Cabinet member Arthur Greenwood to craft a document assuring the Jewish elites that a winning Britain will give them not only Palestine but a major share in the “new world order” to compensate for “the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people.”
Although it is little known, this “Greenwood Pledge” is, according to Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise, “of wider and farther reaching implications” than the Balfour declaration.
The New York Times published it in its October 6, 1940 edition, under the amazing title “New World Order Pledged to Jews” (reproduced here and here).
The recipient of the declaration, here presented as Dr. S.S. Wise, was a major player in Zionist deep politics since the time of Theodor Herzl, and a close collaborator of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Samuel Untermeyer.
He was the founder of the New York Federation of Zionist Societies in 1897, the first seed for the Zionist Organization of America, of which he was president.
In 1917 he participated in the effort to convince President Woodrow Wilson to approve the Balfour declaration.
In 1936, he was a co-founder of the World Jewish Congress, dedicated to rallying world Jewry against Hitler.
Here is the full text of the New York Times, introducing the “Greenwood Pledge”:
New York Times, October 6, 1940
NEW WORLD ORDER PLEDGED TO JEWS;
Arthur Greenwood of British War Cabinet Sends Message of Assurance Here
RIGHTING OF WRONGS SEEN
English Rabbi Delivers to Dr. S.S. Wise New Statement on Question After War
In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, a member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of “justice and peace.”
Mr. Greenwood, who is Deputy Leader of the British Labor party, declared that in the new world the “conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted.”
He added that after the war an opportunity would be given to Jews everywhere to make a “distinctive and constructive contribution” in the rebuilding of the world.
The message was delivered last week to Dr. Stephen S. Wise, chairman of the executive committee of the World Jewish Congress, by Rabbi Maurice L. Perzweig, chairman of the British section of the congress. Rabbi Perizweig arrived from England Monday evening.
Intention to Right Wrongs
Comparing the statement with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, D. Wise declared that in a sense it had “wider and farther reaching implications,” as it dealt with the status of Jews throughout the world.
He said that Mr. Greenwood’s message could be interpreted as a statement of England’s firm intention to help right the wrongs which Jews have suffered and continue to suffer today because of Hitler’s “disorder and lawlessness.”
Mr. Greenwood, sending the Jews of America a message of “encouragement and warm good wishes,” wrote: “The tragic fate of the Jewish victims of Nazi tyranny has, as you know, filed us with deep emotion.
The speeches of responsible statesmen in Parliament and at the League of Nations during the last seven years have reflected the horror with which the people of this country have viewed the Nazi relapse into barbarism.
“The British Government sought again to secure some amelioration of the lot of persecuted Jewry both in Germany itself and in the countries which were infected by the Nazi doctrine of racial hatred.
Today the same sinister power which has trampled on its own defenseless minorities, and by fraud and force has temporarily robbed many small peoples of their independence, has challenged the last stronghold of liberty in Europe.
New World Order Forecast
“When we have achieved victory, as we assuredly shall, the nations will have the opportunity of establishing a new world order based on the ideals of justice and peace.
In such a world it is our confident hope that the conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted.
“In the rebuilding of civilized society after the war, there should and will be a real opportunity for Jews everywhere to make a distinctive and constructive contribution; and all men of good-will must assuredly hope that in new Europe the Jewish people, in whatever country they may live, will have the freedom and full equality before the law with every other citizen.”
In an interview at the Hotel Astor, Rabbi Perlzweig declared he was certain Mr. Greenwood “speaks for England.”
There is a clear realization, he added, that freedom and emancipation for the Jewish people are tied up with emancipation and freedom for people everywhere.
The message, Rabbi Perlzweig remarked, was the subject of earnest consideration by the British Government.
“This is a declaration on behalf of the whole world,” he observed. “Here the British Government expresses clearly what it hopes will take place after the war is won.”
Nobody is pushing” the conflict in Ukraine more than US State Department official Victoria Nuland, Twitter CEO Elon Musk said on Wednesday. Nuland, who helped to orchestrate the pro-Western coup in Kiev in 2014, has backed military strikes on the Russian territory of Crimea.
Nuland’s declaration last Thursday that Russian military bases in Crimea are “legitimate targets” for Ukrainian forces was interpreted by the Kremlin as proof of “US involvement in the Ukraine conflict.”
In a post on Telegram, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned that Moscow would respond to such attacks “using weapons of any kind.”
“Nobody is pushing this war more than Nuland,” wrote Musk, who has previously warned that nuclear war could break out unless Ukraine abandons its claims to Crimea and both sides agree to peace talks.
As assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs in 2014, Nuland helped organize the coup that saw Ukraine’s democratically-elected president, Viktor Yanukovich, replaced with the pro-Western Pyotr Poroshenko, who then began a campaign of military repression against the people of Donetsk and Lugansk.
That includes the financial system, security apparatus, Pentagon, politicians, courts, judges, police, schools, intellectual property, natural resources, utilities, media, big corporations, technology, and whatever else I failed to mention.
It implies the existence of nation-state governance.
Today’s US is an amalgamation of corporations and parasitic financial institutions largely run by Rothschild Zionists.
America isn’t a nation, it’s a corporate empire, or more accurately- ZioCorp.
First a disclaimer.
When I use terms like “ZOG” or “ZioCorp,” I am not referring to “Fiddler on the Roof” Jews or Moe, Larry, and Curly.
I mean a global criminal banking syndicate headed by satanic usurer Jews and their eugenics-obsessed Rockefeller crime family associate who employ Rothschild Zionists and globalists of all stripes to prop up a business model that rests on the pillars of debt slavery, spiritual/physical destruction, and planetary rape.
I harbor no ill will toward any race, religion, ethnic group, consenting adult orientation, or gender. In Tao, internal transcends external.
Second disclaimer (or notice).
I sometimes use colorful language.
This article is not suitable for delicate ladies or children. If that’s you, stop reading.
ZioCorp owns everything.
That includes the financial system, security apparatus, Pentagon, politicians, courts, judges, police, schools, intellectual property, natural resources, utilities, media, big corporations, technology, and whatever else I failed to mention.
ZioCorp holds full spectrum dominance over its subjects.
Neoliberal capitalism enabled ZioCorp to commoditize everything- including human beings.
Not content with owning every grain of sand and drop of water, global finance wants the proprietary rights to your DNA, internal organs, blood and lymphatic systems, and thought processes.
They changed the name of the personnel department to human resources.
That wasn’t by accident. You are a harvestable resource.
ZioCorp isn’t like the traditional dictatorship run by a mustachioed strong man.
Decisions are made in boardrooms by people you will never see or know.
It’s what political philosopher Sheldon Wolin called “inverted totalitarianism.”
ZioCorp’s loyal servants come from all races, genders, and religions.
Don’t think because you are White or Black, and you get a White or Black judge, he or she will go easier on you.
It’s like the NWA “F*ck the Police” rap song says: “But don’t let it be a Black and a White one.
Cause they’ll slam ya down to the street top.
Black police showin’ out for the White cop.”
The song’s point being the Black cop beats down the Black arrestee harder to gain approval from his White partner.
Your racial brethren will kick your face in twice as hard to prove their loyalty to ZioCorp.
See Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, etc.
To understand ZioCorp, we need to explore capitalism, and more importantly, the inherent flaws within it that made the current situation possible.
Some people freak over any critique of capitalism, as they regard it as an attack on American patriotism.
After all, America was founded as a capitalist country
Someone from the reactionary right is reading this and thinking: “Criticize capitalism?!
You Antifa pinko communist Marxist Jew.
You just want to take my money and give it to some #BLM crack ho and her kids.
F*ck you and the menorah you rode in on.”
Easy sheriff. To quote American Psycho’s Patrick Bateman, “Cool it with the anti-semitic remarks.”
Pretend you’re at one of those 5-star luxury ashrams frequented by rich White broads and the Maharishi’s at the head of the class telling you to go ommmmm. Breathe baby, breathe.
I recognize that capitalism contains positive aspects.
It can take the selfishness and egotism found within human nature and channel those traits into productive outcomes.
Ethical entrepreneurs produce amazing things.
Some people express their creativity through small business ownership.
Because it focuses on “the individual,” capitalism gave us the Bill of Rights.
Millennia of buying and selling have ingrained market thinking into the human psyche.
Even non-technological societies use beads and bird feathers to conduct transactions.
I’m not suggesting eliminating money.
Imagine buying a car on Craigslist if you needed to show up with a herd of sheep to take home a Camry.
However, capitalism also destroys the “collective.”
Unchecked, it devours everything in its path.
It eats the poor, working class, middle class, and eventually the upper middle class.
It also destroys the environment, leaving us with radioactive oceans and poisoned rivers.
In end-stage capitalism, oligarchs fight each other for the last slice of cherry pie while the masses drown in a sea of economic and social chaos. Sound familiar?
Of all the nations, China seems most willing to experiment with different economic paradigms.
They may eventually lead humanity to a post-scarcity Star Trek economy where people work for their purpose rather than a paycheck.
Whether they succeed or not is indeterminate at this juncture.
City of London bankers plan on turning China into corporate headquarters after the US collapses.
Global finance has an impressive track record with national infiltration and takeover.
Never underestimate their capabilities.
The former United States republic now US Anglo-Zionist Empire stands as the textbook model for banker takeover.
How’d it happen?
For the sake of brevity, I’ll provide the sped-up Dr. Morell B12- cocaine-amphetamine elixir version.
The Founding Fathers “American Experiment” sought to replace monarchical rule with rule by the “Invisible Hand of Capitalism.”
As per their guru John Locke, the cornerstone of the new republic became economics and private property.
Being wealthy landowners gave the Founding Fathers a huge advantage.
Their willingness to commoditize African slaves to save on labor costs demonstrates their religious devotion to capitalism.
To get the hoi polloi to fight for the new system, the nouveau plutocrats promised them constitutional rights and fat land grants.
Why else would the soldiers freeze their asses off at Valley Forge? While the average White male gained some groovy civil liberties, the founding Fathers reneged on the land grants and other promised perks.
George Washington’s crushing of the farmers’ “Whisky Rebellion” laid the foundation for an IRS police state and oligarchic rule.
In the 1800s, French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans were obsessed with getting rich.
A money-driven nation becomes an easy mark for Central Bankers.
The US Civil War allowed the Rothschilds to get their intractable foot in the bank vault door.* (*Sarah E.V. Emery, “Seven Financial Conspiracies Which Have Enslaved The American People.”)
This was followed by the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which turned over US money creation to the international financiers.
A move that resulted in the theft of hundreds of trillions of dollars.
After the US became the bankers’ central hub, it needed a permanent war machine to keep the global grift going.
In his prescient farewell address, Eisenhower warned about the dangers of a runaway Military Industrial Complex.
The Wall Street-inflicted Great Depression almost sank capitalism.
FDR instituted bank reforms and social safety nets to save his fellow plutocrats and the flailing system.
In their insatiable greed, the banker class started chipping away at the policies that both rescued them and created a stable middle class.
Bit by bit, the hued-out spaces were filled with corporate cement.
Saint Ronald Reagan’s eyedropper “trickle-down economics” deregulated the banks and corporations and laid the finishing girders for the corporatist dystopia skyscraper.
Reagan’s firing of the striking air traffic controllers destroyed organized labor, and the standard of living previously enjoyed by the working class.
Bill Clinton completed the edifice with NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagall banking rules, outsourcing of the manufacturing base, and steroidal Mr. Universe corporate deregulation.
Many Americans went along with these policies in hopes they’d become rich enough to garner an invite to the Donald Trump-P Diddy-Miss America contestant hot tub party.
A big problem with making money the cornerstone of a society is that you get a Ralph Kramden population forever searching for the next “no money down” get-rich-quick infomercial scheme.
If that doesn’t work, play the lottery.
“You’ve got to be in it to win it.”
After the 9/11 zio-attack, George W. Bush told Americans to “go shopping.”
The oligarchy kept the serfs hoofing it by dangling dreams of solid gold Trump toilet bowls and oil sheik mega yachts coupled with fear of death by predatory capitalism.
However, even Rush Limbaugh devotee ding dongs are beginning to realize the game is rigged.
The glass ceiling of upward mobility has turned to lead.
This revelation tends to upset people. “Fight Club’s” Tyler Durden said it best: “We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d be millionaires, movie gods, and rock stars.
But we won’t.
We’re slowly learning that fact.
And we’re very very pissed off.”
Damn straight b!tch.
Give us our free sh!t or burn this motherf*cker to the ground. Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer, and their corporate donors are stealing whatever’s not welded to the floor.
If you’re middle/working class, take anything and everything from the “government” that you can, and use it to stock up on ammo, freeze-dried food, and Johnny Walker Blue Label.
Fight for your share of the loot before the Central Bankers install their NWO digital currency.
Then the faucets get superglue tightened.
In the meantime, fly in the helicopter money you child-raping globalist scum.
Riot for UBI or let the old lady work so you can stay home and practice your tiger claw thrust and flying tortoise shell trachea strike.
Civil war and economic crash ahead. Let the robots flip the burgers.
AI can man the call centers.
Employers broke the social contract when they forced workers to get the DARPA vax.
If you succumbed because you dislike sleeping in the street then hopefully you received your dose from the control or low-concentration batch.
If they injured you or ruined the DNA your ancestors fought saber tooth tigers to give you, you’d need to put in serious work to make that right.
That could include some weekends and holidays.
While not easy, leveling that karma would be better than Norma Jean’s sweet cherry pie.
As a side note- I’m not an anti-vax zealot.
If an adult wants to take the mRNA vaccine, that’s their business.
Just don’t mandate it.
And stop releasing “gain of function” bioweapons on the public.
Back to “free government cheese.”
Mention universal healthcare, UBI, or free college, and the Ben Shapiro ziotarian kicks out his “we can’t afford it” auto-response.
We can’t afford universal healthcare but the 2008 29 trillion dollar banker bailout (CNBC Money) was totally doable.
And so was the 6 trillion dollar Iraq War that Shapiro pushed.
And the hundreds of billions in corporate subsidies.
And the trillions we send to Israel either directly or through fighting their wars.
According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, it would take 20 billion dollars to end homelessness in the US.
That’s half of one Ukraine War installment payment.
In controlled scarcity capitalism, they don’t want to end homelessness.
The homeless guy scrounging the trash for bottles reminds you that you can never quit your sh!t job- even if it means submitting to medical experimentation.
Ziocapitalism is a scam.
Not only could we have universal healthcare (medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US- American Journal of Public Health), but that stolen loot could provide every American with a 100 grand check and a gold-plated Cadillac.
It’s not that the average American wouldn’t mind breaking a few bucks off their paycheck so Billy the Orphan could get his leukemia treatments, but once the wallet cracks a little, the government inserts its tire jack and cranks it all the way open.
Then the bread gets funneled to the pig trough where Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea stick their snouts in it. Or it gets turned into rainbow flag bombs that get dropped on Middle East kids.
Big corporations and oligarch billionaires don’t pay taxes.
Even if a few sometimes pay “for show taxes,” that money is looped back to them via the Central Bankers.
If you can’t afford an army of tax lawyers and offshore corporation setups, you pay.
If you get snared in an IRS audit, you could get fisted harder than a twink in a Gay pride parade S&M float.
Taxation is a ZioCorp scam. Advances in monetary technology make taxation obsolete.
Public banking as advocated by economists like Ellen Brown along with new high-tech financial tools would allow Billy to get his cancer medicine and you to hold on to your bread.
ZioCorp keeps the IRS around to smash small businesses and the middle class.
Taxation is a police state tool that allows the parasites to strip you of your assets and throw you in prison.
Step on a crack, and the IRS charges you with breaking your momma’s back.
If we don’t raise taxes, does that mean the Fed cartel should print even more Ponzi digital dollars to pay for social safety nets?
Absolutely. The stated US debt is 30 trillion.
According to Forbes, the actual debt is 200 trillion.
It doesn’t matter if it hits 500 gazillion. It’s unpayable. When it pops, it pops.
From a theoretical perspective, if a society evolves technologically, robots and AI (or machine learning) replace human labor.
If it comes down to Universal Basic Income or Davos depopulation- I choose UBI.
It’s going to take some real Jimmy Hoffa UBI teamsters to make it happen.
In my unscientific estimate, 80 percent of ‘Murican men are either weak p*ssy momma whores, zipper brains, or in most cases, both.
About 20 percent are solid cats with 1-5 percent of those being psycho-warriors. The 20 percent determine how it goes.
The political class are criminals.
They understand your wanting cash.
That’s not subversive, like asking for free speech or an end to the zio-wars.
They might cough up a few bucks out of self-interest with the proper application of pressure.
The Hollywood celebrity “c*ntessa” with 50 million Instagram followers means nothing to me.
It’s the working man (and woman) who ships food to my table and keeps the lights on.
They deserve their cut.
As does the orphan and widow.
As for Hollywood- keep Sean Penn.
While I liked him in “The Falcon and the Snowman,” Bill Gates pumped so much mRNA jizz up his ass, it shot out his nose like milk during a laughing fit.
I think the high force pressure caused brain damage.
Capitalism creates billionaires.
Billionaires destroy civil society. I can live with millionaires.
Billionaires buy your government, e.g., Citizens United v FEC. I don’t care how many “checks and balances” get put in place, at some point they bribe the gatekeepers.
I think the best solution is to impose a 5 million dollar per year personal wealth cap.
If an ethical entrepreneur makes more than that, let him put it in trust for his kids (who have the same cap), reinvest in new ventures, or donate the surplus to Sister Mary’s orphanage.
No Bill Gates fake philanthropic foundations please.
If you can’t live the good life on an annual 5 million tax-free salary, you’re what “Scarface” called a “haza” (chazzer).
What’s a haza?
Like Tony Montana explained to his former boss Frank Lopez, “You remember what a haza is Frank?
It’s a pig that don’t fly straight.”
The rentier capitalism parasite FIRE economy is a haza system.
When it comes to billionaire-bought political systems, the US has no rival.
I’m amazed people still vote. Dominion should install a seat with an electric cattle prod dildo in their rigged voting booths.
That would provide Americans with a more authentic voting experience.
Keep jerking off to hope porn and Marjorie Taylor Greene pics.
I prefer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
To help cover the congressional pay raise, MTG and AOC could star together in a girl-on-girl pay-per-view special.
Highrollers could book private sessions. Caligula put the senators’ wives to work in the imperial brothel.
I think that sister f*cker was on to something.
Even if you remove the zio from capitalism, it contains fundamental flaws.
Take the Apple iPhone.
I don’t know how often Apple comes out with a new model, but for the sake of this exercise, pretend it’s once a year.
Apple probably has all the “bells and whistles” that they’re going to install over the next ten years.
However, if Apple sells you an indestructible iPhone with the next ten years of bells and whistles on it, the company loses money.
They would have sold you one iPhone instead of ten.
To maximize Apple’s profits and meet consumer demand, the CIA overthrows reformist governments to keep the lithium flowing and the planet turns into a toxic waste dump.
The GDP endless growth/consumption model is crashing hard.
The globalist oligarchs who created the problem have come up with the solution- and a final one at that.
People are tired of the “Capitalism is Jesus” Ayn Rand rap.
So am I. Full disclosure- I liked “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
As for Jesus, his program was a lot closer to pre-2016 Bernie Sanders’ than Milton Friedman’s.
However you view capitalism, or socialism, or Rosicrucianism, or purple flying unicorns named Mandy- it doesn’t really matter.
We’ve entered end-stage capitalism/Great Reset/Tribulation, with no return bus to Mayberry.
ZioCorp’s opted for the controlled collapse business model.
Will it remain on top after the freakshow carnival tent folds in on itself?
I don’t know. I’m stupid. That’s why I follow Tao.
Several U.S. tech giants including Google, Microsoft and Intel Corporation have filled top positions with former members of Israeli military intelligence and are heavily investing in their Israeli branches while laying off thousands of American employees, all while receiving millions of dollars in U.S. government subsidies funded by American taxpayers.
Start-Up Nation Central, billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer’s project to bolster Israel’s tech economy at the expense of American workers, was founded in response to the global Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to use nonviolent means to pressure Israel to comply with international law in relation to its treatment of Palestinians:
WITH NEARLY 6 MILLION AMERICANS UNEMPLOYED, and regular bouts of layoffs in the U.S. tech industry, major American tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Intel Corporation are nonetheless moving key operations, billions in investments, and thousands of jobs to Israel—a trend that has largely escaped media attention or concern from even “America first” politicians.
The fact that this massive transfer of investment and jobs has been so overlooked is particularly striking given that it is largely the work of a single leading neoconservative Republican donor who has given millions of dollars to President Donald Trump.
Many of the top tech companies continue to shift investment and jobs to Israel at record rates even as they collect sizable U.S. government subsidies for their operations while they move critical aspects of their business abroad.
The trend is particularly troubling in light of the importance of the tech sector to the overall U.S. economy, as it accounts for 7.1 percent of total GDP and 11.6 percent of total private-sector payroll.
Furthermore, many of these companies are hiring, as top managers and executives, the members of controversial Israeli companies known to have spied on American citizens, U.S. companies, and U.S. federal agencies, as well as numerous members of Israeli military intelligence.
This massive transfer of the American tech industry has largely been the work of one leading Republican donor—billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer—who also funds the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Islamophobic and hawkish think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), and also funded the now-defunct Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).
Singer’s project to bolster Israel’s tech economy at American expense is known as “Start-Up Nation Central,” which he founded in response to the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to use nonviolent means to pressure Israel to comply with international law in its treatment of Palestinians.
This project is directly linked to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who in recent years has publicly mentioned that it has been his “deliberate policy” to have former members of Israel’s “military and intelligence units…merge into companies with local partners and foreign partners” in order to make it all but impossible for major corporations and foreign governments to boycott Israel.
Singer’s nonprofit organization has acted as the vehicle through which Netanyahu’s policy has been realized, via the group’s close connections to the Israeli PM and Singer’s long-time support for Netanyahu and the Likud Party. With deep ties to Netanyahu, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and controversial tech companies—like Amdocs—that spied on the American government, this Singer-funded organization has formed a nexus of connections between the public and private sectors of both the American and Israeli economies with the single goal of making Israel the new technology superpower, largely at the expense of the American economy and the U.S. government, which currently gives $3.8 billion in annual aid to Israel.
RESEARCHED AND DEVELOPED IN ISRAEL
In recent years, the top U.S. tech companies have been shifting many of their most critical operations, particularly research and development, to one country: Israel.
A 2016 report in Business Insider noted that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple had all opened up research and development (R&D) centers in recent years, with some of them having as many as three such centers in Israel, a country roughly the size of New Jersey.
Other major tech companies that have also opened key operation and research centers in Israel include SanDisk, Nvidia, PayPal, Palantir and Dell. Forbes noted last year that the world’s top 10 tech companies were now “doing mission-critical work in Israel that’s core to their businesses back at HQ.”
Yet, some of these tech giants, particularly those based in the United States, are heavily investing in their Israeli branches.
For example, Intel Corporation, which is the world’s second largest manufacturer of semiconductor computer chips and is headquartered in California, has long been a major employer in Israel, with over 10,000 employees in the Zionist state.
However, earlier this year, Intel announced that it would be investing $11 billion in a new factory in Israel and would receive around $1 billion in an Israeli government grant for that investment.
Just a matter of months after Intel announced its major new investment in Israel, it announced a new round of layoffs in the United States.
Yet this is just one recent example of what has become a trend for Intel. In 2018, Intel made public its plan to invest $5 billion in one of its Israeli factories and had invested an additional $15 billion in Israeli-created autonomous driving technology a year prior, creating thousands of Intel jobs in Israel.
Notably, over a similar time frame, Intel has cut nearly 12,000 jobs in the United States.
While this great transfer of investment and jobs was undermining the U.S. economy and hurting American workers, particularly in the tech sector, Intel received over $25 million dollars in subsidies from the U.S. government.
A similar phenomenon has been occurring at another U.S.-based tech giant, Microsoft. Beginning in 2014 and continuing into 2018, Microsoft laid off well over 20,000 employees, most of them Americans, in several different rounds of staff cuts.
Over that same time period, Microsoft has been on a hiring spree in Israel, building new campuses and investing billions of dollars annually in its Israel-based research and development center and in other Israeli start-up companies, creating thousands of jobs abroad.
In addition, Microsoft has been pumping millions of dollars into technology programs at Israeli universities and institutes, such as the Technion Institute.
Over this same time frame, Microsoft has received nearly $197 million in subsidies from the state governments of Washington, Iowa and Virginia.
Israeli politicians and tech company executives have attributed this dramatic shift to Israel’s tech prowess and growing reputation as a technological innovation hub, obscuring Singer’s effort in concert with Netanyahu to counter a global movement aimed at boycotting Israel and to make Israel a global “cyber power.”
START-UP NATION CENTRAL AND THE NEOCONS
In 2009, a book titled Start Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle, written by American neoconservative Dan Senor and Jerusalem Post journalist Saul Singer (unrelated to Paul), quickly rose to the New York Times bestseller list for its depiction of Israel as the tech start-up capital of the world.
The book—published by the Council on Foreign Relations, where Senor was then serving as adjunct senior fellow—asserts that Israel’s success in producing so many start-up companies resulted from the combination of its liberal immigration laws and its “leverage of the business talents of young people with military experience.”
In a post-publication interview with the blog Freakonomics, Senor asserted that service in the Israeli military was crucial to Israel’s tech sector success.
“Certain units have become technology boot camps, where 18- to 22-year-olds get thrown projects and missions that would make the heads spin of their counterparts in universities or the private sector anywhere else in the world,” wrote Senor and Singer.
“The Israelis come out of the military not just with hands-on exposure to next-gen technology, but with training in teamwork, mission orientation, leadership, and a desire to continue serving their country by contributing to its tech sector—a source of pride for just about every Israeli.”
The book, in addition to the many accolades it received from the mainstream press, left a lasting impact on top Republican donor Paul Singer, known for funding the most influential neoconservative think tanks in America, as noted above.
Paul Singer was so inspired by Senor and Singer’s book that he decided to spend $20 million to fund and create an organization with a similar name.
He created Start-Up Nation Central (SUNC) several years after the book’s release in 2009.
To achieve his vision, Singer—who is also a top donor to the Republican Party and Trump—tapped Israeli economist Eugene Kandel, who served as Netanyahu’s national economic adviser and chaired the Israeli National Economic Council from 2009 to 2015.
Senor was likely directly involved in the creation of SUNC, as he was then employed by Paul Singer and, with neoconservatives Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, co-founded the FPI.
In addition, Dan Senor’s sister, Wendy Singer (unrelated to either Paul or Saul), long-time director of Israel’s AIPAC office, became the organization’s executive director.
SUNC’s management team, in addition to Eugene Kandel and Wendy Singer, includes Guy Hilton as the organization’s general manager.
Hilton is a long-time marketing executive at Israeli telecommunications company Amdocs and is credited with having “transformed” the company’s marketing organization.
Amdocs was once highly controversial in the United States after it was revealed by a 2001 Fox News investigation that numerous federal agencies had investigated the company, which then had contracts with the 25 largest telephone companies in the country, for its alleged role in an aggressive espionage operation that targeted the U.S. government.
Hilton worked at Microsoft prior to joining Amdocs.
Beyond the management team, SUNC’s board of directors includes Paul Singer, Dan Senor and Terry Kassel—who work for Singer at his hedge fund, Elliott Management—and Raphael Ouzan.
An officer in the elite foreign military intelligence unit of Israel, Unit 8200, Ouzan co-founded BillGuard the day after he left that unit, which is often compared to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
Within five months of its founding, BillGuard was backed by funding from PayPal founder Peter Thiel and former CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt.
Ouzan is also connected to U.S. tech companies that have greatly expanded their Israeli branches since SUNC’s founding—such as Microsoft, Google, PayPal and Intel, all of which support Ouzan’s non-profit Israel Tech Challenge.
According to reports from the time published in Haaretz and Bloomberg, SUNC was explicitly founded to serve as “a foreign ministry for Israel’s tech industry” and “to strength Israel’s economy” while also aiming to counter the BDS movement, as well as the growth of illegal Jewish-only settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.
Since its founding, SUNC has sought to transfer tech jobs from foreign companies to Israel by developing connections and influence with foreign governments and companies so that they “deepen their relationship with Israel’s tech industry.”
Although SUNC has since expanded to include other sectors of the Israeli “start-up” economy, its focus has long remained on Israel’s tech, specifically its cybersecurity industry. Foreign investment in this single Israeli industry has grown from $227 million in 2014 to $815 million in 2017.
In addition to its own activities, SUNC appears to be closely linked to a similar organization, sponsored by Coca-Cola and Daimler Mercedes-Benz, called The Bridge, which also seeks to connect Israeli start-up companies with large international corporations.
Indeed, SUNC, according to its website, was actually responsible for Daimler Mercedes Benz’s decision to join The Bridge, thanks to a delegation from the company that SUNC hosted in Israel and the connections made during that visit.
TEAMING UP WITH ISRAEL’S UNIT 8200
Notably, SUNC has deep ties to Israel’s military intelligence Unit 8200 and, true to Start-Up Nation’s praise of IDF service as key to Israel’s success, has been instrumental in connecting Unit 8200 alumni with key roles in foreign companies, particularly American tech companies.
For instance, Maty Zwaig, a former lieutenant colonel in Unit 8200, is SUNC’s current director of human capital programs, and SUNC’s current manager of strategic programs, Tamar Weiss, is also a former member of the unit.
One particularly glaring connection between SUNC and Unit 8200 is Inbal Arieli, who served as SUNC’s vice president of strategic partnerships from 2014 to 2017 and continues to serve as a senior adviser to the organization.
A former lieutenant in Unit 8200, Arieli is the founder and head of the 8200 Entrepreneurship and Innovation Support Program (EISP), which was the first start-up accelerator in Israel aimed at harnessing “the vast network and entrepreneurial DNA of [Unit] 8200 alumni” and is currently one of the top company accelerators in Israel. Arieli was the top executive at 8200 EISP while working at SUNC.
Another key connection between SUNC and Unit 8200 is SUNC’s promotion of Team8, a company-creation platform whose CEO and co-founder is Nadav Zafrir, former commander of Unit 8200. In addition to prominently featuring Team8 and Zafrir on the cybersecurity section of its website, SUNC also sponsored a talk by Zafrir and an Israeli government economist at the World Economic Forum, often referred to as “Davos,” that was attended personally by Paul Singer.
Team8’s investors include Google’s Eric Schmidt, Microsoft, and Walmart—and it recently hired former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, retired Admiral Mike Rogers. Team8 described the decision to hire Rogers as being “instrumental in helping strategize” Team8’s expansion in the United States. However, Jake Williams, a veteran of NSA’s Tailored Access Operations hacking unit, told CyberScoop:
“Rogers is not being brought into this role because of his technical experience …It’s purely because of his knowledge of classified operations and his ability to influence many in the U.S. government and private-sector contractors.”
In addition to connections to Unit 8200-linked groups like Team8 and 8200 EISP, SUNC also directly collaborates with the IDF in an initiative aimed at preparing young Israeli women to serve in Unit 8200.
That initiative, called the CyberGirlz Club, is jointly funded by Israel’s Defense Ministry, SUNC and the Rashi Foundation, the philanthropic organization set up by the Leven family of Perrier-brand water, which has close ties to the Israeli government and IDF.
“Our aim is to bring the girls to this process already skilled, with the knowledge needed to pass the exams for Unit 8200 and serve in the military as programmers,” Zwaig told Israel National News.
SEEDING AMERICAN TECH
Yaniv Bar (l) and Udi Cohen, former Israeli intelligence officers and founders of the start-up Aclim8, demonstrate their co-developed “COMBAR” all-in-one hiking tool for “weekend warriors,” at their office in the northern Israeli Kibbutz of Maayan Tzvi, May 21, 2018. Israel’s military is an incubator for future high-tech firms started by former soldiers. (JACK GUEZ/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
The connections between SUNC and Unit 8200 are troubling for more than a few reasons, one being that Unit 8200, often likened to the NSA, closely coordinates with Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, and is responsible for 90 percent of the intelligence material obtained by the Israeli government, according to its former commander Yair Cohen.
“There isn’t a major operation, from the Mossad or any intelligence security agency, that 8200 is not involved in,” Cohen told Forbes in 2016.
An organization founded by an American billionaire is thus actively promoting the presence of former military intelligence officers in foreign companies, specifically American companies, while also promoting the transfer of jobs and investment to that same country.
Particularly troubling is the fact that since SUNC’s founding, the number of former Unit 8200 members in top positions in American tech companies has skyrocketed.
Based on a non-exhaustive analysis conducted by MintPress of over 200 LinkedIn accounts of former Israeli military intelligence and intelligence officers in three major tech companies, numerous former Unit 8200 alumni were found to currently hold top managerial or executive positions in Microsoft, Google and Facebook.
The influence of Unit 8200 on these companies very likely goes deeper than this non-exhaustive analysis revealed, given that many of these companies acquired several Israeli start-ups staffed by Unit 8200 alumni who subsequently went on to found new companies and start-ups shortly after acquisition.
Furthermore, due to the limitations of LinkedIn’s set-up, MintPress was not able to access the complete list of Unit 8200 alumni at these three tech companies, meaning that the eye-opening numbers found were generated by a relatively small sample.
This jump in Unit 8200 members in top positions at tech companies of global importance is actually a policy long promoted by Netanyahu, whose long-time economic adviser is the chief executive at SUNC.
During an interview with Fox News last year, Netanyahu was asked by Fox News host Mark Levin if the large growth seen in recent years in Israel’s technology sector was part of Netanyahu’s plan.
“That’s very much my plan,” Netanyahu responded. “It’s a very deliberate policy.”
He later added that “Israel had technology because the military, especially military intelligence, produced a lot of capabilities.
These incredibly gifted young men and women who come out of the military or the Mossad, they want to start their start-ups.”
Netanyahu further outlined this policy at the 2019 Cybertech conference in Tel Aviv, where he stated that Israel’s emergence as one of the top five “cyber powers” had “required allowing this combination of military intelligence, academia and industry to converge in one place” and that this further required allowing “our graduates of our military and intelligence units to merge into companies with local partners and foreign partners.”
The direct tie-ins of SUNC to Netanyahu and the fact that Paul Singer has also been a long-time political donor and backer of Netanyahu suggest that SUNC is a key part of Netanyahu’s policy of placing former military intelligence and intelligence operatives in strategic positions in major technology companies.
Notably, just as SUNC was founded to counter the BDS movement, Netanyahu has asserted that this policy of ensuring Israel’s role as a “cyber power” is aimed at increasing its diplomatic power and specifically undermining BDS as well as the United Nations, which has repeatedly condemned Israel’s government for war crimes and violations of international law in relation to the Palestinians.
BUILDING THE BI-NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE STATE
To sum up, a powerful American billionaire has built an influential organization with deep connections to AIPAC, with an Israeli company that has been repeatedly investigated for spying on the U.S. government (Amdocs), and with the elite Israeli military intelligence Unit 8200 that has used its influential connections to the U.S. government and the private sector to dramatically shift the operations and make-up of major companies in a critical sector of the American economy.
Further consider that U.S. government documents leaked by Edward Snowden have flagged Israel as a “leading threat” to the infrastructure of U.S. financial and banking institutions, which use much of the software produced by these top tech companies, and have also flagged Israel as a top espionage threat.
One U.S. government document cited Israel as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the U.S. behind Russia and China.
Thus, Paul Singer’s pet project in Start-Up Nation Central has undermined not only the U.S. economy but arguably national security as well.
This concern is further exacerbated by the deep ties connecting top tech companies like Microsoft and Google to the U.S. military.
Microsoft and Google are both key military contractors. Microsoft is set to win a lucrative contract for the Pentagon’s cloud management and has partnered with the Department of Defense to produce a “secure” election system known as ElectionGuard that is set to be implemented in some U.S. states for the 2020 general election.
Top U.S. tech companies have filled executive positions with former members of Israeli military intelligence and moved strategic and critical operations to Israel, boosting Israel’s economy at the expense of America’s. SUNC’s role in this marked shift merits the deepest scrutiny.
WHEN THE SO-CALLED “Arab Spring” reached Libya in February 2011, it turned into a civil war.
The world witnessed massive protests of citizens demanding freedom in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, but foreign military intervention played a critical and divisive role in Libya’s bloody spring.
How did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) get involved in what should have been an internal issue?
Accusing Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi government of using heavy weapons to suppress demonstrations, the Western world went to the United Nations Security Council.
The council adopted two resolutions in the space of three weeks.
Resolution 1970, adopted on Feb. 26, 2011, imposed harsh sanctions on the country and was followed by Resolution 1973, adopted on March 17, authorizing the use of force against the Libyan government.
Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1973 contained one magical sentence that green-lighted all U.N. member states to “take all necessary measures” to “protect civilians and civilian populated areas” allegedly under attack by the Qaddafi government.
At this point the U.N. hardly understood what was happening inside Libya, yet it went ahead and, literally, invited any willing state to bomb Libya.
On March 19, France, the U.S. and UK launched the first sea and air attacks against targets inside Libya.
By the end of March, NATO took over by launching its own military operation, code-named “Unified Protector,” to enforce Resolution 1973, aiming to protect Libyan civilians by imposing a no-fly zone over the country.
At the time the entire Libyan air force and its civilian aircrafts were already grounded by Resolution 1970. More countries like Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar joined the NATO-led campaign.
NATO STRIKES IN LIBYA
On the night of Aug. 4, 2011, Mustafa al-Morabit, his wife Ibtisam, his two sons Mohamed, 5, and Mo’taz, 3, were sleeping in his home in Zlitin, about 170 k.m. east of Tripoli, Libya, when a NATO rocket hit, at 6:30 a.m., killing Ibtisam and their two children.
Until today Mustafa, who survived, still does not know who killed his family or why.
In Souq al-Juma’a district, east of the capital Tripoli, Mohamed al-Gharari was asleep on the night of June 19 when a NATO missile hit his family home, killing his brother Faraj, 48, sister Karima, 38, her 44-year-old husband ’Abdallah Shihab, and their two children, Jomana, 2, and Khaled, 7 months old. Eight others sustained injuries.
This is the only occasion in which NATO admitted that it might have killed civilians.
Later on the same day, the alliance’s statement said “NATO regrets the loss of innocent civilian lives” and blamed “a weapons system failure” as a possible cause for the strike.
The bombardment continued and civilian causalities kept mounting, but NATO never acknowledged any more civilian deaths despite conducting some 26,000 sorties over Libya.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIBYAN CASUALTIES
The destruction of Libya continued for seven months.
By the time the bombardment stopped, in October 2011, hundreds of civilians were killed, Libya was ruined and ungovernable, and Qaddafi himself was murdered, paving the way for NATO to declare victory as if it had just prevailed over a superpower.
Eleven years later, no one knows exactly how many women, children and elderly Libyans were killed.
While most deaths are well documented, a precise figure has eluded even major international rights groups who investigated what happened.
Amnesty International, for example, puts the death toll at 55 civilians while Human Rights Watch estimates the number to be 72, one-third of whom were children under the age of 8.
In the latest investigation conducted just last year by Airwars, an independent investigation web site, estimated that anywhere from 223 to 403 civilians were killed by NATO air strikes over Libya from March to October.
I conducted numerous eye-witness interviews in 2015 and think the figure is around 200 Libyans killed.
Most of the civilian deaths occurred in residential areas, private homes and farm land in more than 10 cities and towns across western Libya, including Tripoli; Surman, west of Tripoli; Bani Walid in the southwest; and Berga, east of the capital.
NATO has never investigated the deaths and still does not acknowledge any responsibility.
Over several years I wrote to NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, asking for answers, but no one answered my questions.
In October 2015 I attended a NATO-organized event in Madrid, Spain, where I confronted the alliance’s then Deputy Secretary General, Alexander Vershbow and asked whether NATO knew how many civilians were killed in Libya.
He denied that a single civilian ever was killed despite NATO admitting to at least one incident—the aforementioned incident in Souq al-Juma’a. His colleague, Catherine Royle, Political Adviser, Joint Forces Command Brunssum, refused to discuss the issue.
SEEKING JUSTICE THROUGH THE COURTS
In 2012, Khaled el-Hamedi, who lost his entire family when NATO destroyed his family residential compound in Surman, in June 2011, brought a case before a Belgian court.
Two years later his lawyer, Jan Fermon, told me that the case was rejected because NATO, as an organization, has diplomatic immunity.
In October 2021, in Paris, France Fermon reported that he is preparing to file a case before the European Court of Human Rights as a last resort to get some kind of acknowledgment and maybe an apology from the alliance.
However the prospects of getting either are pretty slim.
In 2012, survivor Mohamed al-Gharari appointed a Belgian lawyer to hold NATO accountable.
He paid him several thousand dollars but nothing happened and the lawyer never contacted him again.
Desperate, Al-Gharari turned to me asking if I could get in touch with the elusive Georges Henri Beauthier, the lawyer. I tried several times but in vain.
RESPONSE OF LIBYAN OFFICIALS
The other painful side of the tragedy for NATO victims’ families is purely Libyan.
All successive governments that have come to power in Libya since October 2011 failed to do anything to help them.
They do not seem to think that their fellow Libyan civilians killed by NATO deserve some kind of recognition.
Worst still, the entire judicial community in Libya, including private lawyers, have for political reasons shunned the issue and hesitated to even meet with the victims’ families.
The latest attempt was last summer when Al-Gharari and Al-Morabit petitioned Libya’s Prosecutor General’s Office to investigate the matter.
Several months later the petition was shelved.
Just last November I wrote to several private lawyers in Tripoli asking whether they would meet some of the victims’ anguished relatives, as a way of supporting them.
I never received any response.
Until recently, the subject of NATO’s civilian deaths was a taboo in Libya.
Talking about it publically could lead to unpleasant consequences. Libya’s new masters and their supporting militias still view NATO’s 2011 mission favorably since it ended the Qaddafi regime.
They seem to believe that all civilians killed by NATO airstrikes in 2011 were, somehow, directly associated with Qaddafi’s efforts to stay in power.
Libya today is worse off than it was when NATO ended its air campaign in October 2011, leaving the U.N. to pick up the pieces.
All U.N. efforts to broker a political settlement have so far failed. Last September the U.N. appointed its latest envoy—number eight in 11 years—to revive the political process prioritizing elections.
Abdoulaye Bathily, a former Senegalese minister, is trying to get the Libyan factions to agree to a legislative base for elections to end the long overdue transitional period.
It is unlikely that he will get anywhere, given the continuing foreign meddling in the country’s internal affairs and the corrupt political elite.
Elections were planned for Dec. 24, 2021, but they never happened. Some optimistic observers think that elections might be possible by next summer, but that is very unlikely.
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT CIVILIANS
Ironically, the 2011 military intervention in Libya was packaged as an obligation for the international community based on the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) civilians.
The civilian population’s overall situation in the country, after all these years, is much worse than it was when Resolution 1973 was enacted, ostensibly to make Libya a democratic and peaceful country.
The Libyan experience is a testimony to the difficulties associated with “humanitarian military intervention,” as it violates the U.N. Charter which cherishes the sovereignty of nations.
The involvement of NATO in Libya makes a mockery of everything the U.N. stands for.
Historically, NATO has never been successfully sued and hardly admitted any wrongdoings in the two other major interventions the alliance undertook in the former Yugoslavia (1999) and Afghanistan (2001-2021).
Almost all major international rights groups accused NATO of killing civilians in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya but the alliance never answered to such accusations.
Al-Gharari, Al-Morabit and El-Hamedi vow to continue their efforts to hold NATO accountable, however unlikely that might be. They are not giving up just yet.
Whу in God’s name are Russian lawmakers so agitated about gay marriages during a bloody war? Do they have nothing else to discuss? How is “gay propaganda” related to war with Ukraine?
She answers her own question by claiming that Putin’s friends and advisors the Kovalchuk brothers assert that gay propaganda is “all a part of a dastardly plan…by Western elites to stop the natural propagation of humanity.”
Mikhail Kovalchuk, and by extension Putin, both allegedly believe that the Western transhumanist oligarchs want to divorce sex from reproduction and breed gene-edited humans “like chickens” in artificial incubators.
According to the Russian president and his friend, the Davos-Bilderberg billionaire ruling class will artificially reproduce themselves as a genetically-enhanced elite, while simultaneously breeding a robotic slave caste of docile servants.
Since free and sovereign nations like Russia, China, and Iran are pushing back against this New World Order plan, they have been targeted for extermination via bioweapons—or so Putin and Kovalchuk believe, according to the author.
“A COVID with a 100 percent mortality will come to them and cut down everybody,” Kovalchuk says, adding that the real purpose of the NWO-controlled World Health Organization and the vaccines it pushes is not to cure people but to control them.
Latynina, no coincidence theorist herself, writes:
It’s no coincidence that as early as 2017 Putin started to talk publicly about the “genetic material of Russian people” being collected and exported abroad, presumably with the pernicious intent of creating a biologically selective bioweapon, to strike only Russians.
(How such a weapon could be developed by Ukrainians, which are, according to Putin, the same people as Russians, beats me, but then, conspiracy theorists are not great on consistency).
“Beats me”?! Apparently, Latynina doesn’t realize that the people collecting Russian genetic material and running biowar labs in Ukraine were neocon Americans, not Ukrainians.
Nor has she noticed that the US neocons, perhaps avenging their persecuted ancestors from the Pale of Settlement, are fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian.”
The neocons hate Ukrainians at least as much as they hate Russians, which is why they have orchestrated a war that will destroy Ukraine and turn millions of Ukrainians into refugees or corpses.
The idea that the neocons might worry that their Russian-targeting bioweapons would also harm Ukrainians is laughable.
Killing Ukrainians as well as Russians would be, in neocon biowar terms, “not a bug, but a feature.”
But according to Latynina, Putin is a paranoid lunatic:
Don’t be mistaken: This is not just a PR ploy. This is something Putin likely believes wholeheartedly, thanks to the Kovalchuks.
The public should be aware they are almost certainly not dealing with a sane person.
They are dealing instead with a someone steeped in conspiracy theories, who believes he is fighting a crusade against gay marriages, genetically modified mosquitoes, and the Bilderbergs.
Gay marriages, genetically modified mosquitos, and especially Bilderbergers are admittedly annoying.
Bilderbergers who marry genetically modified mosquitos of their own sex are even more annoying—and confusing since it’s the female mosquitos who are equipped with the organ of penetration.
But is all of this really Putin’s major concern?
More pertinently, are Putin’s and the Kovalchuks’ fears of US biological warfare—and specifically their concerns about COVID and COVID vaccines—really so crazy?
If Putin and the Kovalchuks believe mRNA vaccines are an instrument of control, not of healing, they aren’t the only ones.
More than a few vaccine skeptics and freedom movement supporters think mRNA vaccines were deliberately designed to weaken immune systems, induce infertility, and perhaps even provide a means of tracking or controlling vax recipients.
But that probably isn’t what Putin and his friends are worried about.
Instead, they are concerned about “a COVID with a 100 percent mortality.”
(Even 50% or 10%, or 5%, if the virus were ultra-contagious, would be almost unimaginably bad.)
The mRNA vaccines might control people not by disabling them or taking over their nervous systems, but by forcing them into total dependence on the vax purveyors.
If the US Empire unleashed a plague and had a monopoly on the antidote, it would “win” the biowar.
The perpetrators presumably thought that the US lead in mRNA technology would give them control of the antidote.
Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of us, the vaccines haven’t worked very well: they don’t the slow transmission, their protective effect wears off quickly, and the endless boosters soon elicit diminishing returns and possible immune system damage.
The failure of mRNA biowar vaccines to contain biowar COVID will likely discourage future US biological attacks, at least until the next round of ostensible antidotes is developed.
In any case, Putin has real reasons to be concerned about the dozens of American biowar labs scattered around Russia’s borders.
Whatever one thinks of his opposition to transhumanist attempts to separate sexuality from reproduction, and his contempt for the Davos and Bilderberg oligarchical elites, Putin’s “conspiracy theories” about the threat of US biological attacks on his nation are obviously well-founded.
Historic Palestine has long had an abundance of natural resources, ranging from fresh and ground water, arable land and, more recently, oil and natural gas.
In the seven decades since the establishment of the state of Israel, these resources have been compromised and exploited through a variety of measures.
These include widespread Palestinian dispossession of land in the ongoing Nakba, exploitation of water through failed negotiations, and a finders-keepers approach to gas and oil found in or under occupied land.
(CHICAGO) — Israel wants it all. For decades, it’s been systematically stealing Palestinian land and resources.
Al Haq’s new report provides more evidence.
Titled, “Pillage of the Dead Sea: Israel’s Unlawful Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” it details grand theft and war crimes.
They benefit Jews by harming Palestinians. More on it below.
Yesh Din defends Palestinian human rights. It exposes Israeli abuses. It champions long denied accountability.
In March 2009, it petitioned Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ).
It wants lawless West Bank mining operations stopped. Israel and 11 Israeli corporations steal Palestinian resources rightfully theirs.
It demanded all quarrying and mining activities cease.
It argued that Israeli companies pillage Palestinian resources for profit and Israel’s benefit.
Doing so also violates fundamental international law. As an occupying power, Israel is obligated to protect, not exploit, Palestinian rights.
On Dec. 26, 2011, the HCJ rejected Yesh Din’s petition. It sanctioned lawless pillage. On Jan. 10, 2012, Yesh Din requested another hearing before a broader panel of judges.
Seven distinguished Israeli legal experts stood with Yesh Din.
They took issue with the Court’s ruling.
Their collective opinion matters.
It provides greater impact.
On July 25, 2012, the HCJ spurned Yesh Din again.
In his decision, retired Deputy President Judge Eliezer Rivlin said the December 2011 ruling rejected Yesh Din’s petition mainly because Israel and the Palestinian Authority addressed the issue earlier. They agreed to an interim 1995 deal.
He failed to explain its terms.
It explicitly said “quarries must be transferred to the Palestinian side within 18 months.” Israel still controls them.
The Court’s ruling OK’d its right to steal.
THE COURT’S JUDGEMENT
Seven leading international law experts disagree.
They unequivocally call Israel’s mining operations lawless.
In their judgment, the Court’s ruling was troublesome.
Judge Rivlin addressed their opinion, saying, “I did not ignore the opinion of the experts on international law submitted in support of the petitioner’s argument.
The learned opinion raises important questions and analyzes them most skillfully and eruditely.”
“However, in the concrete circumstances of this case, since no precedent was set in the decision that would justify a further hearing, there is no need to discuss them at this stage.”
In response, Yesh Din attorney Shlomy Zachary said, “This decision by the High Court of Justice recognizes the serious flaws of the court’s decision on the original petition, and mutes its conclusions.”
“The court is also aware that the decision’s determinations must be decided in the future, and therefore the decision on the concrete matter cannot serve as a binding precedent.”
“The opinion of the leading experts from Israel’s universities, submitted as part of this case, added another level that reinforced the need to minimize the determinations about this matter, and we welcome that.”
Israel’s High Court tried having it both ways. In initially rejecting Yesh Din’s petition, HCJ President Dorit Beinisch said, “The belligerent occupation of Israel in the area has some unique characteristics, primarily the duration of the occupation period that requires the adjustment of the law to the reality on the ground, which imposes a duty upon Israel to ensure normal life for a period, which … is certainly long-term.”
At the same time, the Court spurned international law. It also dismissed the opinion of seven distinguished Israeli legal experts.
Their judgment is indisputable. Rule of law principles back it. It carries weight. It concluded saying “the license granted to Israeli corporations to mine exhaustible natural minerals in territory under belligerent occupation is illegal.”
High Court judges know it but ignored them and fundamental international law anyway.
Their ruling was not only dishonest, it was convoluted.
HOW THE DECISION AFFECTS THE PEOPLE
Outrageously, the Court said militarized occupation and Israeli Civil Administration operations benefit Palestinians.
In other words, controlling them at the point of a gun and pillaging their resources helps.
How, the Court didn’t explain. It merely said, “Royalties paid to the Civil Administration by the operators of the quarries are used to finance the operations of the military administration, which promotes various kinds of projects aimed to benefit the interests of the area.”
Stealing what’s theirs doesn’t help. Military occupation spurns their rights. Employment for small numbers of Palestinians at slave wages neither benefits them or the collective population.
Virtually all resources mined help Israel and its settlements. Mining fees, levies and royalties flow straight to Israeli state coffers. Palestinians are denied what’s rightfully theirs.
Al Haq’s report offers more proof. Black’s Law Dictionary calls pillage “the forcible taking of private property by an invading or conquering army from the enemy’s subjects.”
The 1907 Hague Regulations, Fourth Geneva and other international laws prohibit doing so under all circumstances.
The Statute of International Criminal Court calls “pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault,” a war crime.
Various military manuals prohibit pillage/plunder. The U.N. and other international organizations condemn it.
Looting is absolutely forbidden.
It’s punishable under international, military and general statute laws.
RESOURCES BEING TAKEN
Israel spurns rule of law principles in all forms. Al Haq calls exploiting West Bank resources “the war crime of pillage.” Its report examines Israeli Dead Sea area operations.
It’s “prohibited from exploiting them in a way that undermines their capital and results in economic benefits for Israeli citizens, including settlers or for its national economy.”
The Dead Sea borders Jordan and Israel to the east and the West Bank to the west. It’s in the Jordan Rift Valley. It lies over 400 meters below sea level.
It’s 67 km long, 377 meters deep and 18 km across at its widest point. With 33.7 percent salinity, it’s one of the world’s saltiest water bodies.
In 1967, Israel seized control. Jordan previously controlled the area.
Oslo granted Israel military and administrative control. Vast land areas became closed military zones. Palestinians are denied entry to land rightfully theirs.
Since 1967, pillage accompanied occupation.
Palestinians were dispossessed from their own land and resources.
Israel stole and exploited the Dead Sea and surrounding areas by declaring them “State land.”
No legal basis whatever permits doing so.
Numerous military orders violate international law.
It’s been twisted, inverted, manipulated, distorted, undermined and spurned to justify the unjustifiable.
Israel invents its own version of reality.
Orwellian doublespeak defines it.
Fundamental occupying power obligations are violated. State authorities and settlers reap benefits.
THE DEAD SEA
At the same time, unsustainable water extraction and mining methods let water levels decrease significantly.
Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories was licensed to steal. It mines Dead Sea mud. It’s used for company products. Al Haq’s General Director, Shawan Jabarin, said, “The Israeli authorities are denying Palestinians access to their natural resources all across the OPT, but this practice is particularly evident in the occupied Dead Sea area. This also clearly demonstrates how Israel is benefiting economically from the occupation.”
“Given that the settlers in the area and Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories directly profit from the appropriation of the Dead Sea natural resources and from the trade of the products extracted and processed in this region, they should be considered as primary perpetrators of the war crime of pillage.”
Consumers have a right to know that Ahava operates illegally.
Its products use stolen Palestinian resources. Doing so costs them nearly $150 million annually.
Ahava’s based in Mitzpe Shalem settlement.
It lies on the Dead Sea’s western shore.
It’s Israel’s only company licensed to mine area mud, silt, sand, gravel and other minerals.
It operates subsidiaries in America, Britain and Germany.
Its products have unique cosmetic qualities.
They’re used for various skin disorders.
Exports provide about 60 percent of its revenue.
The remaining 40 percent comes from Israel and tourism.
The Dead Sea has unique geographical, mineral, climatic and archeological features.
Its natural resource riches include ground and surface water, springs and minerals.
It’s a potential world heritage site.
Its landscapes are stunning. Its climate is mild. Its potential for economic development is significant.
Its tourism, industry and agriculture thrive.
Israeli development plans include hotels, water parks, shopping malls and urban facilities.
Enhanced mineral and water extraction are also planned.
Palestinians are entirely deprived of what’s rightfully theirs.
The area is also environmentally vulnerable.
Its ecosystem is endangered.
At issue is over-extraction and other abuses.
The Jordan River Basin’s water system is affected.
Large sinkholes emerged.
As many as 3,000 exist.
Dead Sea shrinkage is worrisome.
It’s divided into two lakes.
Upstream water diversion projects and southern Dead Sea mining caused serious sea level erosion.
Over-exploitation is destroying the area. Domestic, agricultural and industrial wastewater flows directly into the Dead Sea.
Surrounding land areas are affected.
In 2004, Ahava got illegal mining rights.
Authority granting them must cease and desist.
Third-party states must demand it.
Pressuring Israel to stop violating international law is vital.
Aiding and abetting lawlessness can’t be tolerated.
Relations with Ahava and other Israeli companies profiteering from pillage must cease.
Importing their products is illegal.
Everything originating from settlements should be barred. Failure to do so constitutes complicity with grand theft and war crimes.
Owners of the land, which include US citizens and Palestinian residents of occupied East Jerusalem, demand the Biden Administration and Israeli government cancel plans to build a US embassy on privately-owned land.
New evidence reveals that US plans to build an embassy in Jerusalem would place the diplomatic compound on privately-owned Palestinian land that was confiscated from its owners by Israel, following the Nakba and the establishment of the state in 1948.
The owners of the land, which include US citizens and Palestinian residents of occupied East Jerusalem, are now demanding that the Biden Administration and the Israeli government move to cancel the plan.
In February of last year the US government coordinated with the Israeli government to draft plans for a large diplomatic complex in Jerusalem that would eventually house the US embassy.
The plans to build the embassy at the site date back to the 1990s, when the same Palestinian residents in question asked the US government to cancel the plans.
In a statement on Sunday, two days before US President Joe Biden’s arrival in Israel, legal rights group Adalah said that documents from Israeli state archives prove that the land was owned by Palestinian families, and leased temporarily to British Mandate authorities before 1948.
Like much of the land that became state land after the establishment of the state, the land in question was confiscated from its Palestinian owners after they were made refugees in 1948 during the Nakba.
Under the 1950 absentee property law, Israel seized large swaths of privately owned Palestinian land on the grounds that their owners, who were made refugees by Israel and prevented from returning to their homes, were “absentees.”
The Absentee Property Law has been criticized by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch “as a major tool of Israel’s oppression and domination of Palestinians within a broader Apartheid system.”
According to Adalah, archival lease agreements prove the Palestinian landowners include individuals from the Habib, Qleibo, El Khalidi, Razzaq, and El-Khalili families, among others.
Palestinian-American historian Rashid Khalidi, one of the descendants of the owners of the land, said in a statement: “The fact that the US government is now participating actively with the Israeli government in this project means that it is actively infringing on the property rights of the legitimate owners of these properties, including many US citizens.”
“If built, the US embassy compound will be located on land that was seized from Palestinians in violation of international law,” Adalah said in its statement, adding that using the Absentees’ Property Law to confiscate land in Jerusalem also violates the city’s special status under international law.
“Given these flagrant violations, in Adalah’s view, the US and Israel must cancel this plan immediately to avoid building a diplomatic complex on this land, belonging to the descendants of the original Palestinian owners, who are both East Jerusalem residents and US citizens,” Adalah said.
Our topic is of course the so-called “conflict” in Israel-Palestine, a tragedy that has dragged on for so long that it feels static, indeed almost normalized.
But unlike other deadly conflicts, this one is wholly in our power to stop—“our” meaning the United States and Europe.
It is in our power to stop it, because we are the ones empowering it.
We are now approaching the centennial of the British Original Sin in this tragedy, the Balfour Declaration.
The British role in Palestine was a case of ‘hit & run’: The Balfour Declaration, in which the British gave away other people’s land, was the hit; and thirty years later, Resolution 181—Partition—was the run, leaving the Palestinians abandoned in a ditch.
Zionism was of course among the incarnations of racial-nationalism that evolved in the late nineteenth century.
Bigots were Zionism’s avid fans—it was the anti-Semites who championed the Zionists.
Gertrude Bell, the famous English writer, traveler, archaeologist, and spy, reported, based on her personal experience, that those who supported Zionism did so because it provided a way to get rid of Jews.
The London Standard’s correspondent to the first Zionist Conference in 1897 I think described Zionism perfectly. He reported that
…the degeneration which calls itself Anti-Semitism [bear in mind that ‘anti-Semitism’ was then a very new term] has begotten the degeneration which adorns itself with the name of Zionism.
Indeed, most Jews and Jewish leaders dismissed Zionism as the latest anti-Semitic cult.
They had fought for equality, and resented being told that they should now make a new ghetto—and worse yet, to do so on other people’s land.
They resented being cast as a separate race of people as Zionism demanded.
They had had quite enough of that from non-Jewish bigots.
For others, the idea of going to a place where one could act out racial superiority was seductive.
As the political theorist Eduard Bernstein put it at about the time the Balfour Declaration was being finessed, Zionism is “a kind of intoxication which acts like an epidemic”.
By the time the Balfour Declaration was finalised, thirty-plus years of Zionist settlement had made clear that the Zionists intended to ethnically cleanse the land for a settler state based on racial superiority; and it was the behind-the-scenes demands of the principal Zionist leaders, notably Chaim Weizmann and Baron Rothschild.
While Russia has been virtually cut off from the world, Israel continues to enjoy impunity as it occupies and colonizes Palestinians’ land and imposes a brutal regime of apartheid on them. “We are like you”
Since Russia invaded Ukraine late last month, there has been no shortage of comparisons with the situation in Palestine.
For many who support Palestinian rights, there is an instinctive identification with Ukraine as a country under attack, defending itself against a much more powerful force.
No one can be indifferent to scenes of civilians experiencing the horror of war and to the lives of millions upended as they become refugees.
Campaigners for Palestinian rights have also noted the parallels – and the vastly different and hypocritical responses – to calls for boycotts of Russia and Israel, as well as the selective application of international law.
While Russia has been virtually cut off from the world, Israel continues to enjoy impunity as it occupies and colonizes Palestinians’ land and imposes a brutal regime of apartheid on them. “We are like you”
Of course, the identification of Ukraine with the plight of the Palestinians is one Ukrainian leaders insistently reject.
They see themselves as Israel and their Russian enemies, presumably, as the Palestinians.
In December, for example, President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Israel is “often an example for Ukraine” and asserted that “both Ukrainians and Jews value freedom.”
“We know what it’s like not to have [one’s] own state,” Zelensky added.
“We know what it means to defend one’s own state and land with weapons in hand, at the cost of [their] own lives.”
According to The Jerusalem Post, Zelensky has also urged that “we should be like Israel in defending our homeland.”
The Ukrainian leader, notoriously, portrayed Israel as the victim last May when its warplanes were bombarding Gaza, massacring entire Palestinian families in their homes.
In February, before the Russian invasion, Ukrainian officials even complained that Israel was treating their country “like Gaza” by not giving them enough support – implying that such perceived mistreatment should be reserved for Palestinians, not Ukrainians.
Ukrainian officials have pressed home this identification with Israel ever since the Russian invasion began.
“I think that our army is one of the best in the world. Maybe after the Israeli army,” Markiyan Lubkivskyi, an advisor to Ukraine’s defense minister told The Jerusalem Post.
“The army is very strong, because of experience and morale is very high, motivation is very high. We are like you.”
The same newspaper reported that Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of the Ukrainian capital Kiev, “says his models for how to win against all odds are Israel – a country he has visited and admires – and the IDF [Israeli army].”
“We have to learn from Israel how to defend our country, with every citizen,” Klitschko said. “Entangled”
Wherever one falls on these matters, there are deeper connections with the question of Palestine, according to Columbia University professor Joseph Massad.
“Russia and Ukraine both have relations and histories that are very much part of the history of the region which the West came to call the Middle East,” Massad told Rania Khalek on her BreakThrough News show Dispatches this week.
Massad noted that southern Ukraine and the Crimea were former Ottoman regions conquered by Russia’s tsars in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
“Ukraine’s settler-colonial city of Odessa on the Black Sea, formerly the Ottoman city of Haci Bey, was the place where Greek anti-Muslim nationalism was born at the beginning of the 19th century and where colonial Jewish Zionism was born at the end of the 19th century,” Massad said.
“In fact, the first Jewish colonists who came to colonize Palestine in the 1880s were Ukrainian Jews from the settler-colony of Odessa.”
Crimea was even identified during the Soviet period as a potential site for an autonomous Jewish republic – a plan that was abandoned due to strong resistance from the Crimean Tatar population.
More recently, “Both Ukraine and Russia have policies that are entangled with the Middle East,” Massad observed.
Ukraine, for instance, provided the third largest military contingent to take part in the illegal US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
“As far as Russia is concerned, of course [President Vladimir] Putin has also had excellent relations with Israel, at the same time he did intervene in Syria against the regime’s jihadist and American and Gulf-supported enemies,” Massad said.
“However his intervention in Syria continued to allow the Israelis to bomb Syria, but not the jihadists.”
Massad also raised the issue of Ukrainian Jews, which Israel is calling upon “to emigrate to Israel so that it can transform them into colonists of the land of the Palestinians.”
Massad’s discussion with Khalek provides a great deal of context and insight on the situation in Ukraine and Western responses, including an intense surge of Russophobia that mirrors the previous bouts of xenophobia that regularly accompany American wars and interventions abroad.
They also touch on conformity of thought and censorship in Western liberal democracies – and other themes that Massad recently addressed in an article for Middle East Eye.
The July 18, 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina was one of the worst pre-9/11 terrorist attacks in the Western hemisphere, killing 85 and injuring 300.
For over a quarter century, the US and Israeli governments have blamed Iran for the bloodshed, citing it as primary evidence of Tehran’s role as the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism.
This narrative remains part of the propaganda offensive against Iran, and has been exploited by the Donald Trump administration to justify a campaign of economic strangulation aimed at either destabilizing the Islamic Republic or achieving regime change.
Iosi’s testimony should have ended that cover-up, but Nisman, SIDE, and the Federal Police colluded to quash a serious investigation. and impunity for the real AMIA terrorists continues.
Soon after the bombing, the United States and Israel placed heavy pressure on the Argentine government to implicate Iran.
At the time, however, officials in the embassy in Buenos Aires were well aware there was no hard evidence to support such a conclusion.
In an August 1994 cable to the State Department, US Ambassador James Cheek boasted of the “steady campaign” the embassy had waged that “kept the Iranians in the dock where they belong.”
In a striking comment to this writer in 2007, Cheek conceded, “To my knowledge, there was never any real evidence” of Iranian responsibility.
Bill Brencick, the chief of the political section in the US embassy from 1994 to 1997, also acknowledged in a 2007 interview that US insinuations of Iranian responsibility were based solely on a “wall of assumptions” that had “no hard evidence to connect those assumptions to the case.”
Brencick recalled that he and other US officials recognized “enough of a Jewish community [in Buenos Aires] and a history of anti-Semitism that local anti-Semites had to be considered as suspects.”
But this line of investigation was never pursued in any official capacity, likely because it contradicted the interests of a US national security state that was dead-set on indicting Iran for the bombing.
However, a dramatic development has threatened to upend the official US-Israeli narrative on the AMIA attack.
In 2014, the public learned that a former spy who had infiltrated the Jewish community in Buenos Aires on behalf of Argentina’s Federal Police had revealed to two investigative journalists that he had been ordered to turn over blueprints to the AMIA building to his Federal Police case officer.
The spy was convinced the building plans were used by the real culprits behind the bombing.
His stunning revelation prompted a series of articles in the Argentine press.
The spy was convinced the building plans were used by the real culprits behind the bombing. His stunning revelation prompted a series of articles in the Argentine press.
The former infiltrator’s account provided the first clear indication that anti-Semitic veterans of Argentina’s “Dirty War” and their allies in the Argentine police and intelligence service orchestrated the explosion.
But Argentina’s legal system — still heavily influenced by the intelligence agency that influenced the official investigation to blame Iran and a prosecutor whose career had been based on that premise — stubbornly refused to investigate the former police spy’s account.
Infiltration, Torture, Anti-Semitic Conspiracies
The former police infiltrator, Jose Alberto Perez, believed the AMIA building blueprints he had provided to the Federal Police were used by those who planned the bombing.
He had learned from his police counter-terrorism training course that such building plans could be valuable tools for planning such an operation.
Perez was also convinced that the bomb had detonated inside the building, rather than in front, and had been placed in the interior of the AMIA building through a gap between it and a neighboring building.
Experts of Argentina’s Gendarmerie had come to the same conclusion, and leaked it to Clarin, Argentina’s largest tabloid, just two days after the bombing.
Perez also provided crucial evidence that those who had used him to spy on Jewish community leaders were motivated by the same anti-Semitic beliefs that had led the Argentine military dictatorship to single out Jews for especially cruel treatment during the “dirty war” in the 1970s: his case officer, whom he knew only as “Laura”, had ordered him to find out as much he could from the Jewish community about the so-called “Andinia Plan.”
According to that alleged plan, Jewish immigrants and foreign Zionists had been secretly plotting to take control of the vast Patagonia region of southern Argentina and create a Jewish state to be called “Andinia.”
The myth of the “Andinia Plan” followed the rise of anti-Semitism as a major social force in Argentina during the 1930s and became a staple of the anti-Semitic right’s narrative during the heyday of military domination of the Argentine society and politics from the 1960s through the “dirty war” against leftists in the 1970s.
Nearly all were interrogated about the “Andinia Plan.”
The crusading Argentine journalist Jacobo Timerman, who was born to Jewish parents and whose newspaper provided critical coverage of the military regime’s “dirty war,” was among those detained in the junta’s secret prisons.
Timerman recalled in his memoir how he was asked repeatedly to reveal what he knew about the “Andinia Plan” during extended interrogation and torture sessions. His interrogator refused to accept his answer that it was merely a fiction.
Jose Alberto Perez, for his part, was wracked with guilt about having enabled the AMIA terror bombing.
He had become an integral part of the Jewish community, studying Hebrew for three years, marrying a Jewish woman who was the secretary of an Israeli Embassy official and even taking the Jewish version of his Spanish surname, Jose.
Within the Jewish community, he was known as “Iosi” Perez.
As he fell into despair, Iosi contacted investigative journalists Miriam Lewin and Horacio Lutzky to ask their help.
The two journalists had tried for years to find a foreign sponsor to grant the former spy asylum abroad but to no avail.
Meanwhile, Iosi had secretly taped a video with the prominent Argentine journalist Gabriel Levinas in which he narrated his work penetrating the Jewish community and the unusual request for the blueprints.
Levinas posted the video online in early July 2014, just prior to the publication of the second edition of his own book on the AMIA bombing, which included Iosi’s story.
The release of that video prompted Lewin and Lutzky to arrange for Iosi to join Argentina’s Witness Protection Program.
The two journalists also urged Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who had spent a decade accusing Iran of the bombing, to meet Iosi in person.
But according to Lewin, Nisman would only agree to speak with Iosi on the phone.
The prosecutor insisted on having three of his employees interview Iosi in person, she recalled in an interview with The Grayzone, then signed a declaration about that July 2014 meeting as though he had been present, and “did not show interest in interrogating him any further.”
Iosi entered the Witness Protection Program the same day as the interview, according to Lewin.
Iosi’s Federal Police case officer “Laura,” who was retired by then, was released by the minister of security from the normal secrecy requirement about Iosi’s work.
But she rejected Iosi’s testimony, according to Lewin, claiming his reports had been judged “poor.”
Her claims stood in stark contrast to the actual reports obtained by prosecutors which clearly showed his findings had been evaluated as “excellent” year after year.
Lewin told The Grayzone she was confident that Iosi would have been able to provide “solid information about the local connection of the bombing,” but none of the four prosecutors who inherited the unsolved AMIA case after Nisman’s death were willing to follow up on the leads he provided.
Lewin noted that several of the senior Federal Police officials who would have been involved in the decisions to infiltrate the Jewish Community and request the AMIA blueprints were still active in 2015. That fact helps to explain why the case was left to die despite Iosi’s explosive revelations.
SIDE Covers the Junta’s Back
Another key factor in the corruption of the AMIA investigation was the role of the state intelligence agency, known as SIDE, in influencing the lead prosecutor, Judge Juan Jose Galeano. Not only was a special unit within SIDE tasked with overseeing the Galeano’s investigation, another SIDE unit operated directly inside Galeano’s office, as journalist Sergio Kiernan reported.
SIDE proceeded to exploit its power to divert attention away from the logical suspects within the junta, circling the wagons to protect its own.
As Sergio Moreno and Laura Termine reported in the daily La Prensa, November 28, 1994, the SIDE unit handling the AMIA investigation was notorious for its hatred of Jews.
The group consisted of veterans of the dirty war known as the “Cabildo” group, their name inspired by a right wing anti-Semitic magazine published in the early 1980s that had republished an infamous tract detailing the “Andinia Plan” conspiracy.
The chief of the Cabildo group unsuccessfully sued Moreno and Termine for labeling his unit anti-Semitic. Following complaints by Jewish community leaders about the Cabildo group’s role in the AMIA investigation, it was removed from the case – but not before it deflected public attention away from leaders of the dirty war and onto an alleged Iranian conspiracy.
SIDE’s PR strategy depended on the theory that the AMIA explosion emanated from a vehicle-born suicide bomb, thereby casting suspicion on Iran and its ally, Hezbollah.
The intelligence services claimed a white light commercial van had been used in the bombing. Its engine was supposedly found in the rubble on July 25, a week after the explosion.
The identification number on the engine was traced to Carlos Alberto Telleldin, the Shia owner of a shady “chop shop” operation that rebuilt damaged cars for sale. Telleldin was accused of being an accessory to the terror plot and jailed on other charges.
But the official AMIA case files revealed that Telleldin had been targeted before the AMIA bombing. This stunning fact was noticed by a “private prosecutor” hired by the organization of AMIA victims Memoria Activa.
In the weeks that followed the AMIA explosion, more evidence surfaced that pointed to Telledin’s role as a patsy.
In September 1994, five Lebanese nationals were detained as they tried to leave Argentina for Paraguay. Through a series of leaks, SIDE planted stories in the media suggesting the suspects were linked to a terrorist network.
The following month, a part-time agent for SIDE and former chief of a notorious prison camp where suspects were tortured during the “dirty war,” Captain Hector Pedro Vergez, began visiting Telleldin in prison.
In four meetings between September 1994 and January 1995, Vergez offered the jailed suspect $1 million and his freedom if he would identify two of the Lebanese nationals who were then detained in Paraguay as having purchased the van from him — thus making it possible to accuse them of the bombing. But Telleldin refused to lie, and the SIDE plan was derailed.
It was not long, however, before SIDE and Galeano initiated a new plan to implicate two Buenos Aires provincial policemen as Iranian-sponsored culprits.
Resorting to Bribery, Mossad Info, and MEK Sources to Blame Iran
In July 1996, Juan Jose Galeano personally visited Carlos Telleldin in prison and offered him $400,000 to blame the two police officers. The scandalous scene was captured in a video shown on Argentine television in 1997.
The case against the two policemen was thrown out in court in 2004, but Galeano and Anzorreguy went unpunished for another 15 years.
It was not until 2019 that they were sentenced to prison terms for their role in the affair, highlighting the culture of impunity that surrounded SIDE.
Once the Galeano case imploded, Alberto Nisman attempted to craft yet another narrative blaming Iran for the bombing.
For this, he depended on information provided by Israel’s Mossad to Jaime Stiuso, the SIDE official in charge of counterintelligence.
Nisman’s 2006 indictment of seven Iranian officials for the terror plot relied completely on the claims of senior members of the Mujahedin-E-Khalq (MEK), the Israeli and Saudi-backed Iranian exile cult.
Not only were none of the MEK members in any position to provide reliable information about a supposedly high-level Iranian plot because they had been actively engaged in a terrorist campaign of their own against the Islamic government by helping Iraq’s then-President Saddam Hussein select targets in Iran.
Nisman’s reliance on such unscrupulous sources demonstrated his own apparent determination to reach preordained conclusions about Iran’s guilt. It was hardly a surprise, then, that Nisman ignored Iosi’s revelatory testimony.
Nisman’s other major source, Jaime Stiuso of SIDE, was a notorious manipulator who had spent years collecting wiretaps on Argentine politicians.
In 2014, the intelligence chief was working to build a case against President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for supposedly conspiring with Iran to eliminate the official Argentine accusation of Iranian guilt. Few observers believed the case would hold up under close scrutiny.
In January 2015, Nisman was found dead in his apartment of a gunshot wound to the head.
Though political opponents of Kirchner were convinced the prosecutor’s death was the result of a government-sponsored murder, a recent documentary detailing the various investigations of his death, “Nisman: el fiscal, la presidenta y el espía,” concluded that he had committed suicide.
By the time of his death, Nisman was helping direct a disinformation campaign that allowed SIDE to cover for shadowy figures from Argentina’s violently anti-Semitic past, and to bury their likely role in the AMIA bombing.
Iosi’s testimony should have ended that cover-up, but Nisman, SIDE, and the Federal Police colluded to quash a serious investigation.
Aquarter-century after the bombing, impunity for the real AMIA terrorists continues.
Who would believe that nobody likes an occupation? Does it look like “Israel” even fits into the natural equation of the region?
JERUSALEM – As 2021 came to a close, Israel had raised the so-called “Iran Threat” issue to a whole new level.
Upon his promotion in December to Commander of the Israeli Air Force, General Tomer Bar was asked by the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot (Ynet), “Are you able to attack Iran tomorrow?”
His answer was “Yes!” He was then asked, “Will you be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities?”
His reply: “There is no scenario where we act over there, and I don’t return and say ‘mission accomplished.’”
In the summer of 2020, The Times of Israelreported that Israel had what it called a “Strategy and Third-Circle Directorate,” which focuses principally on “Israel’s fight against Iran.”
The wording, “Israel’s fight against Iran,” is particularly apt: though more often than not it is described as “Iran’s fight against Israel,” it is, in fact, Israel that is a threat to Iran and not the other way around.
Returning to the interview with the Israeli Air-Force commander, it is as though Israel cannot wait for the opportunity to attack, and indeed, the Ynet reporter who interviewed General Bar was eager.
“Bar,” the story continues, “who will be tasked with carrying out a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities should one be ordered, understands that he may be required to carry out one of the most complex operations in the country’s history.”
Interesting choice of words, considering this possible mission is described as a complex, even daring mission rather than pure madness.
General Tomer Bar, commander of the Israeli Air-Force on the front page of the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot
Not leaving out any details, the interview with Bar continued, “I must assume that it might happen during my tenure, and I understand the magnitude of such an order…
Preparations have been underway for a while, including procurement of the F-35 jets and missile defense systems.”
If such an order is given, “there is no way that I will fly 1,000 kilometers and come home without succeeding in my mission.”
According to the Jerusalem Post, however, this might not be as simple as General Bar thinks.
The U.S. has so far rejected an Israeli request to fast-track the delivery of two tanker aircraft, which are needed to allow the Israeli fighter jets to refuel on their way to Iran.
If plans for a possible military option against Iran’s nuclear plan move forward, Israel will need these tankers.
When asked about the U.S. refusal to expedite the sale of refueling aircraft despite Israel’s request, Bar said the matter has not been finalized and that he “remains hopeful the necessary aircraft would be supplied early.” One would think they were planning a party.
Iran under threat
Iran has been facing continuous threats of attack from Israel and the United States for far too long.
With a population of close to 85 million and a record of not having invaded or initiated a war against another country, one is puzzled at the persistent anti-Iranian rhetoric in the United States and Israel.
Furthermore, even if we consider Iran’s unrelenting support for the Palestinian struggle for freedom and justice and the Iranian refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine, the Israeli threats seem unjustified.
Iran’s positions, while obviously unwelcome to the Israeli government, have remained essentially unchanged and stable for decades and there is no threatening drumbeat coming from Tehran.
Since Iran has had to live under these ongoing threats of attack and has been the victim of crippling U.S. sanctions, it is no surprise that it has invested in building what seem to be impressive military capabilities. According to a report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA:
Iran has adapted its military capabilities and doctrine to account for developments by the United States and its allies. Although still technologically inferior to most of its competitors, the Iranian military has progressed substantially over the past few decades.
Iraniran troops march during a military parade marking the anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war. Photo | AP
Furthermore, the report states:
Iran continues to rely on its unconventional warfare elements and asymmetric capabilities – intended to exploit the perceived weaknesses of a superior adversary – to provide deterrence and project power.
This combination of lethal conventional capabilities and proxy forces poses a persistent threat.
The problem with this analysis is the idea that Iran is the one that poses a threat.
On the contrary, Iran is the one under threat.
Furthermore, at least one of the “proxy forces” the report refers to is Hezbollah, an organization created to respond to the brutal Israeli assaults against Lebanon and the consequent 20-year occupation of southern Lebanon.
Finally, the report points out that Iran has a “substantial arsenal of ballistic missiles” and that this arsenal is “designed to overwhelm U.S. forces and our partners in the region.”
This is the most effective deterrent Iran has against an impending Israeli attack.
Iran versus Israel
Iran has over 80 million people with an official defense budget in 2019 of approximately $20.7 billion, or roughly 3.8% of GDP.
Israel has a combined population of around 12 million, though fewer than half are actual citizens with rights, and has a defense budget of just under $19 billion.
The debate over a possible war between Israel and Iran is a favorite among pundits.
As a result, one can find a great deal of information comparing the sizes and capabilities of the two militaries.
A piece in Business Insider from August 2021 titled, “A shadowy fight between Israel and Iran is at risk of becoming a bigger war.
Here’s how their militaries stack up,” is one of many such articles.
It concludes that an allout war between the two countries is unlikely but we are likely to see more of the “shadowy” assaults like the attack on a vessel in the Arabian Sea, which was owned by Israeli billionaire Eyal Ofer.
In 2018 Newsweek published a piece called, “How Does Israel’s Military Compare to Iran?”
The article claims that, while “Israeli military might is underscored by its top notch military-industrial complex, Iran’s military is aging and sub-par.”
Still, Newsweek admits, “[b]oth nations have considerable military clout, and any prolonged confrontation between them would be bloody.”
One would do well to remember that, with all the admiration for Israeli military capabilities and technological superiority, Israel has never fought a war against a disciplined, well-trained, well-equipped, highly motivated military force.
Despite the IDF’s superior military might, most of Israel’s battlefield experience comes from facing off with unarmed protesters. Photo | AP
Israel did attack its neighboring countries and destroy their militaries several times, but then it retreated to the safety of its borders.
Iran is not such a proximate neighbor and, should Israel need to deploy forces, something it never had to do in the past; it would be a logistical nightmare.
Even assuming Israel would rely only on its air force, Iran is a large country, and it is a long flight to Iran and back.
Logistically, this would demand an enormous effort by Israel while the Iranians would have to do nothing but wait and then use their air defenses and long-range missiles.
Furthermore, should a war take place on Iranian soil, there is no military force large, effective or motivated enough to defeat Iran.
Israel’s last face-to-face encounter with a well-disciplined and motivated fighting force was in 2006 in Lebanon.
Israeli ground forces encountered Hezbollah fighters, and things did not go well for the Israelis, who were forced to retreat in humiliation.
Israeli officers who participated in that assault against Lebanon said there were serious logistical and intelligence flaws, and this was just a few short kilometers from their home base.
Imagine what would happen if they were thousands of miles from home.
As the new year begins, we should be thankful that the United States, having suffered two colossal military defeats in the last two decades — one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan — has no stomach or resources to attack a formidable country like Iran.
Apart from that, it would be fair to say that two things prevent an all-out war between Israel and Iran.
The first is that Israel knows that attacking Iran will end in a total Israeli defeat. The second is Iran’s exercise of discipline in the face of ongoing threats by both the U.S. and Israel.
Judge in West Papua Province declines to reinstate permits for palm oil companies to exploit ancestral lands.
Luhut, speaking during a visit to the district of Sorong in West Papua province, said the companies investing in the palm oil industry in Papua were predominantly foreign ones or those controlled by wealthy Indonesian businesses, and that their investments “don’t necessarily benefit local people.” “Don’t [let] only rich people cut down the forests and destroy us all,” he added.
An Indonesian court has delivered a landmark victory for Indigenous rights in a case that pitted West Papuan activists against several palm oil companies.
The Jayapura Administrative Court in West Papua Province on Tuesday ruled in favour of a district head who had revoked permits allowing more than a dozen palm oil companies to operate in Indigenous forest areas and turn them into plantations.
Johny Kamuru, head of Sorong Regency, cancelled the permits after Indigenous groups said they had not consented to the conversion of their ancestral lands into palm oil concessions and a review by the provincial government recommended they be revoked in February 2021.
Three of the companies affected took legal action against Kamaru, including PT Papua Lestari Abadi and PT Sorong Agro Sawitindo, whose bid to have their permits reinstated was rejected by the court.
Kamuru has also been sued by PT Inti Kebun Lestari in a separate, ongoing case.
Under authority granted by President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo in 2018, palm oil permit reviews are supposed to be undertaken by the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Neither ministry commented publicly on the case in Sorong.
In 2019, Jokowi issued a moratorium on the development of new palm oil estates as part of a push to end deforestation in the country. The moratorium expired in September of this year and was superseded by Indonesia’s controversial jobs creation law.
The law allows companies that have been operating illegally to apply retroactively for permits within three years and escape legal sanctions if they do so.
The land involved in the dispute belongs to the Moi people, one of more than 250 ethnic groups in Papua.
Following the ruling, Moi advocates and the head of the regional people’s representative council in Sorong celebrated in front of the local district office.
Speaking to Al Jazeera following the ruling, Ambrosisus Klagilit, advocacy coordinator for the Sorong chapter of the Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), said he was “grateful” for the legal victory.
“This ruling is important to us Indigenous peoples because we believe it to be a just decision that assures our future and our lands. We feel protected now,” he said.
The total land covered by the three companies spans some 90,031 hectares (222,471 acres), according to Greenpeace Indonesia – an area larger than New York City.
In October, Greenpeace Indonesia released a report in conjunction with environmental mapping specialists TheTreeMap that found one-fifth of the country’s oil palm plantations were in areas where extraction is illegal, including Indigenous lands, national parks, watersheds and conservation areas designated as “national forest estate”.
Since 2000, forest estate land totalling nearly one million hectares (2,471,054 acres) has been released for plantations in Papua Province, according to Greenpeace, with “systematic violations of permitting regulations” a common occurrence.
Indonesia is the world’s largest exporter of palm oil, bringing in $5.7bn or 11 percent of the country’s annual exports.
Indonesia exported 37.3 million tonnes of palm oil in 2020, commanding 55 percent of the global palm oil market, according to the Indonesian Palm Oil Association (GAKI).
Palm oil exports rose by 32 percent in July 2021 compared with the previous month to reach $2.8bn, according to the association.
Video Duration 00 minutes 20 seconds 00:20
West Papua activists celebrate legal win over palm oil firms
Syahrul Fitra, a campaigner for Greenpeace Indonesia, told Al Jazeera the ruling was a major victory for Indigenous rights and environmental preservation.
“Greenpeace Indonesia has found that management of the palm oil industry is rife with problems such as intrusion into Indigenous lands, overlaps with the national forest estate and other protected areas, unprocedural permitting, and permit compliance failures,” Fitra said.
“The head of Sorong district acted correctly to redress these wrongs when he took the concrete step of cancelling a number of oil palm plantation permits, acting on a thorough review by the West Papua Provincial government in conjunction with the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).”
Greenpeace Indonesia said it welcomed the ruling and hoped it would embolden other districts and provinces as well as the national government to support permit reviews and revocations as needed.
Wirya Supriyadi, advocacy coordinator of the Papua office of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI), described the ruling as “a positive breakthrough” and a “victory” for the Moi peoples.