Netanyahu is unwilling and unable to give Saudis and Americans what they say they want – “Palestinian statehood” – but in reality, both are willing to settle for much less.
It began with intelligence sharing in response to the Iranian threat and has expanded to commerce and trade.
Neither country appears in a big hurry to accelerate the process despite optimistic talk in Israel. One thing holding things back is what it means for the Palestinians and the Americans.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, says not until the Palestinians get their own state with east Jerusalem as the capital.
At least that’s what he says. To which Bibi emphatically says, “No, never.”
Many in Israel and elsewhere are confident that the Saudis aren’t really serious about Palestinian statehood and are unwilling to sacrifice their own interests for it.
Like so many of the other moderate Arab leaders who are making peace with Israel, they’ve grown weary of the Palestinians and their inflexible, maximalist demands.
Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen told a Saudi newspaper, “The Palestinian issue will not be an obstacle to peace with Saudi Arabia,” reported i24News. What would the Palestinians get? His government will offer to “improve the Palestinian economy.”
PRIME MINISTER Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman in separate photographs: Israeli-Saudi peace is a good thing only when it also includes Israeli-Palestinian peace, says the writer. (credit: Sputnik/Kremlin/Ronen Zvulun/Reuters)
Israel won’t give the Saudis, US Palestinian statehood, but no one will push
Netanyahu is unwilling and unable to give Saudis and Americans what they say they want – Palestinian statehood – but in reality, both are willing to settle for much less (no one is seriously consulting the Palestinians).
The prime minister can expect to pay a much lower price for normalization, including – probably – a promise not to annex the West Bank (easy, since he already made that deal with the United Arab Emirates), some limitation on settlements, greater economic assistance and mobility for the Palestinians, and some semblance of peace talks.
Both Netanyahu and MBS also have an American problem.
They need the United States to broker the deal – and pay for it – but they don’t want President Joe Biden to get the credit because they feel he has dissed them.
Neither can get a White House invitation, though Biden did say he’d see Netanyahu in the US later this year but avoided saying where.
Biden has made Israeli-Saudi normalization a high foreign-policy priority for both political and policy reasons.
He’d like to have the bragging rights for 2024, especially among friends of Israel who think he’s been too tough (he hasn’t) on Netanyahu, especially his attempts to end the country’s independent judiciary.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and other top officials have been repeatedly meeting with Israeli, Saudi, Palestinian and other regional officials in an effort to broker a deal.
Biden’s top priority is reversing the kingdom’s growing coziness with China, Russia and Iran, all anxious to fill the big power vacuum left by America’s pivot to Asia.
The Saudis know this and are asking a high price, which Bibi will gladly let Uncle Sugar pay.
It’s an old custom. When Netanyahu made peace with the UAE, he reportedly promised to help them get F-35s and other American benefits.
I personally witnessed a top Foreign Ministry official ask the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to help get Washington to deliver on a promise that Israeli diplomats had made to an African dictator.
And US taxpayers have spent billions underwriting Egypt’s peace with Israel.
No price is too high when spending other people’s money, namely American dollars.
THE SAUDIS are demanding a NATO-type security treaty, complete with Article V mutual-defense guarantees.
That’s what it got when Saddam Hussein was at the doorstep in 1990 but now they want it in writing.
Plus, they want access to the same kind of weapons and technology Israel gets.
That kind of deal is important to the Saudis because they know something too many Americans ignore: oil wells are not bottomless.
And they want the US to build a civilian nuclear-energy program. And Biden doesn’t want them turning to Russia or China for that help.
The oil-gorged kingdom also has abundant uranium.
They will want to enrich it themselves, something Washington currently objects to.
Any deal must require close US monitoring to make certain enrichment is kept far below weapons grade.
The Biden administration and many on both sides of the aisle in Congress have a high level of distrust toward MBS and hold him responsible for the savage murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
They also recall Saudi vows that if Iran gets the bomb they’ll want one, too.
Specifically, a defense treaty would require two-thirds Senate approval, which is highly unlikely given widespread views of the homicidal prince and the kingdom for their abysmal human-rights record, for their unreliability and for keeping gas prices high at the pumps.
Netanyahu, with his diminished standing, would not be an effective lobbyist for the Saudi cause.
Both Netanyahu and MBS are said to be concerned that if the next president is a Republican, that person might be averse to delivering on Biden’s commitments.
There’s also a Saudi succession issue. MBS is the de facto ruler because his ailing father, King Salman, 87, reportedly has Alzheimer’s and succession could be tumultuous since the ruthless heir has made many enemies in his brutal climb to the top.
The Palestinians are the big losers. Few believe MBS is sincere about demanding recognition of Palestinian statehood any more than the signers of the Abraham Accords were.
When Bibi was asked by Bloomberg News what was being said about the Palestinians in his discussions with the Saudis and other Arab leaders, he replied, “A lot less than you think.”
The Palestinian Authority is weak, corrupt and ineffective.
Its leader, Mahmoud Abbas is 87, in poor health, in the 18th year of a four-year term and refusing to pick a successor.
His maximalist demands on Israel have led many to believe he is more interested in victimhood than statehood.
There is a price for being left out. Once the Saudis make peace with Israel, Palestinians will have lost their remaining leverage.
Anger and frustration will only grow as they feel ignored and neglected by both Israel and their Arab brethren.
Israelis will be the most convenient targets and the result could be greater violence.
An unintended consequence would be to validate the extremists on both sides of the conflict, Hamas and Iranian proxy terrorists, and hardliners in the Netanyahu government who will press to stiffen their repression and opposition to any concessions to improve quality of life in the West Bank.
Don’t expect to see an Israeli flag flying over an embassy in Riyadh any time soon, but the intelligence and security cooperation will continue to grow and there will be more and more Israeli and Saudi businesspeople traveling between the two countries, and then the ultimate sign of acceptance – tourists.
Peace with Saudi Arabia may end the Arab-Israeli conflict, as Netanyahu has said, and if he has his way it will also end hopes for Palestinian statehood.
Long called the most special bilateral relationship, US-Israeli ties are in fact the world’s strangest.
The weirdness, as we have witnessed in the past few weeks, comes in different forms – ranging from the cynical to the surrealistic.
Take for example Friday’s tweet by the US ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, containing a video of himself and Israeli soldiers at the Israeli-Lebanese border, wishing everyone “Shabbat Shalom”.
This bizarre display of support for the Israeli military, which is de facto still at war with Lebanon, came amid heightened tensions between the two countries.
Earlier in June, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant threatened to bomb Lebanon back into the “Stone Age” if the Lebanese group Hezbollah starts a war.
Likewise, Amir Baram, the head of Israel’s northern command, declared that in the event of a war, the Israeli army would “destroy all the infrastructure … to the last stone” in Southern Lebanon – which would amount to a war crime.
On Monday, three days after the “Shabbat Shalom” clip appeared on Twitter, the Israeli army sent 1,000 troops from its elite forces along with armored vehicles, helicopters and drones into the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, killing at least eight Palestinians, including children, within the first few hours.
Nides, a banker-turned-diplomat, engaged in his publicity stunt at a time when Israel is snubbing the US, its closest and most generous ally, with increasing frequency and intensity.
Apart from launching deadly assaults on the Palestinians, Israeli officials have also repeatedly challenged the official US position in support of Palestinian statehood.
Just last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset’s foreign policy committee that Israel must “crush” the idea of a Palestinian state.
The Israeli leader has also openly disregarded warnings from the US against fostering closer ties with China.
Most recently, he announced he will be travelling to Beijing, giving the cold shoulder to US President Joe Biden’s administration, which has not yet invited him to visit Washington.
Netanyahu and his ministers have not minced their words when expressing dissatisfaction with Biden’s policies.
In March, the prime minister accused the American leader of meddling in Israeli affairs over his comments about the controversial judicial reform his government has been trying to pass and which has sparked months-long protests across Israel.
In February, Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli reprimanded Nides for “interfering” in Israel’s internal affairs, telling him to “mind [his] own business”.
The US ambassador is not the only US official to engage in bizarre diplomatic stunts amid growing disparagement from the Israeli government.
Then the US Congress announced that Israeli President Isaac Herzog will address both of its houses to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Israeli statehood, an honor extended previously to Netanyahu three times.
The last time Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress was in 2015 when he tried to mobilize, if not outright incite, US lawmakers against then-President Barak Obama’s administration over its decision to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran.
This came after he publicly humiliated Obama at the White House in 2011, lecturing him about Palestine and the Middle East.
This did not deter the Obama administration from committing to send Israel $38bn in military aid over 10 years, subsidizing its purchase of F-35 jet fighters.
And if that wasn’t enough, this “single largest pledge of military assistance in US history”, a pricey gift from the American taxpayer, was met “not with big love, but with mostly meh”, according to The Washington Post.
Last year, the Biden administration reaffirmed and even expanded these military commitments in a new strategic memorandum, the Jerusalem US-Israel Joint Partnership Declaration, in return for, well, nothing. Nada.
It couldn’t even get the previous, presumably more moderate Israeli government to embrace the standard rhetoric on achieving peace in Palestine.
Meanwhile, Biden has decided not to reverse any of his predecessor’s major concessions to Israel concerning its illegal annexation of Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights.
That’s not just strange, it is obscene. Even mad. And it begs the question, is there a method to this madness?
Otherwise, why would the US reward Israel despite its intransigence when such support boosts its militaristic and colonial tendencies and feeds its bellicosity? Several explanations come to mind.
First is the state of US domestic politics.
Biden is desperate not to alienate a single pro-Israel Democrat in the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the Senate, especially when the Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, are blindly following Netanyahu, come what may.
This is perhaps why Biden, the leader of the world’s foremost superpower, asked for Israeli approval to rejoin UNESCO six years after his predecessor abandoned it to appease Israel.
This was to make sure that the vote in Congress on the issue would pass.
Second is Washington’s political tactics. Biden wants to offset the temporary coolness towards the Israeli government by warming to its military, presidency and secular business elites to illustrate his bona fide “love for Israel”.
Such misplaced sentiment towards a colonial, apartheid regime has become more of an obsession in Washington, totally disconnected from the rest of the country, indeed the world.
In fact, when it comes to Israel-Palestine, Biden and many Democratic senators are not exactly aligned with the Democratic Party’s base, which has become ever more critical of the Zionist state. Dissatisfaction is growing even among the party’s Jewish members.
According to a 2023 Gallup poll, 49 percent of Democrats sympathize more with the Palestinians, 38 percent sympathize more with the Israelis and 13 percent sympathize with neither.
Third is traditional US foreign policy. Conventional wisdom in Washington has long revolved around satisfying Israel’s needs and desires to encourage it to moderate its positions on peace with the Palestinians and make the necessary “compromises”, even “sacrifices”, for peace.
But in reality, unconditional US support has thus far hardened Israel’s stance, radicalized its society and driven its polity towards fascism.
Finally, there is also Washington’s strategic thinking. Historically, the US has maintained strong and consistent strategic cooperation with Israel, seeing it as its most reliable ally in the Middle East despite political and diplomatic ups and downs.
Just last year, Biden repeated this mantra, saying that if there was no Israel “we’d have to invent one.”
But treating it as a strategic asset has long proved of illusionary utility as the Zionist state has shown itself to be an utter liability, at least since the end of the Cold War.
In fact, Israel’s primary objective is to keep America stuck in the Middle East to clean up its messes.
Recently, Netanyahu was quite honest about it, telling Knesset members that China’s growing involvement in the region may not be so bad because it compels America to stay engaged. Well, on Israel’s side, of course.
But much of the Middle East’s hostility towards the US is driven by its decades-long support for what countries in the region see as a colonial warmongering state.
That’s why only by freeing itself from Israel’s paranoid influence could Washington begin to act as a responsible and respectable actor in the region.
Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But the shift in the Democratic Party in favor of justice in Palestine does provide some hope when it is needed most.
The greatest threat facing Israel is the democratic threat.
There is no greater danger to the regime in Israel than its turning into a democracy.
There is no society that opposes democracy like Israeli society.
There are plenty of regimes opposed to democracy, but not a free society.
In Israel the people, the sovereign, is opposed to democracy.
This is why the current struggle, which presumes to be about democracy, is a masquerade.
It is designed to maintain the pretense of democracy.
To most Israelis, real democracy is tantamount to “the destruction of Israel.”
They’re right. True democracy will bring an end to the Jewish supremacism they call Zionism, and an end to the state they call Jewish and democratic.
Therefore the threat of democracy is the existential threat, against which all Jewish Israelis unite: Should democracy be instituted for all the state’s residents, it will bring an end to the pretend democracy.
Therefore, the leaders of the protest make sure to steer clear of any true contact with democracy, lest the entire thing collapse like a house of cards.
It is not due to racism or hatred of Arabs that they don’t want Palestinian flags or protesters – they are good people, after all – but only due to the understanding that raising the question of apartheid will render their struggle ludicrous.
The mere mention of the idea of one democratic state, in which one person equals one vote and all are equal, evokes an instantaneous and hostile reaction among liberal and conservative Israelis alike: “What does that have to do with anything?” followed by “It’s never worked anywhere,” ending with “destruction of Israel.”
No less. There is no other country whose citizens view becoming a democracy as tantamount to destruction.
There is no other fight for democracy that utterly ignores the state’s tyranny in its own backyard.
As I write these words, early Wednesday morning, the protesters’ shouts in front of the Eretz Israel Museum thunder in the background, “Democracy, democracy.”
As legendary left-wing leader Moshe Sneh once famously put it, in notes for his own speech: “Raise your voice here, as the argument is weak.”
Raise your voices, comrades. Even if all your demands – as justified as any – are fully met, Israel will not become a democracy.
When democracy is shouted with pathos by hoarse throats, while a half hour drive away from the demonstration soldiers snatch civilians from their beds night after night with no judicial warrant; a town is under curfew because it fell victim to a pogrom; a thousand people are in prison without trial and rock-throwing teens are shot to death as a matter of course, the hypocrisy is impossible to stomach.
The most terrible articles of Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s plan are glorious monuments to democracy compared to the occupation regime.
Even if the Likud Central Committee were to choose all the Supreme Court Justices, one for each Likud voting district, that new court would be a beacon of world justice compared to the military tribunals.
And how can you ignore the military tribunals, when fighting for Israel’s justice system?
Are they not part of the justice system? Are they outsourcing? A foreign legion?
Are they not where many of Israel’s judges take their first steps?
Or shall we repeat the lies about an emergency situation and temporary state of things?
Keep protesting vigorously, do all you can to topple this bad government, but don’t utter the name of democracy in vain.
You aren’t fighting for democracy. You’re fighting for a better government in your view.
That’s important, it’s legitimate and it’s impressive. But had you been democrats, you would fight for a democratic state, which Israel isn’t – and which you aren’t.
You’re fighting against a horrible government, which must be fought because it is destroying the fabric of society with terrifying speed.
It is demolishing our good lives, our flourishing economy, science, culture, the justice system and also the most sophisticated military in the world.
Shame, shame, shame. It must be fought; and when you have time, fight for democracy.
The resolution voted for stated that, “The Israeli state operates an apartheid regime from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the internationally recognized state of Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.” It also pointed out that, “The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 1998 Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court (ICC) define apartheid as a crime against humanity.”
July 24, 2023 — The American Anthropological Association (AAA), representing thousands of anthropologists and scholars, has passed a historic resolution in support of Palestinian rights and freedom, pledging to boycott Israeli academic institutions that are complicit in maintaining Israel’s oppressive apartheid system.
The vote passed with an overwhelming majority following a successful referendum held June 15-July 14, with 71% voting in favor.
Founded in 1902, the 12,000-member AAA is the largest and oldest scholarly body in the United States to endorse a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
“This resolution is a meaningful demonstration of solidarity by thousands of scholars standing alongside their Palestinian colleagues, whose work and lives are impacted on a daily basis by Israel’s racist, discriminatory policies and brutal military rule,” said Jessica Winegar, an anthropology professor and member of the Anthroboycott collective, which campaigned for the boycott.
“As scholars with a long history of studying colonialism, anthropologists are all too familiar with the devastating harm of Israel’s oppression and theft of Palestinian land.
This vote is an important step in showing that support for Palestinian rights goes hand in hand with the AAA’s values of human rights for all.”
Theresolution precludes the AAA from engaging in any formal relationships with Israeli academic institutions.
The resolution does not prevent individual Israeli scholars from participating in AAA activities or collaborating with AAA members.
“As a US-based association, the AAA has a responsibility to speak up against the nearly $4 billion in military funding the United States provides to Israel each year, enabling Israel’s brutal military rule, illegal theft of Palestinian land, and oppressive apartheid system against Palestinians,” said Winegar.
“Just as scholars throughout the world came together to put pressure on South Africa to end its violent apartheid system, US academic organizations are following in their footsteps and joining the struggle for Palestinian freedom.”
The Palestinian Campaign for the Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel (PACBI) celebrated this important win for the movement for Palestinian rights: “We thank those who took the time to learn from and listen to Indigenous Palestinian voices.
The AAA membership vote to boycott complicit Israeli universities is wholly consistent with the association’s stated commitment to anti-racism, equality, human rights and social justice and furthers the drive to decolonize anthropology and academia in general.”
The Executive Board of the AAA will now proceed with implementing the resolution, joining the ranks of other scholarly associations that have endorsed a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, including the American Studies Association, the Association for Asian American Studies, the Middle East Studies Association, the National Women’s Studies Association, and the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association.
In 2016, a similar boycott resolution narrowlymissed adoption by a mere 39 votes – less than 1% of ballots cast.
This breakthrough comes despite attempts to pressure, intimidate, and misinform anthropologists from outside pro-Israel organizations with no apparent link to the discipline.
These efforts included unsolicited and harassing emails sent to all AAA members; lobbying university presidents across the country to intervene in the vote; and frivolous threats of litigation.
Anthroboycott extends its deepest congratulations and heartfelt thanks to everyone who voted, as well as the numerous volunteers who dedicated their time and efforts to persuade and mobilize their colleagues.
We also thank the sections of the AAA that formally endorsed the boycott: the Association of Black Anthropologists and the Middle East Section.
We are grateful to the boards of the Association for Feminist Anthropology, Association of Latina/o and Latinx Anthropologists, and Critical Urban Anthropology Association for encouraging their members to support the boycott.
Anthroboycott (Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions) is a collective of AAA members, including faculty, contingent labor, and graduate students, working in support of Palestinian human rights.
Casting doubt on reports that the two teenage hookers, incriminating laptop, pile of Ukrainian-sourced cash, and spilled cocaine found yesterday at the White House has anything to do with Hunter Biden. Instead, they say, the story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
While the letter’s signatories presented no evidence, they said their national security experience had made them “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case” and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin’s hand at work.
“We suspect that Putin’s technicians may have built a Hunter Biden android that can snort cocaine, bang underage hookers, snag payoffs from Ukrainian oligarchs, and deliver bundles of cash to The Big Guy at the White House,” explained John Brennan, the letter’s lead signatory.
“Since the android would be indistinguishable from the real Hunter Biden, including the fingerprints, the fact that Hunter’s fingerprints have been found all over the cash, coke, and hookers, not to mention the laptop, just adds credence to our theory.”
Citing the intelligence officials’ letter, social media companies have banned discussion of the scandal, while the Department of Homeland Security has announced it will punish satirists who mention it, even in jest, by cutting off their intern.
Washington is going out of its way to accommodate Israel and is being publicly chided in return. Why is that?
Long called the most special bilateral relationship, US-Israeli ties are in fact the world’s strangest.
The weirdness, as we have witnessed in the past few weeks, comes in different forms – ranging from the cynical to the surrealistic.
Take for example Friday’s tweet by the US ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, containing a video of himself and Israeli soldiers at the Israeli-Lebanese border, wishing everyone “Shabbat Shalom”.
This bizarre display of support for the Israeli military, which is de facto still at war with Lebanon, came amid heightened tensions between the two countries.
Earlier in June, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant threatened to bomb Lebanon back into the “Stone Age” if the Lebanese group Hezbollah starts a war.
Likewise, Amir Baram, the head of Israel’s northern command, declared that in the event of a war, the Israeli army would “destroy all the infrastructure … to the last stone” in Southern Lebanon – which would amount to a war crime.
On Monday, three days after the “Shabbat Shalom” clip appeared on Twitter, the Israeli army sent 1,000 troops from its elite forces along with armored vehicles, helicopters and drones into the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, killing at least eight Palestinians, including children, within the first few hours.
Nides, a banker-turned-diplomat, engaged in his publicity stunt at a time when Israel is snubbing the US, its closest and most generous ally, with increasing frequency and intensity.
Apart from launching deadly assaults on the Palestinians, Israeli officials have also repeatedly challenged the official US position in support of Palestinian statehood.
Just last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset’s foreign policy committee that Israel must “crush” the idea of a Palestinian state.
The Israeli leader has also openly disregarded warnings from the US against fostering closer ties with China.
Most recently, he announced he will be travelling to Beijing, giving the cold shoulder to US President Joe Biden’s administration, which has not yet invited him to visit Washington.
Netanyahu and his ministers have not minced their words when expressing dissatisfaction with Biden’s policies.
In March, the prime minister accused the American leader of meddling in Israeli affairs over his comments about the controversial judicial reform his government has been trying to pass and which has sparked months-long protests across Israel.
In February, Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli reprimanded Nides for “interfering” in Israel’s internal affairs, telling him to “mind [his] own business”.
The US ambassador is not the only US official to engage in bizarre diplomatic stunts amid growing disparagement from the Israeli government.
Then the US Congress announced that Israeli President Isaac Herzog will address both of its houses to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Israeli statehood, an honor extended previously to Netanyahu three times.
The last time Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress was in 2015 when he tried to mobilize, if not outright incite, US lawmakers against then-President Barak Obama’s administration over its decision to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran.
This came after he publicly humiliated Obama at the White House in 2011, lecturing him about Palestine and the Middle East.
This did not deter the Obama administration from committing to send Israel $38bn in military aid over 10 years, subsidizing its purchase of F-35 jet fighters. And if that wasn’t enough, this “single largest pledge of military assistance in US history”, a pricey gift from the American taxpayer, was met “not with big love, but with mostly meh”, according to The Washington Post.
Last year, the Biden administration reaffirmed and even expanded these military commitments in a new strategic memorandum, the Jerusalem US-Israel Joint Partnership Declaration, in return for, well, nothing. Nada.
It couldn’t even get the previous, presumably more moderate Israeli government to embrace the standard rhetoric on achieving peace in Palestine.
Meanwhile, Biden has decided not to reverse any of his predecessor’s major concessions to Israel concerning its illegal annexation of Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights.
That’s not just strange, it is obscene. Even mad.
And it begs the question, is there a method to this madness?
Otherwise, why would the US reward Israel despite its intransigence when such support boosts its militaristic and colonial tendencies and feeds its bellicosity?
Several explanations come to mind.
First is the state of US domestic politics. Biden is desperate not to alienate a single pro-Israel Democrat in the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the Senate, especially when the Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, are blindly following Netanyahu, come what may.
This is perhaps why Biden, the leader of the world’s foremost superpower, asked for Israeli approval to rejoin UNESCO six years after his predecessor abandoned it to appease Israel. This was to make sure that the vote in Congress on the issue would pass.
Second is Washington’s political tactics. Biden wants to offset the temporary coolness towards the Israeli government by warming to its military, presidency and secular business elites to illustrate his bona fide “love for Israel”.
Such misplaced sentiment towards a colonial, apartheid regime has become more of an obsession in Washington, totally disconnected from the rest of the country, indeed the world.
In fact, when it comes to Israel-Palestine, Biden and many Democratic senators are not exactly aligned with the Democratic Party’s base, which has become ever more critical of the Zionist state. Dissatisfaction is growing even among the party’s Jewish members.
According to a 2023 Gallup poll, 49 percent of Democrats sympathize more with the Palestinians, 38 percent sympathize more with the Israelis and 13 percent sympathize with neither.
Third is traditional US foreign policy. Conventional wisdom in Washington has long revolved around satisfying Israel’s needs and desires to encourage it to moderate its positions on peace with the Palestinians and make the necessary “compromises”, even “sacrifices”, for peace.
But in reality, unconditional US support has thus far hardened Israel’s stance, radicalized its society and driven its polity towards fascism.
Finally, there is also Washington’s strategic thinking.
Historically, the US has maintained strong and consistent strategic cooperation with Israel, seeing it as its most reliable ally in the Middle East despite political and diplomatic ups and downs.
Just last year, Biden repeated this mantra, saying that if there was no Israel “we’d have to invent one.”
But treating it as a strategic asset has long proved of illusionary utility as the Zionist state has shown itself to be an utter liability, at least since the end of the Cold War.
In fact, Israel’s primary objective is to keep America stuck in the Middle East to clean up its messes.
Recently, Netanyahu was quite honest about it, telling Knesset members that China’s growing involvement in the region may not be so bad because it compels America to stay engaged. Well, on Israel’s side, of course.
But much of the Middle East’s hostility towards the US is driven by its decades-long support for what countries in the region see as a colonial warmongering state.
That’s why only by freeing itself from Israel’s paranoid influence could Washington begin to act as a responsible and respectable actor in the region.
Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But the shift in the Democratic Party in favour of justice in Palestine does provide some hope when it is needed most.
Ali Akbar Ahmadian made the statement in a meeting with the head of the political bureau of the Palestinian Hamas resistance movement, Ismail Haniyeh, and his accompanying delegation in Tehran on Monday as they exchanged views about the latest developments in the region and ways to strengthen unity among Palestinian resistance groups.
Pointing to the ongoing developments in the occupied territories and the internal chaos in the Israeli regime, Ahmadian said, “Resistance is the most efficient strategy to put an end to more than 75 years of the occupation of Palestine.”
The SNSC chief added, “Palestine is the prime issue of the Muslim world, and strengthening unity among Muslims, especially the regional players of resistance [front], will inflict the most severe damage on the Zionist enemy and its supporters.”
Touching upon the enemies’ attempts to sow division among the resistance groups, Ahmadian said, “The unity and support of the resistance groups for the Islamic Jihad movement in the recent war disappointed the Zionist enemy[‘s plans] to [realize] the plot.”
The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council praised the resistance of Hamas against the Israeli regime and said, “The Palestinian resistance, which once fought to defend itself in Gaza, has achieved a level of preparedness that is now consolidating its presence in the West Bank.”
The Tel Aviv regime launched a deadly bombing campaign on Gaza on May 9, sparking the firing of over 1,000 rockets by the Islamic Jihad toward the occupied territories. The two sides agreed after five days of fighting to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire that took effect on May 13.
Israeli aerial assaults killed at least 33 Palestinians in Gaza, including six children, and wounded 147, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. Several Islamic Jihad leaders were also among the Palestinian victims of the latest conflict, which marked the worst episode of fighting between Gaza’s resistance factions and Israel since a 10-day war in 2021.
Haniyeh, for his part, expressed his gratitude for the outstanding and effective role of Iran in strengthening unity and cooperation in the Muslim world and the Palestinian resistance groups.
The head of the political bureau of the Palestinian Hamas resistance movement also briefed the Iranian official on political and field developments in Palestine as well as plans by the resistance to maintain and strengthen initiative measures in the face of the occupying regime.
Over the past months, the Israeli regime has intensified attacks against Palestinian towns and cities throughout the occupied territories. As a result of these attacks, dozens of Palestinians have lost their lives and many others have been arrested.
Most of the raids have targeted the cities of Nablus and Jenin in the occupied West Bank, where the regime’s forces have been trying to stifle a growing Palestinian resistance against the occupation.
One of the objectives of Israeli raids on various locations across the occupied West Bank has been to raze the structures that belong to the Palestinians, whom the regime accuses of killing Zionist settlers.
As a result of these attacks, over 160 Palestinians, including 28 children, have lost their lives and many others have been arrested in 2023.
Although Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is considered to be the father of Wahhabism, it was actually the British who initially impregnated him with the ideas of Wahhabism and made him its leader for their own sinister purposes to destroy Islam and the Muslim Ottoman Empire. The intricate details of this intriguing British conspiracy, are to be found in the memoirs of its master spy, titled “Confessions of a British Spy”.
How do you explain the potential inclusion of Saudi Arabia in the BRICS and the Global South-led drive toward de-dollarization?
Isn’t that bad?
No one serious considers the Saudi monarchy to be a model of anything positive.
But if there is ever going to be systemic change in the Gulf (which I think is inevitable at some point), it is much more likely to come about through integration with the Global South, not the imperial core.
It was the British and US empires that created the Saudi regime in the first place, protected it, and prevented any systemic change for the past century.
Moreover, it has arguably been the United States that has historically pressured and/or forced the Saudi regime to implement its most reactionary foreign policies, such as Riyadh’s support for Salafi-jihadist contras (in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the former Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, etc.), or its collaboration with Israeli colonialism, bombing of Yemen, sectarian anti-Shia propaganda campaign, and war drive against Iran.
If Saudi Arabia maintains a more independent, non-aligned foreign policy, that helps strengthen the resurgent Non-Aligned Movement, and is certainly good for West Asia.
That doesn’t make the reactionary monarchy desirable in any way — or directly help the largely South Asian migrant workers who keep the country running through brutal slave-like exploitation — but it does mean the possibility for potential peace in the region after decades of US-led neocolonial wars, a weakening of the US-led campaign to normalize Israeli colonialism, and a likely end to the wars on Yemen and Iran.
The fact of the matter is simply that, as one of the world’s leading oil producers, and the de facto leader of OPEC, Saudi Arabia’s inclusion in the Global South-led drive toward de-dollarization is very important.
The petrodollar is absolutely fundamental in undergirding the US-led imperial system of economic domination, which is built around the dollar as the global reserve currency.
An end to Saudi petrodollar backing, even if only partially, would be a major blow to US economic hegemony.
If that imperial system does eventually collapse, whether or not the Saudi regime (or the UAE, Qatar, or any other Gulf monarchy) survives is up in the air as well — given how crucial US military support has been historically for protecting the Gulf monarchies.
But as long as the US empire was propping up the Saudi regime, it was not going anywhere.
Iran-Gulf rapprochement is shattering US and Israeli dreams
Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia and other major oil producers announced that starting in May they will cut production by more than 1 million barrels a day. The cuts will continue until the end of the year.
Anyone hearing the statements being made these days by US officials — especially Secretary of State Anthony Blinken — about Washington’s stepped-up efforts to normalise relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel could be excused for thinking they inhabit a different planet.
They seem completely oblivious to the radical changes sweeping the region, especially the accelerating momentum towards ending US political and military influence in the Middle East and especially the Gulf.
Addressing Zionist lobbyists in Washington on Monday, Blinken declared the US “has a real national security interest in promoting normalisation” between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
“We believe that we can – and indeed we must – play an integral role in advancing it,” he said, adding ” we remain committed to working toward that outcome, — including during his current visit to Riyadh.
This was part of a speech in which Blinken reiterated the US’ unstinting support for Israel and warned that “all options are on the table” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The most eloquent rejoinder to these optimistic delusions came in the form of four developments in the past few days that will have shocked and horrified the US and Israel, and Blinken personally.
— The announcement by Iranian navy commander Admiral Shahram Irani that his country and four Gulf states -(Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar) plan to form a naval alliance that will also include Pakistan and India. (Oman signed a naval treaty with Iran years ago).
Blinken rushes to meet MbS hours after Iran reopens its embassy in Riyadh. The loser @SecBlinken will have begged for Saudi-Israel normalization in return, but has zero leverage to demand anything. https://t.co/Qlzbn2Y7Nu
— Tuesday’s reopening of the Iranian embassy in Riyadh at a ceremony attended by senior officials from both sides including Ambassador Alireza Enayati, a high-ranking diplomat whose appointment reflects the extent of the bilateral interests involved.
— Confirmation that Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin-Farhan will visit Iran in the next few days to discuss strengthening trade and security ties and formally invite President Ebrahim Raisi to Riyadh.
— The signing by Saudi Arabia and Russia’s energy ministers of an agreement to bolster their ‘OPEC+’ deal by cutting oil production in order to maintain fair prices.
The move led to an immediate rise in oil prices and belied Western press reports about oil-related disagreements between Riyadh and Moscow.
These developments, which were not out-of-the-blue or unexpected, are obviously bad news for the US.
The planned naval alliance, in particular, makes redundant all US and European claims about protecting the Gulf states from an Iranian threat, or any justification for maintaining a massive naval presence in the region and large military bases in Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait.
Henceforth, the countries of the region will rely on their own navies and militaries to safeguard the security of their territory and waters.
They no longer need to be subjected to US extortion.
The Iranian ‘bogeyman’ has become an ally, the Sunni-Shia sectarian rift which the US exploited for decades is being healed, a historic reconciliation has been achieved, and a strong new partnership is being built on a solid basis.
I confess I did not expect the Saudi/Gulf reconciliation with Iran to develop so rapidly.
It shatters Netanyahu’s dream of turning the so-called Abraham Accords into an Israeli-led military and security alliance, and the Gulf region into a massive market for Israeli arms, especially the Iron Dome and David’s Sling systems — whose failings were exposed by the resurgence of Palestinian resistance, along with the myth of Israeli ‘exceptionalism’ in security expertise.
Now there is to be a naval security alliance between Iran and its Gulf neighbours.
Next, we could have an industrial and military-industrial partnership involving the exchange of expertise and technology, including in the nuclear field.
After that, joining forces in a single front to confront and terminate Western hegemony over the region and the common enemy Israel.
Blinken would be well advised not to go too far in committing to normalisation between Saudi Arabia and the occupier state.
He would do better to try to preserve his own country’s normalisation, presence, and alliances in the region, at a time when most states of the Middle East — including Saudi Arabia and the UAE — are flocking towards the BRICS grouping, the Shanghai treaty, and the new world order led by China and Russia.
But the US’ overbearing arrogance ensures he will neither listen to nor act on that advice.
The US government no longer has the military and financial resources “to continue propping up Israel against the wishes of more than a billion of its neighbors”
“Kissinger’s statement is flat and unqualified. He is not saying that Israel is in danger, but could be saved if we just gave it additional trillions of dollars and smashed enough of its enemies with our military.…
He is not offering a way out. He is simply stating a fact: In 2022, Israel will no longer exist,” political columnist Kevin Barrett wrote in an article published on Press TV website on Sunday.
He also pointed to a study commissioned by the US Intelligence Community (IC), comprised of 16 US intelligence agencies, earlier this year, titled “Preparing for a Post-Israel Middle East,” and pointed out that the content of the IC’s report corroborates Kissinger’s contention.
“The sixteen US intelligence agencies agree that Israel cannot withstand the coming pro-Palestinian juggernaut consisting of the Arab Spring, the Islamic Awakening, and the rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” the analyst added.
The IC report contends that the US government no longer has the military and financial resources “to continue propping up Israel against the wishes of more than a billion of its neighbors” and suggests that “the US will have to follow its own national interests and pull the plug on Israel,” Barrett said.
Considering the fact that the Jewish Kissinger has long been viewed as an ardent friend of Israel and that the majority of US officials, including the authors of the IC report, are influenced by pro-Israeli lobby, the emerging messages become more remarkable, the article added.
The article argues that the emerging “complacency” among the US officials about Israel’s fate can be traced in the following reasons:
• American politicians and political activists “are growing fed-up with Israeli intransigence and fanaticism.” • Americans feel “festering resentment over the Israel lobby’s imperious domination of public discourse.” • “The American Jewish community is no longer united in support of Israel.” • It is becoming a common knowledge that Israel and its supporters carried out the 9/11 false-flag attacks.
“In fact, the US is going broke and sacrificing thousands of lives in wars for Israel – wars that damage, rather than aid, US strategic interests,” the article said.
“It will become ever-easier for American policymakers, following in the footsteps of Kissinger and the sixteen intelligence agencies, to recognize the obvious: Israel has reached the end of its shelf-life,” Barrett concluded. Source: Press TV
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced a piece of legislation last week that would formally accuse Russia of violating New START and call on the US to withdraw from the treaty.
New START is the last nuclear arms control treaty remaining between the US and Russia and places limits on the deployment of nuclear warheads and launchers.
Russia suspended its participation in the treaty earlier this year but has saidit will continue to abide by its limits.
In a press release, Cotton slammed President Biden for agreeing with Russian President Vladimir Putin to extend New START for five years back in 2021.
“President Biden should never have extended this treaty that has only made Russia and China stronger and America weaker.
We should withdraw from the treaty and bolster our nuclear forces,” Cotton said.
The legislation would also place conditions on future arms control negotiations.
It would require any deals that place limits on the US and Russia’s nuclear arsenals to include China, although Beijing’s nuclear arsenal is vastly smaller.
The bill would prohibit “unilateral reductions and prohibit the bargaining away of US missile defenses.”
It would also ban “the use of funds to implement the New START Treaty or any future arms control agreement unless it meets the bill’s required stipulations.”
So far, the legislation has gained 10 Republican co-sponsors, including Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“Our legislation will correct these mistakes by conditioning future arms control agreements with Russia to include all classes of nuclear weapons as well as China.
We must be prepared for a strategic environment in which the United States faces two nuclear peers – China and Russia,” Risch said.
Responding to the legislation, the Kremlin said there has been no serious talks with the US on arms control.
“We can now only state with regret that there are no serious, substantive contacts on these issues between Moscow and Washington,”Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
“Let’s just say that the last remnants of the international legal framework in this area are slipping away.”
In the decades leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US unilaterally withdrew from several arms control treaties with Russia, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and Open Skies.
[admin: Deluded people amaze me. Hense this zionist post. It’s tragically comical. ]
Antisemitism is a mental disease. It is irrational and illogical.
Much like alcoholism, drug abuse and baseless hatred, if left untreated, it grows and spreads.
We have seen the universal spread of this disorder throughout history.
I have little to offer you as an answer to the long-pondered question of why people hate us so much.
Is it our persistent existence, against all odds; is it our hunger and thirst for knowledge and discovery; is it our resilience; is it our drive to excel?
Is it the strangeness of our ways; is it our age-old struggle for a homeland; is it our disproportionate success rate?
Perhaps it is our defiance of extinction……….much to the chagrin of our enemies.
The ‘enemies’ being chased from their homes to make way for the Eurojews.
And yet….despite the hatred, the boycotts, the wars, the attempts at annihilation, the labeling, the slander, the assaults, the lousy press coverage, the scandals, the internal struggles, the scuds, the missiles, the rockets and the UN, we are still here.
Alive, well and even flourishing.
Perhaps these challenges have made us stronger.
We do know – even with our flaws – how obstinate we the Jewish People can be.
I myself hope and pray we remain so for many millennia to come.
Ever hopeful that Israel Forever is not just the name of a foundation but descriptive of the future………
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.
Deadly traps
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.
‘It’s time to end the puppet theater of the fake regime’; adds his country is approaching nuclear ‘peak’
Iran is approaching the “peak” in its nuclear program and will not yield to Western pressure to halt its activities, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday.
Ahmadinejad was speaking in the southwestern town of Bushehr near the site of Iran’s planned first nuclear power plant, being built with Russian help, and predicted the country would have nuclear electricity by this time next year.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki says Jewish state’s ballistic missile capability won’t help it in confrontations with Islamic republic; meanwhile, Iranian-Egyptian rapprochement in the works
“If you (Western powers) imagine that the Iranian nation will back down you are making a mistake,” he said in a televised speech.
“On the nuclear path we are moving towards the peak,” he said without elaborating.
Turning his attention to Israel, Ahmadinejad said, “The religious Palestinian people will bring down the last screen with its powerful hand on the Zionists’ puppet theater. It’s time to end the puppet theater of this fake regime.”
The Iranian president noted that Israel’s days were numbered and that it has reached its end.
Turning to the Western powers supporting Israel, he said, “Those who remain silent in light of this regime’s crimes and support it should know that they are taking part in the bloodshed of the Palestinian people and will be tried in the future.
“The world’s states will never forget these crimes,” the Iranian president was quoted as saying by the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).
Defying international pressure, Iran has been working on producing its own nuclear fuel, technology the West fears will be used to make atomic bombs.
Tehran says its work is peaceful and has refused to stop.
He was speaking two days after Iran received the eighth and final consignment of nuclear fuel from Russia for the Bushehr plant.
Tehran has said the plant will start in mid-2008, though past deadlines have slipped.
“Next year at this time … nuclear electricity should flow in Iran’s electricity network,” he told the crowd.
Russia delivered the first shipment of uranium fuel rods on December 17 and urged Tehran to scrap its efforts to produce nuclear fuel.
Tehran says its work is peaceful and has refused to stop.
Iran, the world’s fourth-largest crude producer, says it wants to build a network of nuclear plants so it can preserve more of its oil and gas for export.
It says it wants to make nuclear fuel itself to guarantee its supplies.
World powers last week agreed the outline of a third UN sanctions resolution against Iran which calls for mandatory travel bans and asset freezes for specific Iranian officials and vigilance on banks in the country.
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.
A key priority of IHRA in to #ProtectTheFacts about the Holocaust.
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.
Putin continues:
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.
“Existential.”
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.
China has praised an agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore diplomatic relations after seven years of hostility, saying the pact will help regional countries to get rid of foreign interference and take the future into their own hands.
After several days of intensive negotiations hosted by China, Iran and Saudi Arabia finally clinched a deal on Friday to restore diplomatic relations and re-open embassies and missions within two months.
According to the statement, Iran and Saudi Arabia highlighted the need to respect each others’ national sovereignty and refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of one another.
Iran, Saudi Arabia and China expressed their firm determination to make their utmost efforts to promote regional and international peace and security, it emphasized.
A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Saturday that the dialogue and agreement between Tehran and Riyadh “set a good example of how countries in the region can resolve disputes and differences and achieve good neighborliness and friendship through dialogue and consultation.”
The agreement, he said, “will help regional countries to get rid of external interference and take the future into their own hands.”
The spokesperson emphasized that Beijing pursues no selfish interest whatsoever in the Middle East, respects the stature of the regional countries and opposes “geopolitical competition” in this region.
“China always believes that the future of the Middle East should always be in the hands of the countries in the region. China always supports the people in the Middle East in independently exploring their development paths and supports Middle East countries in resolving differences through dialogue and consultation to jointly promote lasting peace and stability in the region,” the diplomat said.
The Foreign Ministry official added that China seeks to promote security and stability in the Middle East, supports its development through solidarity and become a partner for development and prosperity.
“China will continue to contribute its insights and proposals to realizing peace and tranquility in the Middle East and play its role as a responsible major country in this process,” the spokesperson said.
Saudi Arabia severed diplomatic relations with Iran in January 2016 after Iranian protesters, enraged by the execution of prominent Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr by the Saudi government, stormed its embassy in Tehran.
The two sides had held five rounds of negotiations in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad since April 2021.
As concern in Washington is growing over Israel’s anti-democratic turn, new questions are arising about the underlying strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Such a reflection is welcome, especially if it produces recognition that for much of the past quarter century, Israel has acted as an adversary of the U.S.
Indeed, while enjoying the status and perquisites of a U.S. special ally, it has pursued policies not only in variance with American strategic interests but often directly adversarial to them.
And it has done so on a wide array of fronts, in the Middle East and across the globe.
The adversarial shift began with the ascendance of a specific leader: Benjamin Netanyahu.
From his first rise to power in 1996 through the more than years 15 years he has held the reins—after losing an election in 1999, Netanyahu returned in 2009 and, with the exception of an 18-month hiatus between June 2021 and December 2022, has been prime minister ever since—
Netanyahu has consistently and increasingly advanced foreign and security policies that, whether directly or indirectly, undercut U.S. strategic interests.
Notably, these policies pertain not only to areas in which Israel could be argued to hold overriding interests, such as the Palestinian one.
Although Netanyahu’s diplomatic approach on this front has been at odds with U.S. interests for all but the Trump years, Washington should, and has been, understanding of this divergence between the two allies.
The same case can be made for Netanyahu’s policy on Iran, even as he has unequivocally sabotaged and derailed American efforts on this front.
But the remarkable fact is that Netanyahu’s Israel has pursued policies at odds with American strategic interests across much of the world.
Let us recount the ways.
In Europe, Netanyahu’s Israel has adopted a policy aimed at undermining the European Union and the liberal democratic order for which it stands.
In fact, it has aligned itself not merely with some of Brussels’s staunchest adversaries—such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Poland’s Jarosław Kaczyński and Mateusz Morawiecki, and Italy’s Matteo Salvini, to name a few; it has openly embraced some of Europe’s most far-right parties and their populist leaders whose opposition to Brussels transcends E.U. politics and turns on an illiberal agenda with, astonishingly, neo-fascist and even neo-Nazi strains.
For Netanyahu, these relationships have been first and foremost transactional.
In exchange for Israel turning a blind eye to their historical and ideological links with neo-Nazism and present-day anti-Semitism at home, these parties provided their support for Israel’s policy on the Palestinian front.
Such support, moreover, has also served a wider strategic aim for Netanyahu: by undermining E.U. consensus on foreign policy toward Israel, these relationships contribute to sowing divisions within the E.U. itself and weaken Europe’s core liberal norms.
Of course, Netanyahu’s brazen diplomatic posture against the liberal democratic order—the cornerstone of American foreign policy since the end of the Second World War—has been reflected most strikingly in his intimate relationship with Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin.
As Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu should certainly maintain cordial and constructive relations with Moscow, a major world power with a growing presence in the Middle East, including across Israel’s northern border of Syria.
But the relationship Netanyahu has cultivated with Putin has gone far beyond what has been strategically necessary to safeguard Israeli interests; worse, it has often come at Washington’s expense.
The full cost to U.S. strategic interests became apparent in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Although launched during Netanyahu’s brief hiatus from leadership, the relationship he had cultivated over the years with Putin has made Israel into a natural outlet for Russian capital and commodity exports.
The conduct is not limited to Jewish Russian oligarchs, for whose welfare (more in the sense of their wealth than health) Israel could claim to care; enter any supermarket in Israel since Western powers imposed sanctions on Moscow, and the number and variety of products from Russia and Russian-occupied Crimea will settle any question as to where Israel truly stands.
Regardless of whether Israeli supply of arms to Ukraine would make a difference on the battleground, its blank refusal of Kyiv’s requests poked a hole in American efforts to present a unified front against Russian aggression.
And although Israel has shifted its rhetoric of neutrality somewhat in favor of Ukraine and is reportedly ready to consider supplying it with some defensive weapons systems—the result, no doubt of Iranian military assistance to Russia and U.S. pressure—Netanyahu’s intimacy with Putin should be regarded as Israeli betrayal of the special relationship with the U.S.
A similar approach can be seen in Netanyahu’s policy toward China, the other global player determined to undercut American leadership.
China’s rivalry with the U.S. alone should have restrained Netanyahu from forging a comprehensive partnership with it.
Yet under his leadership, Israel has become a leading supplier of R&D and cutting-edge technologies and accelerated China’s transformation into becoming America’s “most serious competitor,” as President Biden has defined it.
Remarkably, Israel has also at least declared itself a a geo-strategic backer of China.
At a 2017 meeting with President Xi, Netanyahu encouraged China to assume its rightful place “on the world stage,” and waxed romantic by describing the Israeli-Chinese relationship as “a marriage made in heaven.”
Meanwhile here on earth, Netanyahu’s Israel has opened itself up to strategic investments by China in its infrastructure, such as the mass transit system in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, which will also run in sensitive underground locations abutting Israel’s military and defense compound, and parts of the Haifa Bay Port, which may steer the U.S. Sixth Fleet elsewhere.
Perhaps most egregiously, Netanyahu has had the temerity to meddle in American domestic politics.
He has used Israel to sow divisions between Democrats and Republicans, to anathematize a sitting U.S. president (Barack Obama), and to manipulate—we are using this word advisedly—another one (Donald Trump) to withdraw from a hard-reached international agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. The withdrawal is widely recognized to have been a huge strategic mistake, not only for U.S. security interests but, ironically, also for Israeli ones.
Disagreements between allies are par for the course in international relations.
Yet in the case of Netanyahu’s Israel, the kind and quality of its foreign-policy divergences with the U.S. are the stuff of an adversarial relationship, not a friendly one.
That there is a certain reluctance to designate Netanyahu’s Israel an adversary of the U.S. is understandable.
After all, the U.S. and Israel are bound by a special relationship.
And in many ways they are.
The very fact that it can contain and subsume the detrimental foreign policies of Netanyahu makes it a very special one indeed.
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.
But, Charles Dunaway added, “The biggest loser is the United States.”
He made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Sunday after Iran and Saudi Arabia reached an agreement on Friday to restore diplomatic relations and re-open embassies in each other’s countries; seven years after ties were severed over several issues.
“The rapprochement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is indeed a major achievement of diplomacy,” said Dunaway.
“It underscores the difference between actual diplomacy where agreements can be reached between rivals and even enemies for the common good, and American foreign policy which consists solely of demands, threats and sanctions,” he stated.
“China is now the largest economy in the world and the largest market.
It makes good business sense for nations in the region to improve their relations with China and work toward a stable environment that is conducive to business,” the commentator added.
“The ancient enmities between Iran and Saudi Arabia will not disappear overnight but re-establishing diplomatic relations is a positive first step,” he noted.
“Hopefully future diplomacy can smooth the most dangerous points of friction between the two.
Among them is support for certain groups throughout West Asia.
The Saudis have been important supporters of US-sponsored terrorist groups seeking to overthrow independent-minded governments and destabilize the region, often for the benefit of the Zionist entity.
Iran has steadfastly supported resisting US regime-change efforts in Syria and elsewhere,” he said.
“The mere threat of regional stability is causing high anxiety among the Zionists.
The timing is also fraught for the occupation regime in Tel Aviv.
After months of increasing violent oppression of the Palestinian people, another Intifada is more likely than ever.
The anti-corruption riots against the Netanyahu government leave it in a precarious position which appears more uncertain with the new Saudi-Iranian detente.
Israeli politicians are already blaming the Netanyahu regime for this ‘dangerous development,’” Dunaway noted.
“The arrogance and incompetence of the US government have enabled the Chinese to assume a leadership role in the region.
That can only serve to bring stability to those nations willing and able to set aside their longstanding differences and work toward peace and justice.
It is welcome news not only in Tehran and Riyadh and Muscat, but in Beirut, Damascus, and Sana’a,” he observed.
“To have a superpower ally interested in collegial relations, trade, and development rather than one interested only in cheap resources, and military dominance provides a great promise for a peaceful and prosperous future for all those of goodwill.
Only one regional government stands to lose from this deal, the regime occupying historic Palestine.
“Having once again found itself in a military quagmire after interfering in Ukraine, with its political class clamoring to fight China, and with the influence of the US and its European allies diminishing in Africa, the US is unlikely to be able to reassert its status as the global hegemon.
It will probably not stop trying, but history is marching on toward a multi-polar world.
New possibilities are arising,” the analyst said.
“Can China bring more West Asian nations into its diplomatic orbit?
Can more pressure be put upon the US to leave Syria?
Can the situation in Yemen be resolved peacefully?
Is it possible to establish a stable government in Lebanon?
Can the US occupation of Iraq be brought to an end?
There are no answers on the horizon, but we can at least begin asking these questions,” he concluded.
Five years ago, I wrote an article entitled “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s wars.”
It turned out to be the most popular piece that I have ever written and I was rewarded for it by immediately being fired by the so-called American Conservative magazine, where I had been a regular and highly popular contributor for fourteen years.
I opened the article with a brief description of an encounter with a supporter whom I had met shortly before at an antiwar conference.
The elderly gentleman asked “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room?
Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu?
Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?”
In my article I named many of the individual Jews and Jewish groups that had been leading the charge to invade Iraq and also deal with Iran along the way.
They used fake intelligence and out-and-out lies to make their case and never addressed the central issue of how those two countries actually threatened the United States or its vital interests.
And when they succeeded in committing the US to the fiasco in Iraq, as far as I can determine only one honest Jew who had participated in the process, Philip Zelikow, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel.
There was considerable collusion between the Israeli government and the Jews in the Pentagon, White House, National Security Council and State Department in the wake of 9/11.
Under President George W. Bush, Israeli Embassy staff uniquely had free access to the Pentagon office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, not being required to sign in or submit any security measures.
It was a powerful indication of the special status that Israel enjoyed with top Jews in the Bush Administration.
It should also be recalled that Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans was the source of the false WMD information used by the Administration to justify invading Iraq, while that information was also funneled directly to Vice President Dick Cheney without any submission to possibly critical analysts by his chief of Staff “Scooter” Libby.
Wolfowitz, Feith and Libby were of course Jewish as were many on their staffs and Feith’s relationship with Israel was so close that he actually partnered in a law firm that had a branch in Jerusalem.
Feith also served on the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which is dedicated to nurturing the relationship between the US and Israel.
Currently, the top three State Department officials (Tony Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Nuland) are all Zionist Jews.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security, which is hot on the trail of domestic “terrorist” dissidents, is also Jewish as is the Attorney General and the president’s chief of staff.
They and their boss Joe Biden do not seem concerned that their client Ukraine is no democracy.
The nation’s current government came into power after the 2014 coup engineered by President Barack Obama’s State Department at an estimated cost of $5 billion.
The regime change carried out under Barack Obama was driven by State Department Russophobe Victoria Nuland with a little help from international globalist George Soros.
It removed the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych who was, unfortunately for him, a friend of Russia.
Ukraine is reputedly both the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe, witness the Hunter Biden saga.
The current President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish and claims to have holocaust victims in his family tree, is a former comedian who won election in 2019.
He replaced another Jewish president Petro Poroshenko, after being heavily funded and promoted by yet another fellow Jew and Ukraine’s richest oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who is also an Israeli citizen and now lives in Israel.
It all sounds like deja vu all over again, particularly as many of the perpetrators are still around, like Nuland, priming the pump to go to war yet again for no reason.
And they are joined by journalists like Bret Stephens at the New York Times, Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper at CNN, and also Max Boot at the Washington Post, all of whom are Jewish and can be counted on to write regular pieces both damning and demonizing Russia and its head of state Vladimir Putin, which means it is not only about the Middle East anymore.
It is also about weakening and even bringing about regime change in nuclear armed Russia while also drawing some lines in the sand for likewise nuclear armed China.
And I might add that playing power games with Russia is a hell of a lot more dangerous than kicking Iraq around.
To put it bluntly, many US government and media Jews hate Russia and even though they benefited substantially as a group by virtue of their preeminent role in the looting of the former Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin and continue to be among the most prominent Russian oligarchs.
Many of the oligarch billionaires, like Boris Berezovsky, self-exiled when Vladimir Putin obtained power and began to crack down on their tax avoidance and other illegal activity.
Many moved to Western Europe where some bought up football teams while others went south and obtained Israeli citizenship.
Their current grievances somewhat reflect their tribe’s demand for perpetual victimhood and the deference plus forgiveness of all sins that it conveys, with the self-promoted tales of persecution going back to the days of the Tsars, full of allegations about pogroms and Cossacks arriving in the night, stories that rival many of the holocaust fabrications in terms of their lack of credibility.
Many Jews, particularly younger Jews, are finding it difficult to support apartheid Israel and the constant wars being initiated and fought for no particularly credible reason by both Democratic and Republican parties when in power, which is a good thing.
But Jewish power in Washington and across the US is difficult to ignore and it is precisely those Jewish groups and individuals who have been empowered through their wealth and connections who have been the most vocal leading warmongers when it has come to the Middle East and to Russia.
Interestingly, however, some pushback is developing.
The Jewish peace group Tikkun has recently published a devastating article by Jeffrey Sachs on the Jews who have been agitating for war.
It is entitled “Ukraine Is the Latest Neocon Disaster” and describes how “The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement.
The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons.
As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle…”
I had an excellent meeting today with @OMarkarova to discuss the situation in Ukraine and continued cooperation from NATO allies to assist in their defense. pic.twitter.com/jITCPcg6eU
Tikkun explains how “The neocon movement emerged in the 1970s around a group of public intellectuals, several of whom were influenced by University of Chicago political scientist Leo Strauss and Yale University classicist Donald Kagan.
Neocon leaders included Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan (son of Donald), Frederick Kagan (son of Donald), Victoria Nuland (wife of Robert), Elliott Abrams, and Kimberley Allen Kagan (wife of Frederick).”
It might be added that Kimberley Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, which is often cited in media coverage and even in Congress to explain why we must fight Russia.
It has long been recognized by many that a particular antipathy directed against Russia permeates the so-called neoconservative world view.
The neocons are hugely overrepresented at the top levels of government and, as noted above, a number of them are running the State Department while also holding high level positions elsewhere in the Biden Administration as well as in the foreign policy think tanks, including Richard Haass at the influential Council on Foreign Relations.
Likewise, the intensely Russophobic US and Western media, foundations and social networking sites are disproportionately Jewish in their ownership and staffing.
And beyond that, Ukraine is to a certain extent a very Jewish-identified place.
The Jewish media in the US and elsewhere has been showering Zelensky with praise, referring to him as a genuine “Jewish hero,” a modern Maccabee resisting oppression, a David versus Goliath.
T-shirts bearing his image are being sold that read “Resisting tyrants since Pharaoh” while the largely Orthodox Jewish community in New York City has already been raising millions of dollars for Ukrainian aid.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agencyreports that a “2020 demographic survey estimated that besides a ‘core’ population of 43,000 Jews, around 200,000 Ukrainians are technically eligible for Israeli citizenship, meaning that they have identifiable Jewish ancestry.
The European Jewish Congress says that number could be as high as 400,000.”
If that is true, it is one of the largest Jewish communities in the world and it includes at least 8,000 Israelis, many of whom have returned to Israel.
As US-Russian negotiations leading up the current fighting were clearly designed to fail by the Biden Administration, one therefore has to wonder if this war against Russia is largely a product of a long enduring ethno-religious hatred coupled with a belief in the necessity for a strong American military applied as needed to dominate the world and thereby protect Israel.
The neocons are most visible, but equally toxic are the Jews who would prefer to describe themselves as neoliberals or liberal interventionists, that is liberals who promote a strong, assertive American leadership role to support the basically phony catchwords “democracy” and “freedom.”
Both neocons and neoliberals inevitably support the same policies so they have both ends of the political spectrum covered, particularly concerning the Middle East and against Russia.
They currently dominate the foreign policy thinking of both major political parties as well as exercising control over media and entertainment industry coverage of the issues that concern them, largely leaving the American public with only their viewpoint to consider.
There is plenty of other evidence that prominent Jews both inside and outside the Administration have been stirring things up against Russia with considerable success as President Biden has now declared insanely that his Administration is engaged in “a great battle for freedom.
A battle between democracy and autocracy. Between liberty and repression.”
He has confirmed that the US is in Ukraine’s war against Russia until we “win.”
How else does one explain the ridiculous trip by Attorney General Merrick Garland to Kiev in late June to help set up a war crimes investigation directed against Russia?
As Garland is supposed to be the US Attorney General, it might first be useful to investigate crimes relating to the United States.
He might start with American war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan or Israeli war crimes using Washington provided weapons in Lebanon and Syria, not to mention the human rights violations using those same weapons that occur on a daily basis directed against the Palestinians.
Some conservatives are also wondering why the Attorney General spends his time pursuing “white supremacists” and has failed to investigate the rioting, looting and killing that rocked the nation in the BLM Summer of 2020.
Nevertheless, an undeterred and fearless Garland announced while in Kiev that Eli Rosenbaum, Jewish of course, and a 36-year veteran of the Justice Department who previously served as the director of the Office of Special Investigations, which was primarily responsible for identifying, denaturalizing and deporting Nazi war criminals, will lead a War Crimes Accountability team made up of DOJ experts in investigating Russian human-rights abuses.
After the obligatory photo op sucking up to Zelensky, the diminutive but steely eyed Attorney General declared that “There is no hiding place for war criminals.
The US Justice Department will pursue every avenue of accountability for those who commit war crimes and other atrocities in Ukraine.
Working alongside our domestic and international partners, the Justice Department will be relentless in our efforts to hold accountable every person complicit in the commission of war crimes, torture and other grave violations during the unprovoked conflict in Ukraine.”
And if any further evidence required to demonstrate the Jewishness of that week in Kiev, actor Ben Stiller, also a Jew, visited Zelensky and gave him a big hug.
If Eli Rosenbaum is still seriously interested in finding Nazis he will find many more of them in Ukraine than within the Russian Army.
So, one has to ask “Whose war is it and who is making it happen?” Can you please explain Joe Biden? Or, given your perpetual blank look, should I ask Merrick Garland or Tony Blinken or maybe even Victoria Nuland?
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”.[1]
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.[2]
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.[3]
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.[4] 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.[5]
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.[6]
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.[7]
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.[8]
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.[9]
Zelensky, incidentally, has dramatically profited from his “meteoric rise” to fame and power.
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.”
Corruption there is endemic; in 2015, the Guardianheadlined a story on Ukraine, calling it “the most corrupt nation in Europe.”
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?
Nothing.
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.[10]
“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.
Public Outrage?
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.[11]
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.”
The latest conjoining of the two is the ADL’s policy proposals to be included in the Democratic & Republican platforms.
Particularly pernicious and alarming is the ADL’s relentless targeting of the Internet.
Here is a Brave New ‘Zionist‘ World policy proposal the ADL wants on both party’s platforms:
“The ADL believes the US must mobilize government efforts to confront anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred and bigotry.
Anti-Semitic propaganda is disseminated throughout the world via the Internet.
The US must use inter-governmental forums to encourage legislative and judicial action to fight anti-Semitism and encourage the improvement of data collection of all anti-Semitic activities”Here.
The ADL’s persistent power in U.S. politics has been strangely unaffected by its history, probably because that history is so little known.
The Ilhan Omar debate should be shaped by at least two aspects of it.
The first is that the ADL has consistently sought to undermine the left, leveling a charge akin to dual loyalty: that the American left’s calls for redistribution of power, its solidarity with global movements, and its prioritization of people over states threaten the very concept of the state.
Indeed the ADL, in addition to its stated mission of shoring up U.S. support for Israel, is deeply loyal to the U.S. state.
The second is that the ADL has waged a long, vigorous, and successful campaign, alongside AIPAC, specifically to characterize Arab American political organizing as dual loyalty.
The United States is making a mistake in not concentrating on its own problems rather than meddling in China’s internal affairs, as a defeat against China—coming so soon after the war in Ukraine and the withdrawal from Afghanistan—would show U.S. imperialism to be just a paper tiger.
In 1958 the Royal Institute of International Affairs (aka Chathamhouse) founded the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
Many members on the board of directors were RIIA members and members of its U.S. Sister organization the Council on Foreign Relations.
It has become the pre-eminent British think-tank peddling the “new NATO” doctrine, and pressing for the United States to accept the role of “policeman of the world.”
The Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of International Affairs can trace their roots back to a secret organization founded and funded by Cecil Rhodes, who became fabulously wealthy by exploiting the people of South Africa. Rhodes is the father of Apartheid.
The Council on Foreign Relations was founded by a group of American and British imperialists and racists intent on ruling the world.
In this reprint of the February 1994 “Notes from the Editors,” former MR editors Harry Magdoff and Paul M. Sweezy ask: “The United States could not have won a more decisive victory in the Cold War. Why, then, does it continue to act as though the Cold War is still on?”
Warmongers in Washington badly want a war with Iran
Many of the British members were British Intelligence Agents.
THE INQUIRY and its members, who included such notable Americans as Col. Edward Mandel House, Walter Lippmann, Isaiah Bowman, and James Shotwell, wrote most of Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points.
The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple — they control public opinion.
They keep the identity of their group secret.
They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people.
The IISS website tells us IISS is “A registered charity headquartered in London, the IISS also has offices in Washington, Singaporeand Manama, Bahrain.
The IISS is a non-partisan organisation, independent of government and other bodies.
Its mission is to promote the adoption of sound policies to further global peace and security and maintain civilised international relations.”
This is untrue. Non-partisan is CFR/RIIA euphemism for controlling both sides of political spectrum.
The psycho-political operations are often designed to create tensions between different groups of people.
Keeping the world in a state of perpetual tension and warfare maximizes profits from CFR/RIIA munition, medicine, media, energy, and food businesses.
IISS is a CFR/RIIA psycho-political operations tool for achieving their goal of one world government under their control. Besides The Military Balance, the definitive reference source on the world’s armed forces, IISS publications include:
One of IISS’s main ways of reaching out to broader layers is through its publications, which include: Strategic Comments; Adelphi Papers; Survival; an annual report entitled The Military Balance; and the annual reference The World Directory of Strategic Studies Centers. The Strategic Survey 1997-1998, an IISS annual report, argues for the United States to accept its assigned role as global policeman. The only choice that the United States should make, the IISS survey argues, is whether to act unilaterally, to act through multilateral organizations like the United Nations or NATO, or through informal coalitions. “The U.S. is bound to find itself often in the future balancing the benefits of a more multinational approach . . . against the utility of a unilateral approach which allows the U.S. its preferredpolicywithoutthe encumbrancesofinter-alliedconsultation. The quality of U.S. leadership in the future is likely to be judged by the wisdom of the choice it makes between these mutually exclusive methods for dealing with crises.”
Conrad Black is the chairman and CEO of the Hollinger Corp. media cartel, which owns the Telegraph plc in Britain, the Jerusalem Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, and hundreds of other dailies and weeklies across the United States, and which has just launched a new nationwide daily in Canada. On July 6, 1998, Black addressed the annual meeting of the Center for PolicyStudiesinLondon,theflagshipthink-tankoftheradical free market Mont Pelerin Society. In his speech on “Britain’s Final Choice: Europe or America?” Black attacked the European Union as “the greatest engine for collectivism, illiberalism, and hyper-regulation in our national life.” He called upon Britain to abandon plans to join the European Monetary Union, and, instead, to formally press for membership in an expanded, transatlantic “super-NAFTA,” which he proposed be renamed as the “North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.”
“None of the continental European countries has a particular affinity with the United States and Canada,” Black lied, “or anything slightly comparable to Britain’s dramatic modern historic intimacy with North America. . . . Such an expanded NAFTA would have every commercial advantage over the EU. It is based on the Anglo-American free market model of relatively restrained taxation and social spending. The United States will make no significant concessions of sovereignty and does not expect other countries to do so.” Two years earlier, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher keynoted the founding “Prague Congress” of the New Atlantic Initiative, where she initiated the call for this super-NAFTA. Lady Thatcher chairs the international advisory board of the Hollinger Corp., and Black is a founder of the NAI.
What is today the Hollinger corporate octopus, started out during World War II as a front company for Britain’s war machine. In April 1940, Edward Plunkett Taylor was recruited into British intelligence by the Minister of Munitions and Supplies, Clarence Decatur Howe. Perhaps drawing on the Taylor family’s experience as smugglers during U.S. Prohibition, Howe assigned E.P. Taylor to secure the flow of U.S. dollars into the British Empire, and to obtain war supplies that were forbidden under the U.S. Neutrality Act. Taylor and his crew—including Conrad Black’s father, George Montagu Black—made a profit working through a British government front company that they had created, called War Supplies Ltd. The New York Times described it at the time as “a virtual merging of the economies of the United States and Canada.” At the end of the war, Taylor & Co. formed the Argus Corporation with the $1.3 billion they had amassed by procuring arms for the British government. Argus proceeded to buy up a number of strategic raw material firms, and Canada’s largest farm equipment manufaturer, Massey Ferguson. Conrad Black was groomed by his father and Taylor to take over Argus. When he assumed control in the 1970s, he changed the company’s name to Hollinger Corp., and he sold off the raw material and manufacturing subsidiaries; then he began a worldwide media grab, such that, today, Hollinger is among the largest print media cartels in the English-speaking world. Using funds from liquidated assets of the Argus Corp., supplemented by contributions from Li Kai Shing, whose family has a virtually hereditary board position on the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, the heroin bank for East Asia’s market, Black purchased 100% control of The Telegraph Ltd., publisher of the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph is the largest newspaper in London—it is a favorite of the British royal family—and quickly became a mouthpiece for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Black purchased 100% control of the Jerusalem Post, the foremost English daily in Israel, turning its policies to support for the Likudnik Greater Israel crazies, such as Foreign Minister Gen. Ariel Sharon, “the Butcher of Lebanon.” Hollinger Canadian Publishing Holdings, Inc. began buying up daily and weekly papers across Canada, through its wholly owned Sterling Newspapers Co. and Southam groups. And, in the United States, Black purchased some 240 daily and weekly papers through his Chicago Group, including the Chicago Sun-Times, the Gary, Indiana Post Tribune, and the Community Newspaper Group. The Spectator, a British establishment journal since 1828, was purchased by Hollinger shortly after the takeover of the Telegraph Group Ltd. On July 9, 1990, the Spectatorfeatured an inflammatory anti-German article Thatcher’s Minister of Industry and Trade, Nicholas Ridley. Ridley assailed Chancellor Helmut Kohl for backing reunification of his country, and equating Kohl with Adolf Hitler, and calling a reunified Germany the “Fourth Reich.” The article kicked up such controversy that he was soon thereafter forced to resign. Thatcher, in her Memoirs, the Downing Street Years, acknowledged that it was British Empire policy to do everything to block German reunification. Ridley was merely just taking orders from Thatcher, Black, and the BAC.
The boards of directors and advisory boards of Hollinger and its subsidiaries are a veritable who’s who of the British American& Canadian inner circle, from policy shapers, like Black, to field hands like Anglo-Israeli spy Richard Perle. We provide a partial listing:
Conrad M. Black, Canadian Privy Council, Queen’s Council, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Hollinger, Inc.; Hollinger International, Inc.; Hollinger Canadian Publishing Holdings Inc.; Telegraph Group, Ltd; and, Southam Inc.; 1001 Nature Trust; New Atlantic Initiative.
Barbara Amiel Black, wife of Conrad Black, and VicePresident, Editorial, London. Director, Hollinger, Inc.; and, Hollinger International, Inc. R.
Donald Fullerton, chairman of the executive committee, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Director, Hollinger, Inc.
Baroness Margaret Thatcher, LG, OM, Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1979-90).
Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.
Vale´ry Giscard d’Estaing, President of France (1974- 81). Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.
Lord Peter Rupert Carrington, KG, GCMG, Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Telegraph Group Ltd.
CFR member Henry A. Kissinger, KCMG, former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Adviser; former member President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski,former U.S. National Security Adviser, former chairman, Trilaterial Commission. Senior International Adviser, Hollinger International, Inc.
Dr. Giovanni Agnelli, Honorary Chairman, Fiat S.p.A. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
Dwayne O. Andreas, Chairman, Archer Daniels Midland Co. Director, International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc. CFR member David Brinkley, ABC News senior correspondent (1981- 97). International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member William F. Buckley, Editor-at-Large, National Review. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (1995-98). International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
Lord Hanson,Chairman, Hanson PLC, London. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Richard Perle, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy 1981-87; Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.; Director Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Jerusalem Post Publications, Ltd.; Chairman, Hollinger Digital, Inc.
Lord Jacob Rothschild, Chairman, Jacob Rothschild Holdings PLC. International Advisory Board, Hollinger International, Inc.
CFR member Paul A. Volcker, Chairman, James D. Wolfensohn Inc. (1988-96); Chairman, U.S. Federal Reserve System, 1979- 87; North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission.
CFR member Richard Burt, Chairman, International Equity Partners; Chief Negotiator in Strategic Arms Reduction Talks with U.S.S.R., 1989-91; Director, Hollinger International, Inc.
Alfred Taubman (son William is CFR member) , Chairman, Taubman Co.; Chairman, Sotheby’s Holdings, Inc.; and, Director, Hollinger International, Inc.
Lord Weidenfeld of Chelsea, Chairman, Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., London; Director, Hollinger International, Inc.; and, Director, Jerusalem Post Publications, Ltd. Viscount Cranborne, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd.
Rupert N. Hambro; Chairman, JO Hambro & Co., Ltd.; former officer, British Special Operations Executive; and, Director, Telegraph Group Ltd.
Henry N.L. Keswick, Chairman, Matheson & Co. Ltd. and Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd., London; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd. Lord King of Wartnaby, President, British Airways PLC and Babcock International Group, PLC, London; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd. Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, Privy Council, Queen’s Council, U.K. Solicitor-General, 1962-64 and Attorney General, 1970-74; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd.
CFR member Raymond G.H. Seitz, Senior Managing Director, Lehman Brothers and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom; Director, Telegraph Group, Ltd. Maj. Gen. Shlomo Gazit, Senior Researcher, Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University; Former Chief of Israeli Military Intelligence; and, Director, Jerusalem Post Publications, Ltd
