Zionist Regime New Air Force Head Talks Scared and Tough on Iran: He Has Little Reason to be Either

Who would believe that nobody likes an occupation? Does it look like “Israel” even fits into the natural equation of the region?
Israel and BuzzFeed: When Government PR Goes Viral - The Atlantic

JERUSALEM – As 2021 came to a close, Israel had raised the so-called “Iran Threat” issue to a whole new level.

Upon his promotion in December to Commander of the Israeli Air Force, General Tomer Bar was asked by the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot (Ynet), “Are you able to attack Iran tomorrow?”

His answer was “Yes!” He was then asked, “Will you be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities?”

His reply: “There is no scenario where we act over there, and I don’t return and say ‘mission accomplished.’”

In the summer of 2020, The Times of Israel reported that Israel had what it called a “Strategy and Third-Circle Directorate,” which focuses principally on “Israel’s fight against Iran.”

The wording, “Israel’s fight against Iran,” is particularly apt: though more often than not it is described as “Iran’s fight against Israel,” it is, in fact, Israel that is a threat to Iran and not the other way around.

Returning to the interview with the Israeli Air-Force commander, it is as though Israel cannot wait for the opportunity to attack, and indeed, the Ynet reporter who interviewed General Bar was eager.

“Bar,” the story continues, “who will be tasked with carrying out a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities should one be ordered, understands that he may be required to carry out one of the most complex operations in the country’s history.”

Interesting choice of words, considering this possible mission is described as a complex, even daring mission rather than pure madness.

Tomer Bar

General Tomer Bar, commander of the Israeli Air-Force on the front page of the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot

Not leaving out any details, the interview with Bar continued, “I must assume that it might happen during my tenure, and I understand the magnitude of such an order…

Preparations have been underway for a while, including procurement of the F-35 jets and missile defense systems.”

If such an order is given, “there is no way that I will fly 1,000 kilometers and come home without succeeding in my mission.”

According to the Jerusalem Post, however, this might not be as simple as General Bar thinks.

The U.S. has so far rejected an Israeli request to fast-track the delivery of two tanker aircraft, which are needed to allow the Israeli fighter jets to refuel on their way to Iran.

If plans for a possible military option against Iran’s nuclear plan move forward, Israel will need these tankers.

When asked about the U.S. refusal to expedite the sale of refueling aircraft despite Israel’s request, Bar said the matter has not been finalized and that he “remains hopeful the necessary aircraft would be supplied early.” One would think they were planning a party.

Iran under threat

Iran has been facing continuous threats of attack from Israel and the United States for far too long.

With a population of close to 85 million and a record of not having invaded or initiated a war against another country, one is puzzled at the persistent anti-Iranian rhetoric in the United States and Israel.

Furthermore, even if we consider Iran’s unrelenting support for the Palestinian struggle for freedom and justice and the Iranian refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine, the Israeli threats seem unjustified.

Iran’s positions, while obviously unwelcome to the Israeli government, have remained essentially unchanged and stable for decades and there is no threatening drumbeat coming from Tehran.

Since Iran has had to live under these ongoing threats of attack and has been the victim of crippling U.S. sanctions, it is no surprise that it has invested in building what seem to be impressive military capabilities. According to a report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA:

Iran has adapted its military capabilities and doctrine to account for developments by the United States and its allies. Although still technologically inferior to most of its competitors, the Iranian military has progressed substantially over the past few decades.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard

Iraniran troops march during a military parade marking the anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war. Photo | AP

Furthermore, the report states:

Iran continues to rely on its unconventional warfare elements and asymmetric capabilities – intended to exploit the perceived weaknesses of a superior adversary – to provide deterrence and project power.

This combination of lethal conventional capabilities and proxy forces poses a persistent threat.

The problem with this analysis is the idea that Iran is the one that poses a threat.

On the contrary, Iran is the one under threat.

Furthermore, at least one of the “proxy forces” the report refers to is Hezbollah, an organization created to respond to the brutal Israeli assaults against Lebanon and the consequent 20-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

Finally, the report points out that Iran has a “substantial arsenal of ballistic missiles” and that this arsenal is “designed to overwhelm U.S. forces and our partners in the region.”

This is the most effective deterrent Iran has against an impending Israeli attack.

Iran versus Israel

Iran has over 80 million people with an official defense budget in 2019 of approximately $20.7 billion, or roughly 3.8% of GDP.

Israel has a combined population of around 12 million, though fewer than half are actual citizens with rights, and has a defense budget of just under $19 billion.

The debate over a possible war between Israel and Iran is a favorite among pundits.

As a result, one can find a great deal of information comparing the sizes and capabilities of the two militaries.

piece in Business Insider from August 2021 titled, “A shadowy fight between Israel and Iran is at risk of becoming a bigger war.

Here’s how their militaries stack up,” is one of many such articles.

It concludes that an allout war between the two countries is unlikely but we are likely to see more of the “shadowy” assaults like the attack on a vessel in the Arabian Sea, which was owned by Israeli billionaire Eyal Ofer.

In 2018 Newsweek published a piece called, “How Does Israel’s Military Compare to Iran?”

The article claims that, while “Israeli military might is underscored by its top notch military-industrial complex, Iran’s military is aging and sub-par.”

Still, Newsweek admits, “[b]oth nations have considerable military clout, and any prolonged confrontation between them would be bloody.”

One would do well to remember that, with all the admiration for Israeli military capabilities and technological superiority, Israel has never fought a war against a disciplined, well-trained, well-equipped, highly motivated military force.

Protesters wave Palestinians flags in front of Israeli solders on Gaza's border with Israel, east of Beit Lahiya, Gaza Strip, Wednesday, April 4, 2018. A leading Israel human rights group urged Israeli forces in a rare step Wednesday to disobey open-fire orders unless Gaza protesters pose an imminent threat to soldiers' lives. (AP Photo/Adel Hana)

Despite the IDF’s superior military might, most of Israel’s battlefield experience comes from facing off with unarmed protesters. Photo | AP

Israel did attack its neighboring countries and destroy their militaries several times, but then it retreated to the safety of its borders.

Iran is not such a proximate neighbor and, should Israel need to deploy forces, something it never had to do in the past; it would be a logistical nightmare.

Even assuming Israel would rely only on its air force, Iran is a large country, and it is a long flight to Iran and back.

Logistically, this would demand an enormous effort by Israel while the Iranians would have to do nothing but wait and then use their air defenses and long-range missiles.

Furthermore, should a war take place on Iranian soil, there is no military force large, effective or motivated enough to defeat Iran.

Israel’s last face-to-face encounter with a well-disciplined and motivated fighting force was in 2006 in Lebanon.

Israeli ground forces encountered Hezbollah fighters, and things did not go well for the Israelis, who were forced to retreat in humiliation.

Israeli officers who participated in that assault against Lebanon said there were serious logistical and intelligence flaws, and this was just a few short kilometers from their home base.

Imagine what would happen if they were thousands of miles from home.

As the new year begins, we should be thankful that the United States, having suffered two colossal military defeats in the last two decades — one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan — has no stomach or resources to attack a formidable country like Iran.

Apart from that, it would be fair to say that two things prevent an all-out war between Israel and Iran.

The first is that Israel knows that attacking Iran will end in a total Israeli defeat. The second is Iran’s exercise of discipline in the face of ongoing threats by both the U.S. and Israel.

US, Israel: Global masters of terrorism

Everything involving “Israel” is dirty.

The global black market for terrorism: Who requests these tenders? The EU establishes a terrorist organization, but the US and Israel are its true masters. UAE’s MBZ and Saudi Arabia’s MBS, the two crown princes who are ‘brokers of terror’; it’s game over, your turn will come.

Daesh, the PKK and its Syrian affiliate, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), are the property of U.S./Israeli military and intelligence organizations.

There is an extremely large black market for terror across the world. Along with the drug sector, the terror market is one of the most effective weapons in wealth and power struggles. It has the characteristics of a nuclear bomb.

The biggest tenders– from geopolitical showdowns to ethnic conflicts, from religious priorities to billions of dollars in dirty money, from trade wars to resources– are distributed across this market.

EU countries establishing terrorist organizations

A significant portion of EU countries, which always talk the talk on democracy and human rights, carry out their global business with terrorist organizations.

They establish terrorist organizations, finance them, train them, deploy them to countries, and specify clear-cut targets.

Europe, France and the U.K. take the lead in this regard. Countries such as Germany, Belgium and The Netherlands work as terror bosses in the field of intelligence, while the others, as well as northern countries, breed them under the cover of “soft power.”

US, Israel: Global masters of terrorism

The War On Terror Is A Jewish Hoax | Real Jew News

U.S. and Israel are the big bosses of global terrorism.

These countries, which have turned “fighting terrorism” into a global political doctrine, actually invented that term to veil their terrorist organizations.

They used to establish ethnic and ideological organizations back in the Cold War era.

Whereas this time, they established ethnic and “Islamist” terrorist organizations, particularly aimed at our region.

The U.S. and Israel, together with the U.K., and with the support of some EU countries, have been striking our countries, our region, our people through terrorism, under the very pretext of “terrorism.”

They destroyed countries under the pretext of “terrorism”

All terrorist organizations are unleashed on the ground for the U.S. and its partners’ plans to invade, start civil wars and plunder resources.

The atmosphere was prepared for this.

Afghanistan was invaded based on the grounds that al-Qaida and the Taliban had a presence in the country.

Syria was invaded based on the grounds that Daesh was there.

Libya and Iraq were invaded and destroyed based on the grounds that there were dictators there, or other excuses.

The covert reason was different; terms such as terrorism, dictator, freedom and democracy were constantly thrown in our faces.

Yet, every one of these organizations was affiliated with intelligence agencies.

For the first time a country declared a terrorist organization as a partner. The world witnessed this

PKK terrorist with USA patch

The U.S. administration was able to openly declare a terrorist organization, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), as its “partner.”

And against a NATO ally too. The ethnic terrorism that has been used against our country for the last four decades was actually these countries’ covert war against Turkey.

The buildup in north Syria is the most open and most reckless support ever given to a terrorist organization in world history.

The deal struck in Ankara, which ensures the PKK and U.S.’s withdrawal from the area, certified that the U.S. really is a terror boss.

They made a deal with our country for a terrorist organization. Through this deal, we declared to the world their role as a “terror boss.” There is no other greater shame than this for the U.S.

Daesh, the PKK and its Syrian affiliate, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), are the property of U.S./Israeli military and intelligence organizations.

Those two deals: Who retreated? Who lost? The picture is clear.

Let’s consider the results of the deals made with the U.S. and Russia: The PKK is going to withdraw completely from all the areas we determine in Syria.

Who else is withdrawing with the PKK? U.S. troops, French troops, Israeli military presence.

Who is losing? European countries, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain.

All of those that lost and are withdrawing are countries that support terrorism, act as their terror bosses and finance terrorism.

As the US sent them thousands of trucks loaded with weapons, the UAE and Saudi Arabia sent truckloads of money

They discovered new terror supporters against Turkey in the recent period.

Through the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Bahrain, with their organizations and funds, they started attacking Turkey through terrorism.

While the U.S. was sending the PKK/YPG thousands of trucks loaded with weapons, they were transferring hundreds of millions of dollars to this organization.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia have very bad records in this respect, and Turkey will never forget it.

The UAE has been an open enemy: Terrorism, a coup, assassination attempts on Erdoğan

An open enemy: The UAE in particular is fighting Turkey in every field across the entire region, from Syria to Libya, from the Mediterranean.

It is building a partnership with Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) members and striking Turkey.

All known and unknown anti-Turkey organizations are being abundantly supplied with weapons and funds.

For us, the UAE’s open enmity, enormity has become a primary threat that must be prevented.

It was involved in the July 15 invasion and coup attempt in 2016; they were the ones that provided the funding, they held joint meetings and demonstration plans with FETÖ in Dubai.

The UAE was involved in all plans and attempts to oust, assassinate and kill President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

It attempted assassinations even in Turkey with hired hitman Mohammed Dahlan.

Turkey’s two enemies: Mohammed bin Zayed and Mohammed bin Salman. They should be charged with supporting terror

ولي_العهد MBS GIF - ولي_العهد MBS MohammedBinSalman - Discover & Share GIFs

Nowadays, the UAE is recruiting Israeli intelligence members through the companies it established in Southern Cyprus, and from here, it carries out its intelligence and terror operations against Turkey.

In all its anti-Turkey operations and attacks in the region, it receives instructions from Israel and uses Saudi Arabia’s power.

Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) should be openly held accountable of and charged for being a global terror financier, for assassination and dirty, covert operations.

The slaughter of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi is not the only murder committed by Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), whom he has wrapped around his finger.

They are both responsible for the war crimes in Yemen.

Mohammed bin Zayed and Mohammed bin Salman are the leading enemies of Turkey in our region.

The puppet master of these two figures, who have directed all their evil towards Turkey, is the Israeli intelligence.

Whose game was spoiled after the deals made in Ankara, Sochi?

These two names are also among those whose games were spoiled after the deal made with the U.S. in Ankara and with Russia’s Putin in Sochi.

The latest victory Turkey won against terrorism and the forces supporting them struck a blow to these two as well.

But it should not stop here; the fight against them should continue using the most effective methods.

Turkey struck the heaviest blow on the terror market after the Cold War.

It is the country that turned the tides in the global terror market.

They had destroyed all the countries in our region through terrorist organizations.

They were doing the same to Turkey.

But this time they could not succeed.

For the first time they had to step back.

The ‘two brokers of terror.’ Their turn is coming

It will continue. It will not end here.

Following the PKK and Daesh, the fight is going to turn to – it must turn to – their terror barons in our region, to Mohammed bin Zayed and Mohammed bin Salman.

First to terrorist organizations, then their middlemen, and then their bosses.

A very detailed investigation must be launched against these two, with respect to funding terrorism, founding and managing terrorist organizations, threatening countries, assassination attempts and terrorist attacks, with international courts taking action.

Why is the Arab League that condemned Turkey so quiet?

How were the EU countries that used terrorist organizations caught red-handed and sidelined?

The “game” against Turkey is over for them. It will take some time for them to set up a new one.

We are going to be faster. Turkey will defeat the “terror brokers” as well.

Bonus video since you came this far!

UN passes resolution against Zionist entity annexation plans in Syria’s occupied Golan Heights

Press TV: The United Nations General Assembly has approved a resolution declaring that the Israeli regime’s decision to impose its jurisdiction in Syria’s Golan Heights with the aim of changing the character and legal status of the strategic territory are “null and void” and constitute a flagrant violation of international law.

So here’s what we have: a warmongering former American Vice President (and virulent opponent of the current President); a media mogul of dubious ethics; the head of an international Jewish philanthropic entity dedicated to (among other things) “the environment, sustainable development and green energy”; a tightly bound confluence of American and Israeli business interests; and a former Israeli governmental minister who is one caveat shy of advocating mass genocide, all about to benefit from exploiting the natural resources of a large chunk of land that, according to international law, actually belongs to another country.

On Thursday, a total of 149 countries supported the resolution, entitled “The Occupied Syrian Golan”, the United States and Israel voted against it, and 23 abstained.

MAJDAL SHAMS, GOLAN HEIGHTS – APRIL 29: (ISRAEL OUT) A Druze shepherd looks for his flock on the slopes of Mount Hermon April 29, 2008 above Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights. (Photo by Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)

The resolution called on Israel as the occupying power to undertake its obligations as to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, especially United Nations Security Council resolution 497 – adopted unanimously on December 17, 1981, which declares the Israeli annexation of the area as “null and void and without international legal effect” and further calls on the Tel Aviv regime to rescind its action.

“Israel’s” decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights has no international legal effect, and the regime should immediately stop changing the urban character, demographic composition and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly its settlement construction plans, the resolution pointed out.

It further called on the Tel Aviv regime to stop attempts to enforce its administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, put an end to issuing Israeli identity cards for local residents of the territory, and stop its repressive measures against them.

The resolution also denounced Israel’s violations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, adopted on August 12, 1949, and once again called upon UN member states not to recognize any of the measures taken by Israel in the Golan Heights.

Last week, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding that the Israeli regime fully withdraw from the Syrian Golan Heights, declaring “null” and “void” the regime’s imposition of its jurisdiction on the occupied territory.

The Assembly adopted the draft resolution titled “The Syrian Golan” by a recorded vote of 94 in favor to 8 against, with 69 abstentions.

Israel was joined by the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau in voting against the draft resolution.

The draft resolution reaffirmed that settlement construction and any other Israeli activities constitute a change in the demographic nature of the occupied Syrian Golan.

Last month, the United Nations overwhelmingly adopted a resolution in condemnation of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East al-Quds, and Syria’s Golan Heights, and demanded cessation of their construction.

In 1967, Israel waged a full-scale war against Arab territories, during which it occupied a large swathe of Golan and annexed it four years later – a move never recognized by the international community.

In 1973, another war broke out; and a year later a UN-brokered ceasefire came into force, according to which Tel Aviv and Damascus agreed to separate their troops and create a buffer zone in the Heights.

However, Israel has over the past several decades built dozens of illegal settlements in Golan in defiance of international calls for the regime to stop its illegal construction activities.

In a unilateral move rejected by the international community in 2019, former US president Donald Trump signed a decree recognizing Israeli “sovereignty” over Golan.

Nevertheless, Syria has repeatedly reaffirmed its sovereignty over Golan, saying the territory must be completely restored to its control.

The United Nations has also time and again emphasized Syria’s sovereignty over the territory.

Secretary of State Blinken “Enthusiastically Embraces” IHRA

Biden administration “enthusiastically embraces” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrote in a February 23 letter to American Zionist Movement President Richard D. Heideman that the Biden administration “enthusiastically embraces” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.

The letter, which was obtained by Jewish Insider, stated that the administration will counter “efforts to delegitimize Israel” as well as efforts to “isolate” Israel as the United States and Israel work toward a two-state solution.

“As the stepson of a Holocaust survivor, I wholeheartedly believe that we must remain vigilant in speaking out against bigotry, intolerance, and those who seek to undermine democracy,” Blinken wrote.

ZIONISTS RUN THE STATE DEPARTMENT

“The Biden Administration enthusiastically embraces the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, including its examples.

We are eager to work with allies and partners to counter Holocaust distortion and combat anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance abroad while we strengthen our efforts at home, including redoubling our efforts to counter violent extremism.”

The American Jewish Committee praised Blinken in a tweet. “We welcome the Biden administration’s ‘enthusiastic’ support for @TheIHRA definition of antisemitism,” they wrote. “Utilizing the definition is a critical step in combating this age-old hatred in America and around the world.”

Conference of Presidents CEO William Daroff told Jewish Insider that Blinken’s letter shows how the IHRA definition has become the “gold standard” definition of anti-Semitism.

“It’s more acceptable, unfortunately, to call someone a ‘dirty Israeli’ than it is to call them a ‘dirty Jew,’” Daroff said.

“And we see this brand of antisemitism all over the world. It doesn’t mean it’s the only manifestation of antisemitism, it doesn’t mean that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but it reflects the reality of this growing plague.”

The progressive group IfNotNow, on the other hand, criticized Blinken’s support for IHRA.

“We know this won’t keep us safe,” they tweeted. “We’ve seen how it’s only been used by the right to curb the free speech of Palestinians and their allies.”

The Biden administration had previously announced in February that they were going to champion the IHRA definition. The definition states that the demonization and delegitimization of Israel as well as subjecting it to double standards amounts to anti-Semitism.

Israel’s crackdown on Palestinian Human Rights is a pre-emptive war

Palestinian civil society plays a fundamental role in documenting Israel’s military occupation, empowering local communities, and advocating for Palestinian rights. Israel has long viewed it as a threat.

Meta definition of terrorism

“Terrorism,” according to the US Department of State, is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

The UN special rapporteur, Martin Scheinin, noted in his 2007 report on the occupied Palestinian territories and Israel that counter-terrorism “should be restricted to the suppression and criminalisation of acts of deadly or otherwise serious physical violence against civilians”.

A clear definition of terrorism entails a commitment to some norms of consistency; as such, it gives rise to counter-terrorism practices in line with the norms and rules of international law and proportionate to the assumed act of terrorism.

The Israeli state’s conceptualisation of terrorism, however, is fluid and comprehensive.

It disregards the conflict power asymmetry and the causal relation between Israel’s occupation and Palestinian anti-occupation activism, violent or otherwise, against civilians or soldiers alike.

Former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has long implied that the disapproval of Israels policies stems from anti-Semitism and the hatred of Israel being the default mode in the region.

Likewise, the Israeli Foreign Ministrys website describes the relationship between Palestinian “terrorism” and the occupation as “historically flawed,” arguing that “Palestinian terrorism” existed long before the 1967 War, since “…the beginning of the renewed Jewish settlement of the Land of Israel over a century ago”.

This rationale suggests that resolving the conflict begins by ending Palestinians’ “irrational hostility”, not by ending the occupation that created that hostility.

It frames most Palestinian dissidence against Israel’s policies as unjustified or anti-Semitic, consequentially as “acts of terrorism.”

Even with this comprehensive conceptualisation of terrorism, labelling six Palestinian rights NGOs as “terrorist organisations” seems to have crossed the line.

Israel separation wall - Getty
Palestinian civil society plays a key role in documenting Israeli human rights violations. [Getty]

Shawan Jabarin, the head of Al-Haq – Palestine’s oldest human rights organization and one of the newly outlawed organisations – said that the Israeli designation was surprising and that the groups had not been given a heads up.

US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price denied that Israel gave the US a heads up about the [then] forthcoming designations.

Even Israeli Ynet News described the step as a “surprise move.”

Within the Israeli government coalition, criticisms were fired at Gantz. Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz, leader of the left-wing party Meretz, warned on Israel’s Channel 13 of the “political, diplomatic, and human rights consequences” of the decision. He demanded clear evidence that the organizations were involved in terror activities.

Mansour Abbas, the leader of Ra’am, the only Arab party in the coalition, remained silent on the matter.

Armed with the State Prosecutor Amit Aisman’s support, Gantz refused to back down. He argued that Israel’s internal security, Shin Bet, presented “extensive and convincing” evidence linking the six organisations to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The evidence has not been presented.

“Since 1967, Israel has banned over 400 local and international Palestinian organizations and political parties as being ‘unlawful’ or ‘hostile'”

Palestinian civil society as punishable dissidence

The step might be surprising, but it is by no means in contradiction with Israel’s general policies toward Palestinian civil society since 1948.

Palestinian civil society emerged in the absence of a state, sovereignty, or national independence, and took on the socio-political character of the historical eras in which it formed.

In the three decades preceding the 1948 Nakba, Palestinian nationalism had evolved from community farmers and religious groups to political parties and social clubs to resist illegal Jewish immigration and the British Mandate.

From 1948 to 1965, Palestinian civil society inherited the disorientation and political stagnation that characterized the era and was therefore ineffective.

The newly displaced Palestinians, however, were permitted to join trade unions or political parties in their host countries – mainly Jordan, Syria, and Iraq – provided they did not clash with the local governments’ agendas.

Egypt banned civil society groups in the Gaza Strip during that period.

From 1965 onwards, the inception of the PLO followed by Israel’s 1967 occupation of the rest of historic Palestine, reinvigorated Palestinian nationalism and, with it, civil society.

In the 1970s, groups began to focus on advocacy and the delivery of services, and during the First Intifada (1987-93) were instrumental in fostering international solidarity with Palestine.

Maale Adumim settlement
Over 600,000 Israeli settlers live in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, in violation of international law. [Getty]

Since Oslo in the mid-1990s, the civil society sector has grown significantly and its role has diversified.

The Palestinian Authority’s limitations made local groups more influential, acting as key players in state-building efforts.

Today, these organisations are amongst the best-funded globally, obtaining most of their funding from donor states and playing a key role in social and economic development in the 1967-occupied territories.

They increasingly fill the gap in government provision, as well as empowering local communities.

That is, despite the PA’s scrutiny and funding being sometimes contingent upon adhering to the donors’ political and social agendas.

The Palestinian civil sector, in other words, is the direct product of Palestinian historical and socio-political circumstances. It reflects the complexities and challenges faced by Palestinians, thus, representing an extension of the Palestinian national consciousness.

Because of that, the role played by Palestine’s civil society organizations, especially human rights groups, is seen by the Israeli state as counteractive to its interests in the occupied territories and globally.

Much of the work is deemed dissidence on par with other Palestinian forms of anti-occupation activities and, therefore, subject to Israel’s counter-terrorism procedures. 

Israel’s new counter-terrorism law in 2016 allows the authorities to use their extensive powers over organizations and residents of the occupied Palestinian territories.

They can block funds for these organizations and detain their workers or anyone providing professional or moral support for them, as well as seize and confiscate equipment and documents.

Ultimately, the Israeli army and police took it as a matter of operational and tactical necessity to routinely storm Palestinian NGOs in the occupied West Bank, arresting their employees, confiscating their content, and shutting them down temporarily or permanently.

“Israel’s new counter-terrorism law in 2016 allows the authorities to use their extensive powers over organizations and residents of the occupied Palestinian territories.

They can block funds for these organizations and detain their workers or anyone providing professional or moral support”

In 2002, 2012, and 2019, Israeli forces stormed Addameer’s premises in Ramallah – currently one of the six outlawed NGOs – arrested staff members, destroyed filing cabinets, and confiscated computers and documents. The Israeli military said the NGOs were linked to the PFLP.

In June this year, the Israeli army shut down the Ramallah-based Health Work Committee for six months, citing security reasons for the closure.

Since 1967, Human Rights Watch noted, Israel has banned over 400 local and international Palestinian organisations and political parties as being “unlawful” or “hostile.”

In occupied East Jerusalem, between 1967 and 2019, Israel shut down or listed as “possible closure” over 100 media and civil society organisations.

Among them is Bayt Al-Sharq (Orient House), Palestine’s prominent archival organisation, the former home of the Palestinian negotiation team, and previously the Jerusalem headquarters of the PLO.

The organization was closed in 2001 and, ever since, the closure has been automatically renewed every six months.

Zionists Rewrite Palestine’s Story

Israel has no history, only a criminal record : GenZedong

From Glorious Millennia To Death And Destruction.

The Zionist Narrative Is Arguably Responsible For The Welcoming And Forgiving Attitude The Entire World Has Towards The Horrendous, Unforgivable Crimes Committed By Israel Since Its Founding In 1948.

In order to prevent the next massacre by Israel, a state that seems to have an insatiable thirst for Palestinian blood, we have to reverse the narrative and delegitimize Zionism.

Palestine – As these words were being written, the final two Palestinian freedom prisoners who escaped from Gilboa Prison were caught by the Israeli authorities.

Palestine is still reacting to this courageous escape and the consequent re-capture of the six political prisoners who escaped and defied the entire Israeli security apparatus.

However, even though they managed to free themselves from this high-security prison, they found a world that doesn’t care.

The rest of the world did not step up to save these brave men and did not provide them with sanctuary, and so they were caught.

One of the great tragedies of Palestine is that almost every day there is a commemoration of one massacre or another, the death of a child or destruction of a home or village, leading one to think that the Palestinian narrative is one of death and destruction, which is what Israel wants people to think.

But the truth is that this is not the case.

The Palestinian narrative is one of a glorious history with periods of great sadness and tragedy.

It is the Zionist story that is full of killing, stealing and destruction and not, as they try to sell it, one of creation and growth.

September 16, 2021, marked 39 years since the massacres at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon.

As people remember and mourn the thousands of unarmed civilians who were butchered and the countless who survived suffering terrible injuries and emotional scars, we must also remember the man that stood behind this bloodbath.

This was a man whose complicity even the Israeli authorities could not ignore, the former general and renowned war criminal Ariel Sharon.

And although he was momentarily penalized and banished from politics, he very quickly returned, and for a quarter of a century, he was the most powerful and influential man in Israeli politics.

Narratives

At the end of the day, it is all about the narrative, and we know all too well that Israel has done an outstanding job of erasing the Palestinian narrative and injecting its own mythical, false narrative in its place.

In the media, in movies, in literature, in public education, and in politics the false Zionist narrative rules supreme and we who oppose racism and violence are faced with an enormous task as we engage in the work of reversing the narrative – a task without which it is hard to imagine Palestine ever becoming free.

Over the last 100 years, the Zionist movement managed to take the truly incredible history of Palestine and turn it into a historical footnote, replacing it with a mythical story that relies heavily on a Protestant-Zionist, literal reading of the Old Testament, which allowed them to create what is known as “return history.”

In other words, the Zionist version of the history of Palestine creates the impression that the Jews returned to their ancient homeland after 2,000 years, making it an unprecedented historical event that overshadows anything else that occurred in Palestine over that bimillennial span.

The Zionist narrative is designed to turn the ancient history of Palestine into a small, unimportant story that cannot be compared with the grandeur of the narrative that is presented by the Old Testament.

This is highlighted when Israeli politicians like the current prime minister, Naftali Bennett, refer to the Bible as the source of legitimacy for Israel.

A Four Thousand-Year History

Thanks to the historian Nur Masalha, we now know that the name Palestine goes back close to 4,000 years.

We know that the name Palestine was used in Egyptian sources going back to the Bronze Age, more than 1,000 BCE.

Later, the name was used by the Assyrians in inscriptions from that era.

The Greek historian Herodotus, who lived in the 5th century BCE and who is considered to be the father of history as we know it, visited the country and referred to it as Palestine.

The Greek scientist and philosopher Aristotle also refers to Palestine by name in his writings.

The cities of Lyd, Ramle, and Yaffa all had remarkable histories, as did the cities of Akka, Haifa, and, of course, Nablus, Gaza, and Al-Quds-Jerusalem.

Throughout the Muslim rule of Palestine, cities grew, cultures flourished, economic conditions and trade with Europe allowed people to prosper.

 Dhaher Al-Umar, who ruled over large parts of Palestine during the 18th century, is seen as the founding father of Palestinian modernity and, according to Nur Maslaha, he was the most influential figure in the modern orientation of Palestine towards the Mediterranean.

During his reign in Palestine, there were agricultural and technical innovations introduced that “benefited the majority of Palestinian peasantry.”

Thanks to Dhaher Al-Umar, there was considerable growth in the export of cotton, olive oil, wheat and soap.

Other, lesser-known parts of Palestine also flourished throughout history, such as the Palestinian town of Khalasa, which was founded by the Nabatean Arabs in the fourth century and then depopulated by the Zionist militia in 1948.

It was known to be on what is called the “Arab incense route” and, according to Nur Masalha, under Arab-Islamic rule, the town, which sits just southwest of the city of Bi’r Al-Saba, was a major urban center.

According to Mansur Nasasra, the Palestinian Bedouin in the Naqab had a very profitable export of barley to England for the production of beer.

Aerial photos from the early British occupation of Palestine also show large tracts of cultivated land in the Naqab.

These lands are now mostly depopulated and the Palestinian Bedouin in the Naqab are prohibited from cultivating their ancestral lands.

All of this stands in the face of Zionist claims that they came to a barren land and made it bloom.

The Zionist narrative is arguably responsible for the welcoming and forgiving attitude the entire world has towards the horrendous, unforgivable crimes committed by Israel since its founding in 1948.

In order to prevent the next massacre by Israel, a state that seems to have an insatiable thirst for Palestinian blood, we have to reverse the narrative and delegitimize Zionism.

Remembering the Bush Lies that Started it all

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Aamer Madhani and Josh Boak at the Associated Press report that President Biden in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly this year will seek to bring the curtain down on 20 years of American war, and will argue that instead the US will wage a multilateral campaign against the climate emergency, poverty and the pandemic.

It was George W. Bush who kicked off all those years of war with his 2002 speech to the U.N., which announced his impending war on Iraq.

Precisely because he knew that launching yet another attack on a Muslim country in the wake of the Afghanistan campaign risked turning the whole Muslim world (some 56 countries of 194 at the UN are Muslim-majority) against the United States.

Bush therefore sought to give the Muslims and Arabs a sop– the pledge that he would work toward an independent Palestinian state:

    “Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts — ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable.
    In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides.
    America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security.
    Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices.
    My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.”

Bush did not follow through on this pledge, and no subsequent president followed through, until Trump just threw the Palestinians completely under the bus and implied they should get used to living under Apartheid.

A Palestinian state of the sort Bush envisaged only 20 years ago now seems impossible, with the West Bank a Swiss cheese of Israeli squatter-settlements amid a brutalized indigenous population.

(For those confused on this issue, no, Polish Jews are not indigenous to modern Palestine.

When Bonarparte conquered the latter he found only 3,000 Jews and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and it had been like that for a thousand years.)

Bush then pivoted to his favorite parlor sport, of attempting to hang the fundamentalist al-Qaeda around the neck of Iraq’s secular, socialist dictator, Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with it.

    “Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions.
    In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies . . .”

Having brought up al-Qaeda, Bush suddenly pivots to Iraq:

    • ” In one place — in one regime — we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation.

And the regime’s forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources.

Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world.

Yet this aggression was stopped — by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.”

So Bush, as was his wont, heavily hinted around that Saddam Hussein had something to do with al-Qaeda or the September 11 attacks. He did not.

His secret police were instructed to capture any al-Qaeda agents in Iraq, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Bush then ran down the litany of UN Security Council resolutions that Saddam Hussein had defied.

What he did not say is that the UNSC did not see these violations as a legitimate cause for war.

It would over the next six months steadfastly refuse to authorize Bush’s war.

The UN Charter gives the right to declare a legitimate war to the UN Security Council.

Then Bush accused Iraq of having an active and wideranging set of unconventional weapons programs:

    • ” United Nations’ inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

Oil Burning GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War.

We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program — weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance.

Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians.

It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon.

Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.

Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.

And Iraq’s state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.”

Everything Bush said was a falsehood.

I think much of it was a lie, but who knows, maybe he believed this garbage.

The UN inspectors who had worked in Iraq in the mid-1990s directly contradicted Bush, saying that almost all Iraq’s weapons programs had been rolled up.

Iraq turned over the evidence of the destruction of the chemical weapons to the UN that fall. Bush wouldn’t believe it.

Iraq did not have stockpiles of VX, mustard or other poison gas.

Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was small and backward and never made much progress, and Iraq was nowhere near having a weapons capability.

The UN inspectors rolled the vestigial program up entirely by 1995.

The aluminum tubes Iraq bought from India were not for nuclear centrifuges, they had the wrong specifications, as the International Atomic Energy Agency pointed out before Bush went to war.

Saddam could meet with scientists all he liked, there was no nuclear program. None. Zilch. Nada.

Bush tried to invent one out of thin air by equating a photo op by a ramshackle defeated regime with such a program.

Bush continued his litany of lies:

    • ” As we meet today, it’s been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country

. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?

The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger.

To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence.

To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.”

President Bill Clinton pulled the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 in order to bomb Iraq, at the demand of the Republicans in Congress and the Project for a New American Century.

Saddam did not kick them out, as a generation of American journalists went on to proclaim.

In the four years after they left, Saddam not only did not reconstitute any weapons programs, his regime allowed the sites that used to house them to be extensively looted for copper wiring, plumbing pipes, and wallboard.

Bush actually argued that his lack of knowledge of what was going on in Iraq was proof that something sinister and threatening was taking place there.

When weapons inspectors went back in early in 2003, with a list of 600 suspect sites provided by the CIA, they cleared the first 100 without finding anything at all.

A frantic Bush, seeing his case for war evaporate, demanded that they come back out immediately. Then he went to war.

George bush shoe gif 3 » GIF Images Download

Bush pretended that he was a great liberator:

    “The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they’ve suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal.”

Bush went on to become the proximate cause for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, with three times as many wounded, the creation of hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows, and the displacement of four million Iraqis, who would be made homeless, out of 26 million.

As for liberty, when Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani demanded elections on the basis of one person, one vote, Bush fought him tooth and nail. Bush wanted a semi-appointed dictator, not a democratically elected prime minister.

Now for the big finish:

    “If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future.
    The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity.
    They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world.
    These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.”

Democracy, unconventional weapons, ties to al-Qaeda– they were all lies and pretexts to cover for a war to open Iraq’s oil market.

These falsehoods formed the foundation of America’s 20-year war.

There was to be no Palestine at all, much less a democratic one, as Washington caved into the belligerent demands of the Israel Far Right.
Afghanistan, the fourth-poorest country in the world, was warlord-ridden under American auspices and the house of cards Bush erected there collapsed on Biden’s watch.

Iraq was cast into civil war and fell victim to hard line fundamentalist irredentism in the form of ISIL.

The Muslim world does have a great tradition of scholarship. Any of those scholars could have told Bush that his plans were a latticework of imperialist fantasies that would bankrupt the United States and rend the fabric of the greater Middle East.

Evangelical supporters of ‘Israel’ concerned as Netanyahu being ousted from power

No Israeli leader has cultivated evangelical support like Netanyahu and many worry his imminent departure could sour ties with one of the Jewish state’s main backers

WASHINGTON (JTA) — After a decades-long embrace that began when he first served as Israel’s prime minister in the 1990s, Benjamin Netanyahu’s evangelical allies are worried about a future without him.

Jews who value the Christian alliance are worried, too, about a possible erosion of support among a critical pro-Israel sector should Netanyahu be forced from office, which now seems a strong possibility.

“I hope the wisdom that Bibi had when it comes to respecting and honoring that community, I hope that other leaders will have that wisdom,” said David Brog, the founding director of Christians United for Israel, or CUFI, who now heads a pro-Israel campus group, Maccabee Task Force.

“I would not expect to see real diminished support, but it would be a failure not to maximize the support and inspire it to its full extent.”

Is "Catching the Holy Ghost" just attention whoring? | Page 5 | Sports, Hip Hop & Piff - The Coli

Christian Zionists are crazier than Zionist Jews

Joel Rosenberg, an Israel-based evangelical convert from Judaism to Christianity, said in a post on All Israel News, a website he directs, that he was hearing expressions of anxiety from evangelicals.

“In recent days, I have received many concerned emails and text messages from evangelical leaders asking me what is happening, why, and what the implications of this political earthquake are likely to be,” Rosenberg wrote this week as it became clear that Naftali Bennett, a right-winger, and Yair Lapid, a centrist, succeeded in cobbling together a coalition that would replace Netanyahu following the fourth split-decision election in two years.

No one expressed that angst in harsher terms than Mike Evans, an author and founder of the Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem. In a profanity-laced letter, Evans told Bennett, “You care more about your own damn ego and your bitterness than you do the State of Israel.”

In a separate screed posted on The Times of Israel blogging platform, Evans accused Netanyahu’s opponents of trying to “crucify a man they hate and they’re willing to destroy the nation to do it.”

US evangelical leader Mike Evans speaks at a press conference in Jerusalem on June 7, 2021 (Screen capture/YouTube)

His tirades spurred rebukes from others in the evangelical pro-Israel community, who said Evans was an outlier even though he served on former US President Donald Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Board.

“I think Mike’s approach is unfortunate in that we as American supporters of Israel ultimately have to respect and defer to any decision made by Israel’s democratic process,” Brog said.

One Orthodox rabbi who cultivates Christian support for Israel was so put off by Evans’ comments and his attack on Bennett that he suggested “a radically new path forward” that was less political and more personal.

“We need a new way of doing things and we need to start building healthy relationships directly between rabbis and pastors and between pro-Israel Christians and pro-Israel Jews,” wrote Rabbi Tuly Weisz, who runs the website Israel365.

Pro-Israel and Israeli officials who deal with evangelical Christians said they were not concerned that Netanyahu’s departure would undercut the relationship.

“We appreciate the support of evangelical Christians for Israel,” an Israeli government official told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, speaking on the condition of anonymity so he could speak freely while the government is in transition.

“This support started decades ago and we are confident that it will continue, regardless of who is the prime minister of Israel.”

Ari Morgenstern, the spokesman for Christians United For Israel, said the relationship dated back almost to Israel’s founding, when Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, cultivated ties with the American evangelical leader Oral Roberts.

Pastor John Hagee, head of Christians United for Israel, at the Western Wall plaza in Jerusalem’s Old City on May 11, 2018. (courtesy CUFI)

“Christian Zionists have had a relationship with every prime minister since Ben-Gurion.

That will not change,” he told JTA. “Christian support for Israel is based on the Bible and Judeo-Christian values.

Christian Zionists have supported the Jewish state since before her modern creation and will continue to do so regardless of internal Israeli political developments.”

The relationship has been mutually beneficial: Israel has gotten a base of support from a growing and influential American demographic and doesn’t depend on a large Jewish constituency.

For evangelicals, support for Jews in Israel — and the settlement of all of biblical Israel, including the West Bank — fulfills a prophecy for the return of Jesus Christ, as well as a literal reading of Genesis 12:3: God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who don’t.

Still, no prime minister drew closer to evangelicals than Netanyahu, whose last 11 years in office coincided with a resurgence of evangelical political influence and a consolidation of pro-Israel sentiment as a cornerstone of evangelical theology and policy.

Trump himself said he moved the capital of Israel to Jerusalem in 2017 “for the evangelicals,” and complained that “the evangelicals are more excited about that than Jewish people.”

Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, United States Ambassador to Israel David Friedman and Pastor John Hagee, May 11, 2018. (CUFI)

Last month Ron Dermer, Israel’s former ambassador to Washington and one of Netanyahu’s closest advisers, said that he and his boss also saw the evangelical Christian community as more reliable than American Jews.

“People have to understand that the backbone of Israel’s support in the United States is the evangelical Christians,” Dermer said at a conference, adding that Jews — at least the liberal majority — were “disproportionately” critical of Israel.

Netanyahu also said as much at a Voices United for Israel conference of evangelical Christians in 1997.

“We have no greater friends and allies than the people sitting in this room,” he told the forum just hours before his scheduled speech to AIPAC, the pro-Israel powerhouse.

That year’s speech was one of three critical stops in Washington, including a visit to the Clinton White House. And it was not without controversy.

In this June 20, 2005 file photo, Rev. Jerry Falwell speaks at the SBC Pastors’ Conference in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

Speaking to a conference of evangelicals was unusual for an Israeli prime minister — if not unprecedented — and not exactly politic.

US Jewish groups were wary that some of the event’s sponsoring groups refused to eschew proselytizing Jews.

President Clinton loathed one of the conveners, Jerry Falwell, for peddling a baseless accusation that the Clintons were murderers.

Netanyahu’s dalliance with Falwell poisoned his relationship with Clinton, but his embrace of evangelical Christians would pay off long term: The constituency would have his back over subsequent decades for his hawkish policies on settlements and Iran, and would deliver hundreds of millions of dollars to Israeli charities, many aligned with his worldview.

Other prime ministers have welcomed Christian Zionist support while treading carefully with a community that includes proselytizers. (Pastor John Hagee, the CUFI founder and probably the most influential Christian Zionist currently, has advocated within the evangelical community for an end to proselytizing Jews, although it is not clear how successful his campaign has been.)

Evangelicals have repaid Netanyahu’s favoritism in spades. John Hagee Ministries, which is separate from CUFI, has directed $100 million to Israeli charities over the years, including to right-wing and settlement groups.

A Christian evangelical supporter waves the American flag during the annual parade in Jerusalem, marking the Jewish holiday of Sukkot or the Feast of the Tabernacles, September 24, 2013(Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Christian Zionist groups have eagerly pressed Netanyahu’s agenda, including his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal reached by former president Barack Obama. On some issues, including state laws targeting Israel boycotters and laws passed by Congress conditioning funding of the Palestinian Authority on ending its payments to terrorists, Christian Zionists have taken the lead.

Sarah Posner, a journalist who has written extensively on evangelicals, said that Netanyahu’s departure would not diminish Christian Zionist fervor. In fact, she said, evangelicals might be energized to stop the Biden administration from pressuring the Israeli government, especially one less inclined to confront the United States than Netanyahu was.

“If they view the current Israeli government as insufficiently protective of its biblical mandate, that might cause them to become more intense in support of Israel’s right wing,” she said.

Brog, who closely tracks politics in Israel, said he is concerned that some leftists in that country tend to mock evangelicals. He noted the release in Israel of “Til Kingdom Come,” a documentary made there that “emphasized the apocalyptic beliefs that drive some of the evangelical support. A pro-Israel watchdog also alleged that the film purposely distorted a speech by Trump.

“I’ve heard some pretty crude critiques in Israel of evangelical supporters of Israel,” Brog said. “I hope that whoever leads Israel is decent enough and open-minded enough to say I want to get to know them, and I will distinguish the larger group from any bad apples among them.”

Rabbi Jonathan Greenberg, whose master’s thesis at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion was about evangelical support for Israel, said Bennett and Lapid were likely savvy enough to continue to cultivate the evangelical community, although perhaps not with Netanyahu’s intensity.

Greenberg, a Reform spiritual leader, noted the American Jewish community’s continued discomfiture with a community with which it barely intersects, and whose domestic politics are diametrically opposed to the liberal Jewish majority’s. He said that could someday erode Christian support for Israel.

“The hand extended in friendship all these years being rejected by the Jewish community will get old,” he said. “At some point they will tire of having their hand out.”

Judaism And Zionism Are Not The Same Thing

The Palestinian Rabbi’s 1947: “We wish to express our definite opposition to a Jewish State in any part of Palestine.” These Palestinian Jews were kicked out of office by the invading Zionist army.

nkusa.org

We would like to take a few minutes of your time to prevent you from making a terrible mistake that may have disastrous results for many.

You have always without a doubt heard and read much about the political crises in the Middle East in which the State of Israel plays a central role.

This is, in fact, an ongoing series of crises with potential to bring the greatest misfortune on the entire world.

Tragically many believe that Zionism and Judaism are identical.

Thus they conclude that the entire Jewish people is responsible for the actions of the Zionist government and the world crises which emanates from it. This is a Grave Error!

The truth is that the Jewish faith and Zionism are two very different philosophies.

They are as opposite as day and night. The Jewish people have existed for thousands of years.

In their two thousand years of Divinely decreed exile no Jew ever sought to end this exile and establish independent political sovereignty anywhere.

The people’s sole purpose was the study and fulfillment of the Divine commandments of the Torah.

The Zionist movement created the Israeli state.

The latter is a persuasion less than one hundred years old.

Its essential goal was and is to change the nature of the Jewish people from that of a religious entity to a political movement.

From Zionism’s inception the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people stood in staunch opposition to it.

To this day Torah Jewry remains forever loyal to its faith. Zionists want the world to believe that they are the representatives of the entire Jewish people. This is false!

The Jewish people never chose them as their leaders.

Semites are generally swarthy people. The European Ashkenazim Jews are not from the Hebrew stock!

The Zionists have deceived many well meaning Jewish people via terror, trickery and false propaganda.

They have at their disposal the use of a nearly universally subservient media.

Whoever attempts to criticize them puts his livelihood and, at times, his very life in danger.

However, despite the media blackout and easy resort to terror the simple truth remains unrefuted and irrefutable: ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH FAITH AND TORAH LAW THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO HAVE THEIR OWN STATE WHILE AWAITING THE MESSIANIC ERA!

The Creator gave us the Holy Land thousands of years ago. Yet, when we sinned, He took it away and sent us into exile.

Since that time our task is to wait for Him to send the Messiah.

At that time, the Creator alone, without any human being lifting a hand or saying a word, will bring us together and take us out of exile.

He will likewise establish universal peace among all mankind and all will serve Him in good will.

Some religious Jews, confused by Zionist propaganda quote Biblical verses that state that G-d gave the children of Israel the Holy Land.

They overlook, unfortunately, those verses which say that He took it away due to our sins.

They further ignore those prophecies which explicitly describe the last exile’s conclusion as a Divine, not a human process.

The Creator has commanded every Jew to follow the ways of peace and to be loyal to the country where he lives.

Torah true Jewry waits patiently for the Messianic redemption. They have nothing to do with any kind of pseudo “Jewish State” and its aggressions against other peoples.

They have a deep sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians who have suffered the most from Zionism’s false teachings and barbaric actions.

The Zionist state is not a Jewish state.

The Zionists alone are the only ones responsible for their actions.

Authentic Jewry has and will continue to oppose the very existence of this blasphemous state.

May all mankind witness the true redemption.

The Zionist ‘Uyghur’ Trap for China

After a series of secret meetings between Saudi and Israeli officials were exposed by a select few of mainstream press outlets, both the Saudis and the Israelis are now becoming more open about the relationship between the two governments. Although, for years, GCC countries like Saudi Arabia have held a public position of hostility toward Israel, many researchers and observers have long been aware of secret cooperation between the two and that public statements were largely designed to provide a cover of Arab identity and self-interest for the benefit of public consumption.

As valid as it seems that China may be cracking down on moslem Uyghurs, China is actually responding to a long standing secret build up of Islamic radicalism used by UK/US/Israel and funded by Saudi Arabia to destabilize China, and the Caucuses.

Throughout past two decades Islamic schools have been funded and built in order to rouse independent movements among the Chinese Uyghurs and use them as shock troops against Chinese government.

Islamic radicalism is being propelled by zionists for two main purposes:

1. As patsy destabilization tools to derail economic rivals; and

2. As a propaganda war of Israel against moslem states.

I recommend books by Chalmers Johnson (Blowback),

Robert Dreyfus (Devil’s Game) and

Mark Curtis (Secret Affairs) for more insight on western creation of Islamic Radicalism.

Zionists are running a terror INDUSTRY.

They use  subverted Islamic teachings and historical revisionism to recruit and train proxy forces to destabilize and destroy both Islamic and Economic rivals. 

This Islamic radicalization Operation has a long precedence in Middle East when two centuries ago British created Wahhabism and then The Moslem Brotherhood for same purposes.

Infamous Zionist and pseudo Middle East “scholar” Bernard Lewis provided the British foreign office the Balkanization plan of Middle East by conjuring up violent uprisings via deliberate promotion of sectarian and Islamic fundamentalism.

Thanks to Zionism the Muslims are spread all over the earth. Sharia Law is only something personal now. Lewis has always been a liar and fear monger.

All three western intel agencies (Mi6, CIA and Mossad) have independently produced volumes of Islamic radical teachings in parallel with Saudi Wahhabism and have set up hundreds of Madrases in Middle East, North and North Eastern Caucuses into China, Africa, and Southeast Asia including Indonesia, Thailand…

US foreign policy advisors Henry Kissinger and Zbignew Brzezinski were strong followers of the Bernard Lewis plan which Kissinger used in 1975 in Lebanon and Brzezinski used to defeat Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Bernard Lewis plan was “Lebanonization “, as in the manufacture “civil war” Kissinger unleashed in Lebanon in 1975.

The war pitted Lebanon’s Catholic, Palestinian, Shiite Moslem, Sunni Moslem, Druze, and Greek Orthodox populations against each other- with a steady supply of arms to all sides.

Lewis pushed for  “Islamic fundamentalism.”

“That British-run variant which he favors is opposed to modern science and technology and in opposition to tenets of Islam banning usury, AND is loyally committed to paying IMF debt.

Lewis sees fundamentalism as a battering­ ram against the nation-state.”

He writes,”Islamic fundamentalism is the most attractive alternative to those who feel there has to be something better, truer and more hopeful than inept rulers and  bankrupt ideologies foisted on from outside.”

He notes that British subversive movements acting under such a cover enjoy a practical advantage in Middle East.

“Dictators can forbid parties, they can forbid meetings­, they cannot forbid public worship, and they can, to only a limited extent, control sermons.”

As such they represent a “network outside the control of the state . . .the more oppres­sive the regime, the greater the help it gives to fundamental­ists by eliminating competing oppositions.” 

It goes without saying that the Zionist plan provided both the radicalization from the bottom AND the dictatorship propaganda against their rivals. 

When you hold the megaphone and the mercenaries, nation after nation will succumb to the Zionist trap of Islamic radicalization.

This process continues today via ISIS and sectarian mercenaries like some Kurdish minorities, and in case of Uyghurs in an attempt to Balkanize and defeat China as an emerging super power.

‘Abraham Accords’ Discredit the US

Corrupt side deals and more payoffs to Israel

AIPAC is now quickly advancing relations operating almost as a “shadow” US State Department.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) continues to lobby Congress for more support for the so-called “Abraham Accords.”

This Trump administration initiative sought to transcend the spectacular failure of the “Deal of the Century” initiative that called for Palestinian acquiescence to annexation and renunciation of sovereignty rights in exchange for vague and uncertain economic development projects.

After Palestinians rejected the deal, the Trump administration pivoted to forging a string of spectacularly corrupt deals with Arab dictatorships.

The so-called Abraham Accords attempt to fracture their formerly unified but tepid and inconsistent opposition to recognizing Israel until there was just solution to the violent settler colonization and expulsion of Palestinians that brought Israel into being.

To date UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan have signed onto the Abraham Accords because of corrupt “side deals” that further degrade the already rock-bottom international reputation of the United States.

The deals accurately boost the perception that Israel’s U.S. lobby exercises vast and undue influence over American foreign policy.

There was initial hope that the Biden administration would take a principled stand and refuse to honor the side deals. That hope has been dashed.

For UAE the side deal was approval of a $23 billion advanced jet fighter sale to UAE. On April 13, 2021 the Biden administration approved the deal.

Members of the Israel affinity ecosystem such as the American Jewish Committee are fighting hard for the Biden administration to not abandon other equally unsavory Abraham Accord side deals.

Sudan signed onto an accord in a joint ceremony with former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin after the US promised to remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

This “removal in exchange for Israel recognition” revealed yet again the entirely political, rather than fact-based, nature of such US designations.

The US further promised a $1 billion bridge loan to help move Sudan back into the realm of acceptable international borrowers.

In the case of Morocco, the “side deal” was recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.

When Spain left its former desert colony in the 1970s, Morocco secretly negotiated to take over half the territory with the other going to Mauritania.

An ensuing guerilla war by Western Sahara inhabitants and Morocco’s occupation led to the deaths of tens of thousands.

The Trump administration exited a longstanding policy of considering the area disputed territory and intervened to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.

The overarching reason was to win Morocco’s signature on an Abraham Accord rather than any US interest or new diplomatic breakthrough.

The US thus became the only country in the world to recognize sovereignty, while upending any hope for UN efforts to secure a more just and fair outcome.

In January David Schenker, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs opened a US consulate in occupied Western Sahara, even as Western Sahara renewed a request for U.N. membership.

The US also pledged $5 billion in US International Development Finance Corporation funds to Morocco.

The US State Department under Anthony Blinken has “welcomed Morocco’s steps to improve relations with Israel and noted the Morocco-Israel relationship will bring long-term benefits for both countries.”

Clerk of the House of Representatives AIPAC Quarterly Lobbying Reports

The irony is, that even as American pundits continue to fret over Russian and Chinese influence, Israeli foreign influence in the US has only grown.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) quietly raised $1.1 billion over the past decade to advance Israeli government policies from within the US.

Far too few Americans know AIPAC was ordered to register as an Israeli foreign agent in 1962 when it operated as the unincorporated lobbying division of the American Zionist Council.

This order came after millions in Israeli funds gushed into US public relations and lobbying campaigns.

Although AIPAC directors maintain close and ongoing ties to Israeli government officials in order to better translate their aid and policy requests into US law, the US Department of Justice has long refused to properly enforce its own order and regulate the lobbying group under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Combined with overt coordinated and stealth political action committees funding Congressional candidates, AIPAC has achieve massive undue foreign influence over Congress, making Israel the leading recipient of US foreign aid, even though it is unlawful under US law regulating aid to rogue nuclear weapons states.

Although US opinion polls continually signal public opposition to foreign aid to Israel, Congress remains captive to what historian Walter Hixson has recently determined is “the most powerful lobby advancing the interests of a foreign country in all of American history.”

Israeli Knesset member briefs AIPAC’s Board of Directors on January 12, 2021, Source: Twitter

It is doubtful the US would have recognized Moroccan claims over Western Sahara if Israel and its US lobby had not gotten involved.

AIPAC is now quickly advancing relations operating almost as a “shadow” US State Department.

On May 6, AIPAC will hold a three-way video conference between Morocco’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Nasser Bourita and Israel’s Minister of National Infrastructure, Energy and Water and the Israeli Ministry of Defense and an official from Nobel Energy which is developing liquid natural gas from the Israeli Leviathan fields.

AIPAC has ramped up Abraham Accord direct lobbying expenditures over the past three quarters as a top priority and it is no wonder why.

Most of the proposed US expenditures on the Trump-era “peace” accords were destined to accrue mostly to Israeli recipients.

An opaque fund arranged by the US International Development Finance Corp based in Israel received 25 applications and chose 15 projects for funding.

By September of 2020, Israel had three active projects totaling $580 million in US backed loans.

In 2019, DFC committed $480 million to two “Egyptian projects” – except they were not truly projects accruing to Egyptian interests but rather schemes to transport and sell Israeli liquid natural gas from the Leviathan fields being developed by Noble Energy.

Morocco is now surely in line for even more US taxpayer – backed Israeli energy export projects.

The plurality of Americans would cut aid to Israel after compelling studies released by Israel’s B’Tselem about its apartheid practices and more recently Human Rights Watch.

The White House has already dismissed those findings. But even as it touts itself as a leader in racial justice, the unconditional support the Biden administration and Congress give Israel are actions that speak far louder than words.

Grant F. Smith is the director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington which is co-organizer of the 2022 Transcending the Israel Lobby at Home and Abroad conference at the National Press Club and publisher of the new book “Architects of Repression: How Israel and Its Lobby Put Racism, Violence and Injustice at the Center of US Middle East Policy.”

Saudi crown prince backed Israel plan to overthrow Jordan king

It’s not enough the fake Muslim Saudis are guardians of the Kaba…go there and see their evil faces plastered on the walls all over the place. Now they want Jerusalem holy sites.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is said to have supported an Israeli plot to overthrow the Jordanian King Abdullah II in exchange for guardianship of the holy sites in the occupied city of Jerusalem, Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper reported.

The paper quoted a Jordanian security official as saying that the attempt to overthrow King Abdullah II was a “scheme” involving Israel, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

According to the unnamed official, “the large and complicated” coup involved many parties, but the king succeeded in thwarting it calmly while preserving the internal and regional balances.

READ: Events in Jordan were planned by Trump, one of region’s countries, says Ex-Qatar PM

“The king’s vigilance and the rapid movement of the military and security forces have thwarted the coup’s attempt to remove him and replace him with his brother Prince Hamzah Bin Al-Hussein,” the source said.

Israel, the source continued, planned to overthrow King Abdullah II due to Jordan’s opposition to the US’ peace deal for the Middle East dubbed the ‘deal of the century’, which Amman viewed as a plan to “find an alternative homeland for the Palestinians and annex the Jordan Valley to Israel”.

The paper added that the Saudi crown prince agreed to support Israel’s scheme in return for the transfer of the guardianship over the holy sites in occupied Jerusalem from Jordan to Saudi Arabia.

With US approval, it continued, Bin Salman authorised the former chief of the royal court, Basem Awadallah, to make the necessary preparations for the transfer of power at the family level, while ousted Fatah chief Muhammad Dahlan was assigned with mobilising Palestinians in Jordan and local tribes.

According to the report, Saudi Arabia armed some southern tribes, issuing them citizenship in return for carrying out military actions if necessary.

READ: Saudi backs Jordan on arrest of former head of Royal Court

Mecca belongs to all Muslims, and Saudi Arabia shouldn’t be allowed to run it

Petroleum and the pilgrimage. The two combined give Saudi Arabia the chance to punch well above its weight, affording one of the world’s most regressive regimes the chance to exercise an outrageous influence on Islam. It’s time to think of alternative arrangements.

It might seem obvious to you why Saudi Arabia is bad for Islam.

Because the House of Saud controls Mecca, the direction of Muslim prayer and location of the hajj pilgrimage, and Medina, where the Prophet Mohammed built the first Muslim society, died and is buried, the Kingdom is linked to Islam.

And vice versa. Though there is only one Muslim-majority country in the world where women can’t drive, because it is the country that rules over Islam’s holy land, it is assumed that Islam does not want women to drive.

Because it is one of the few Muslim-majority countries that suffers an absolute monarchy, it is presumed Islam prefers unaccountable government too.

In so many ways, Saudi Arabia stains the reputation of Islam. But Saudi Arabia has another kind of influence on Islam.

Every year, millions of pilgrims descend on Mecca to circumambulate the Ka’ba, the cubical shrine we believe was built by Abraham to honor God, and restored by Mohammed to His worship.

Many are from poor countries, and are visibly bedazzled by Saudi conspicuous consumption, the magnificence of the wealth on display, the awesomeness and indescribable hugeness of the great mosques that have been constructed to accommodate their numbers.

God has given the Saudis money beyond measure, and power over His holy land; this must mean God approves of their Islam.

I know how many feel. God has given the Saudis money beyond measure, and power over His holy land; this must mean God approves of their Islam.

And what an Islam it is. The official Saudi interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, was born in violent revolt not only against Shi’a Islam, and the strong traditions of spirituality embedded in Shi’a and Sunni Islam, but even against the Sunni Ottoman caliph.

Far from being the world’s leading Sunni power, Saudi Arabia has usurped the mantle of Sunni Islam, helped in its power projection by its small population, great wealth, and the collapse of its erstwhile rivals.

(The Ottomans, after all, are long gone.) Saudi Arabia uses oil money to push its Wahhabism onto the Muslim world, and to change Mecca and Medina too.

In recent decades, the Saudis have rebuilt much of Mecca and Medina. Some of this has been necessary.

Some of this has been very good. But some of it has come at a great cost to Islam’s dearest relics, monuments and oldest mosques, which have been bulldozed without the least concern.

In recent decades, the Saudis have rebuilt much of Mecca and Medina. Some of this has been necessary. Some of it has come at a great cost.

To be fair, some of the criticism levelled at Saudi Arabia for these urban transformations is unreasonable.

Think about it this way: Thanks to modern technology, and rising standards of living, millions of people not only want to go to Mecca, but can afford to.

It’s no longer a journey of months, but of days, even hours.

They speak different languages, represent different customs, and all want to not only worship in the same mosque, but get to the Ka’ba at the center of it.

While it is nice to imagine Mecca and Medina could retain the features and architecture of old cities, it is also fanciful.

When you are dealing with traffic flow in the hundreds of thousands, slippery stones and narrow alleys aren’t just problematic.

They can be deadly.

Too, skyscrapers might ruin the alleged vibe of an ancient city, but as every modern urbanist knows, building up is often the only realistic option.

So it’s not surprising, or terrible, that Saudi Arabia has built the world’s third-tallest skyscraper right outside the Great Mosque of Mecca.

But the bigger question is: Why is it the first-ugliest building in the world? In an age of cell phones and, God help us, a religion that features a regular call to prayer, what is the purpose of attaching a gaudy clock to the top?

The biggest question: These high towers are part of the progressive income stratification of a city dedicated to a leveling religion.

We’re all equal on the pilgrimage, wearing the same robes, praying side-by-side, but then when we get to our hotels, the stratification resumes.

There’s far too much money in Mecca, squeezing out the average pilgrim, and even worse, this money has been introduced even while sacred history is wiped away

So while, yes, the needs of modern religious life might mean old mosques, shrines and historical sites are in the way, that doesn’t demand destroying them.

Flush with ample funds, the Saudis could have easily rebuilt Islam’s sacred heritage elsewhere.

They haven’t even tried. They appear to be going to war with Islamic history, probably so that nothing is left that might challenge the idea that Wahhabism is an intrusion into Islamic history, and not faithful to it.

There’s far too much money in Mecca, squeezing out the average pilgrim.
This money has been introduced as sacred history is wiped away.

If you think the Islamic State’s war on antiquities is horrifying, you are right. But it is not exceptional.

It has its roots in a perverse and excessive iconoclasm, which has seen Saudi Wahhabist mandates literally crush, demolish, smash, erase, and break down the very sites and landscapes that Muslims worldwide know so well.

If you think I am exaggerating, don’t. Several years ago, I helped lead a small group of American Muslims on a pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina.

We had a Saudi guide with us who, during our bus tour around Mecca and Medina, refused to let our driver stop at mosques of historical significance, because he thought we might cross the line and worship in a manner unbecoming of an austere and hardheaded Wahhabist. He treated us like children.

Which, of course, none of us were: Wahhabists, or children. (In revenge, I spent the ride back happily pointing out sites of Ottoman significance, while describing the House of Saud’s unseemly alliance with non-Muslim powers against their fellow Muslims.)

My fellow pilgrims were incensed. They had paid, scrounged up and saved, and here they were, in their holy city, and they weren’t allowed to stop at, for example, the mosque where Mohammed was commanded by God to turn away from the first direction of prayer, Jerusalem, to the current direction of prayer, Mecca.

(It matters if you’re Muslim.) They felt outraged. They felt they were denied the chance to experience their Islam because someone else had decided their interpretation of Islam mattered more.

And that is precisely the point. Mecca and Medina are ruled by Saudi Arabia, but they belong to the Muslim world.

They are our collective sacredness. They shouldn’t be an individual possession. Islam is a very egalitarian religion.

(As some Muslims joke, people who dislike organized religion should join Islam, because we’ve mastered disorganization.) Islam has few hierarchies, and those that exist are not widely shared.

Why then does a regime which represents a sliver of Muslims, exports and enforces an ideology that is historically antithetical to Islam’s rich traditions of pluralism, spirituality and cosmopolitanism, allowed to control our holy cities?

Why don’t everyday Muslims get a say?

Mecca and Medina are ruled by Saudi Arabia, but they belong to the Muslim world.

This is, for the moment, a matter of conjecture.

The European Union includes some of the world’s wealthiest, most progressive and secure societies.

Yet before the refugee crisis, they are hopelessly divided, and their cooperation pushed backwards.

If Europe now can’t do it, how can the present Muslim world manage to come to any kind of alternative arrangement, some more inclusive shared administration of its common properties? T

The Muslim world is deeply and badly divided; it is hard to imagine how any kind of cooperative agreement could ever be reached, and also, depressingly, not difficult to conceive of other Muslim-majority governments who would make a different kind of mess out of Mecca and Medina.

As it is, Saudi Arabia has the wealth to pour into subsidizing the pilgrimage, and Muslim piety in the Holy Land, in a way few other countries can.

But for how long? Years back, pilgrimage was the preserve of the lucky few.

It was too far, too risky, too expensive. My own great-great-grandfather began a travelogue describing his own journey from northern India to Mecca, but he died on the return trip.

Today, we have Snapchat hajj channels. Aircraft make the world much smaller. News travels fast. Muslims live all over the world.

What I mean to say is, in the past, the idea that Mecca and Medina belonged to all of us was deeply felt, but at best an abstraction.

In the years to come, it will be harder for Saudi Arabia to deny the desire of the world’s Muslims to see their holy cities reflect their pieties, and to cease the imposition of a view of Islam which is not only deeply alienating to the rest of the world, but deeply unpopular within the Muslim world.

How that happens is anyone’s guess. But it will happen. I’d say hell or high water, but in the case of a sacred desert, neither seems quite right.

But not as wrong as what is happening to the center of my sacred universe.