Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 544 (since 2010-04-23 03:59:57)

Just doing the internet ;-)


Showing comments 544 - 501

  • Palestinian minister dies after Israeli army assault during olive tree planting ceremony in West Bank village
    • Mooser

      Aren’t a couple of Israel people who died from heart attacks connected with the fright generated about Palestinian rockets counted as casualties?

      Yes, Zionists usually and routinely count Zionist people who died from heart attacks while running to shelter as casualties of hostilities or terror. I have always rejected this assuption of moral equivalence when Zionists argued so, and so I do here.

      However, you raise an important point, again. Zionists apply double standards. Whenever a Zionist dies due to a heart attack due to action nearby, the Zionist regime call him/her a victim murdered by the resistance. But when a Pakestian dies due to a heart attack due to action nearby, the Zionist regime calls it an accident. Such double standards are, of course, unacceptable.

    • Mooser

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not off the opinion that Israeli occupation forces have any legitimacy, whether it is on 48 occupied Palestinian or land they grabed later. So, of course, I see the Zionist regime responsible for whatever happens due the actions of their occupation forces.

      However, even as I see it that way that Zionist occupation forces mustn't have been there, I also allow me to distinguish between what I see as regularly committing the crime of murder by zionist forces, and this one, what looks to me more like a death from anger. Of course I see the Zionist forces responsible for the anger, but that's a difference from just killing people directly like the Zionist forces often do it.

      Let me say it with a rough example: there is a difference between a criminal act where a burglar goes into a house of a stranger, pushs the owner around and the owner dies from anger, and where a burglar goes into a house of a stranger and he kills the owner by splitting his head. Usually the zionist forces behave like the latter, but in this case it seems to me they behaved like the former.

    • Call me a mooser,

      those who know me for longer commenting here know that I've have no pro-Israel bias whatsoever.

      But I watched many videos of that incident and I sincerely believe that Ziad Abu Ain died as a result of a heart attack which was hardly forseeable as a result of how the occupation forces behaved this time. It looks to me like Ziad Abu Ain died as a result of his anger about the Israeli injustice, once again proven in that situation, but much less as a result of direct Israeli violence in that situation.

      I support Palestine, because Palestine stands for justice and truth, and so I feel I have to say this, here. Shall truth be what truth is, whereever it falls.

      However, I can't supress my feelings that I find it deeply ironic that in this incident Israel may feel what it is to get hammered by false accusations, as spreading false accusations is usually one of Israels preferred tactic to annihilate their opponents.

  • A point by point response to Alan Dershowitz’s 'Ten Reasons Why The BDS Movement Is Immoral'
    • The issue that terrorism is not clearly defined because Israel and the US would come out as top terrorists using any common definition of terrorism shall not deflect from the pure and unmitigated evil terrorism regurlarly applied by Israel and it's worldwide fifth column. Let me just to name three examples in the not so distant past to make the point of terrorism by & it's global fifth column clear.

      1. The British zionist paper "Times" - which is usually peddling stories planted by the Israeli government - wrote back in 2007:

      Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
      By Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
      ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.


      link to,,2089-2535310,00.html

      2. Patrick Clawson, a leading figure in Israel's US-based fifth column complex AIPAC/WINEP, advocated in an official WINEP policy presentation in September 2012 that Israel or "somebody" shall commit acts of false flag terrorism against Iran to start a war between the US and Iran to please Israel:

      "I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough. And it's very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … [the] president can get us to war with Iran." He then went on to recount a series of incidents in American history—like the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the attack on Pearl Harbor—that gave U.S. presidents the justification needed to go to war. He ended by saying, with a note of sarcasm in his voice, "So, if in fact the Iranians aren't going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war."

      Source & Video proof: link to

      3. Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire, leading figure in Israel's US-based fifth column complex and one of the main enablers of Bibi, the current chief of the Israeli regime, publicly advocated to terrorize Iran by firing an ‘atomic weapon’ at Iran. The audience of supporters of Israel was supportive of the idea of terrorizing Iran with a nuclear first strike to install so much fear in Iranians that Iran would submit to Israeli demonds whatever they are.


      link to

      There is nothing secret there. Whatever definition applied Israel and it's global fifth column are the ultimate terrorists, terrorist enablers and advocates of terrorism, from terrorism involving nuclear attacks to false flag terrorism to spark senseless bloody wars between christians and muslims or between muslims themselves with te aim to make millions of other people kill each other.

    • There is so much more relating to international terrorism what Israel has done that any list seems to be very incomplete.

      Just in very recent years Israel did - besides brutalizing Palestinians in the lands between the river and the sea among other things:
      - wage war on Lebanon using disproportionate force against civilians
      - commit aerial attacks on Syria, Lebanon and Sudan
      - send death squads committing acts of murder and/or terror bombings to Iran, UAE, Lebanon, Syria
      - commit murderous piracy against a Turkish ship stuffed with unarmed civilians
      - support internationally banned terrorist groups active in Iran and neighboring countries while posing as US government agents
      - use deception and agents of influence to orchestrate international wars and other bloody attempts for regime change in Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Libya & Syria

      A bit longer ago Israel also did:
      - bomb jewish people in Iraq to blame it on arabs and make jewish Iraqis emigrate to Israel
      - bomb US institutions in Egypt to blame it on arabs to make the US hate arabs
      - bomb a US warship in the medeteranian sea killing lot's of US soldiers witht he intent on blaming it on arabs
      - commit an act of kidnapping against a secular Moroccan politician in Switzerland leading to his murder
      - murder an innocent waiter in Norway
      - commit an act of kidnapping against a nuclear scientist who fled Israel in Italy
      - proliferating nuclear weapons technology, know how and raq materials to the apartheid state of South Africa
      - support death squads committing mass acts of murder, terror, drug dealings and serial other crimes in Nicaragua
      - attempt to murder a Palestinian politician in Jordan

      And there is much more. Some of the Israeli acts of terror and other heinous crimes across the globe are well-known, while many other international Israeli crimes are still not known to the general public.

    • 6. The BDS movement is immoral because it would encourage Iran—the world’s leading facilitator of international terrorism...

      That's a false claim. Israel is the world’s leading facilitator of international terrorism.

      The UN just reported that Israel supports terrorists of Al Qaeda and other groups in cross-border attacks against Syria.

      link to

      To support Al Qaeda and other terrorists Israel itself regularly commits her military - and the military of her proxy forces like the US in the case of Iraq - to attack other countries and launch wars of aggression.

      Today Israel launched airstrikes - unprovoked acts of a war of aggression - against Syria to support the Al Qaeda terrorist forces whose terror Israel backs in Syria. Syria demands sanctions against Israel - just like against any other country that supports international terrorism.

      link to

  • Why I confronted Gregor Gysi
    • Btw: In the Left party - the party who invited Max & David - their was a campaign organized to demand "consequences" (excluding from the party or the left parlament faction) against those Left party parlamentarians who invited Max & David, and against two more Left parlamentarians who were also present at the meeting with Max & David and spoke there. The petition is initially signed by the manager of the Left party in Germany, about a dozen members of federal parliment of the Left party and several dozens more Left parlamentarians from reginal parlaments and so on. Gysi is not among the undersigned. It is these guys who I cited in a comment above as being called the "Mossad faction" in the left party.

      However, the regional party leaders from Bundesland Nordrhein-Westfalen, where those who invited May & David are members, seem to back those who invited Max & David, so a formal motion against them is likely defeated.

      link to

    • Walid

      I still wonder how much of this is due to the leftists being sincerely pro-Palestinian and how much is due simply to weaken their opponents.

      I can assure you that the parlementarians who invited Max & David did that simply because they are pro human rights and they think Israel is very much anti human rights. Some of them are timid, but all of them would have a lot easier life if they would adhere to the demands of the Israel lobby, but their conscience puts them to confront Israel. They are a very tiny faction in German politics. Most others go for money and fame, instead of justice.

      Disclosure: I had some conversations with one of those politicians who invited Max & David a while ago. Had I known they invited Max & David I think maybe I could have helped them to avoid this displeasure. Those who invited Max & David are very much on the same page as Max & David, but sadly the event to promote their common views didn't run well. It weakened those who invited Max & David. I'm sure it wasn't the intention of Max & David, and neither the intention of those who invited them, so I think better communication would have been essential to get a better result.

    • Felicia Langer, who was awarded a "Federal Cross of Merit" by Germany in 2009, pinned an article in strong solidarity with Max & David, calling out the shame of Gregor Gysi & Petra Pau:

      ’’Blessed are the Peacemakers“

      link to

      (As far as I know, it's in German language only, so far, but might well worth a translation into English)

    • Walid

      Bandolero, if you are saying that Max and Sheen were “used” or were recruited by the anti-imperialists to get back at Gysi, it may explain the absurd washroom episode.

      In my opinion, that they "used" Max & David "to get back at Gysi" is a wrong characterization.

      It's more like that they wanted Max & David in Berlin to make a better point for their pro-palestinian positions, to get them influence the Left Party members and the German public that the strong pro-Israeli positions held by the German government and the realist/Mossad wing of the Left party are wrong, because the pro-Israeli positions contradict the German/Left commitment to human rights and justice.

      In my point of view, Gysi himself is likely trying to boil down tensions between "the Mossad faction" and "the anti-imperialist faction" in the left party, because he knows that these clashes have the potential to split and destroy the party. Gysi likely knows well how contradictionary the commitment for pro-Israel-stances is for an otherwise lefty anti-Nato-party. That's likely why he feared this confrontation: he knows the pro-Israeli stance of his party is totally contradictionary to the rest of the party's policies, but he fears that a clash between "the Mossad faction" and "the anti-imperialist faction" would destroy the party. Neither faction is strong enough without the other to make it over the 5%-threshold to get elected into the Bundestag. Of course, Gysi knows that the MSM in Germany likes nothing more than clashes inside the left party, because the German elite hates the left party for their anti-capitalist and anti-NATO-stances, and the MSM and the elites will do anything to widen any rift in the Left party. And Israel and the elite's MSM are very strong in Germany. So Gysi tried to avoid the serious contradiction in his party regarding Zionism being exposed by not showing up and running away. Afterwards Gysi tried to play down the incident, so as not to widen the rift further.

      What went wrong seems to me that this background of German politics and Left politics in Germany was likely not explained, or not explained well enough, to Max and David when they were invited to come to Berlin by the anti-imperialist faction of the Left party.

    • In reply to: ziusudra - November 15, 2014, 2:32 am

      If anything, Me Gysi is feared by the Zio lobbies here in Germany.

      That is completely false and wrong.

      Let me explain. Mr Gysi was a prominent jewish figure in the GDR and it's ruling party (SED), and, of course, as we know the GDR and it's ruling party was anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, anti-Nazi and anti-zionist.

      When the GDR was swallowed by the FRG in 1990, the future existence of the SED was in doubt, and Gregr Gysi became the leader of the party. With the breakdown of the GDR anti-capitalist positions were discredited and the SED had no powerful friends. In that situation Mr Gysi and Ms Pau formed an alliance between the SED and the world Zionist lobby against anti-semitism, fascism and Nazism. Shimon Samuels from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in France wrote 2010 about that:

      Samuels reminded Pau that "when we last met in Jerusalem, you called for a campaign against antisemitism", likewise recalling to Gysi that "we first spoke in the heady days of January 1990, when the wall had fallen and you fought to prevent the passage of neo-Nazis from West to East Berlin" continuing, "both of you have publicly denounced Dierkes, but your declared cause to contain antisemitism and neo-Nazism cannot be served by allowing such discourse to remain in your Party."

      Source: Simon Wiesenthal Center, Paris, 15 March 2010, Wiesenthal Center to German 'Left Party' Leaders:- "Expel Holocaust Slanderer from your Party in order to keep it in Camp of Post-War and Post-Wall Democracy"

      Last not least due to the alliance with powerful right-wing Zionists like the Wiesenthal Center the SED party survived, is today called "The left" and stands for values like pacifism, anti-capitalism & anti-fascism. However, the alliance with right-wing Zionism is a serious contradiction in that general lefty national & global position, and Zionism is challenged from within parts of the Left party time and again as being racist, imperialist & war-mongering.

      Currently there are two major factions in the Left party: one called "reformer" and one called "anti-imperialists." Gysi is head of the reformer wing in the party, and inside the reformer faction there are serious right-wing zionist neocon forces at work, sometimes refered by people who don't like them as "the Mossad faction." That's while the anti-imperialist faction of the very same party tends to be somehow more pro-Palestinian. In German language, read the article in "Hintergrund" 17/3/2010: "Die LINKE – Von innen umzingelt" to understand who's who regarding Zionism in the German Left party.

      You can imagine the high tensions between "The Mossad faction" and the the "anti-imperialists" in the left party. The stand-off between Gysi and Sheen/Blumenthal - who were invited by members of the "anti-imperialists" - is just one more episode to this.

  • 'NYT' can't keep its story straight on anti-Semitism in Germany
    • As someone who lives in Berlin, I just want to say what's going on here:

      There is a fairly small community of people going out to Anti-Israeli/Anti-Zionist demonstrations like the "Quds day." I happened to participate in that demonstration this year. There were about 2000 people there on that "major event" - coming this year at a time of the Israeli massacre in Gaza. Besides the demonstration all way right and left there were pro-Israeli counter-demonstrators led by the Israeli ambassador and some German politicians trying to provoke the participants of the demonstrators to say or shout anything anti-semitic, lot's of pro-Israeli journalists looking for any chance to find proof of anti-semitsm in the anti-Israeli demonstration and large police forces instructed by Israel-friendly politicians to go in consequently against anything anti-semitic and directly arrest people. But, in Berlin Quds day they didn't manage to find anything. The people demonstrating were very aware of the Zionist intention to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Besides Shia and German lefties there were many jews critical of Israel participating in the anti-Israeli demonstration. After the demonstration I read in the media that there had been one occurence were one participant was reported to have shouted something anti-semitic. I haven't heard anything and police said in a statement they didn't hear such a thing neither. If their really was one person on the demonstration, a youth or agent provocateur or whatever, shouting one time an anti-semitic slogan, of course, I don't know because I wasn't always everywhere. And, thouigh the mood on the demonstration was clearly not anti-semitic, of course, it's hard to prevent one guy coming to a demonstration, taking a place in front of hungrily waiting cameras and shouting something contrary to the intentions of the rest of the demonstration. I'm told the situation with other anti-Israeli demonstration in Germany is quite the same. The one on which the NYT reported anti-semitism, was, if I remember it correctly, organized by the left party, where absolutely no anti-semitism is found. But, of course, it's hard to prevent that one guy, or a small group of saboteurs and agents provocateuers, comes to your demo and shouts something to the contrary in front of cameras. The local pro-israeli community has a lot of experierence in staging such intrusion events and other provocations, and the NYT and other zionist media willfully collaborate with such behaviour. That's the background of the NYT story. It's obviously a propaganda job to tar anti-Israeli protests as anti-semitic.

      Regarding the existence of anti-semitism in Germany, it's true that there exists anti-semitism, albeit much fewer as prejedices against muslims, Turks and arabs. My impression is that anti-semitism is mostly found in the higher echolons of better society in Germany, it is usually only whispered, and comes from anti-semites who usually brand themselves as good friends of Israel. Typical anti-semitism in Germany is whisper like one has to be nice to Israel, because, you know, after Germany and Hitler lost it, jews rule the world, and so, if you want to have a career, you must show your support for the jews and Israel, whether you like them or not. Other forms of anti-semitism are sometimes anonymous graffitis like "Against the Judenrepublik" (jewish republic) which are quickly overpainted. Violent anti-semitism is almost completely absent. Jewish poeple immigrating to Germany have in the daily life absolutely no problem with antisemitism here in Berlin. It's quite the opposite, like a preferrential status: if one is jewish it can open some doors. Berlin is in reality very multi cultural and quite tolerant in all directions.

      I hope this comment helps to get a clue which piece of the NYT is propaganda lies and which is not. James and Phil got it essentially right.

  • Where is the antiwar movement?
    • "They had no clue."

      With that I completely agree. When the US finally found out what it did in Iraq, they where neither on the battlefield nor in elections able to turn the tables against the resistance anymore. And now the US is up for more of that in Syria and Iraq.

    • Alex
      There are many reasons why the anti-war movement is not strongly speaking up against the current US-led bombings of targets which are said to be ISIS. The main reason, I think, is, that many people think, ISIS acted in a way that it deserves to be bombed. Have a look how many Kurdish people protest today around the world demanding more bombs on ISIS targets. I don't disagree with that ISIS should be defeated, but I think, the US bombing ISIS will make ISIS only stronger, because it lends ISIS legitimacy and credibility to recruit more fighters for their cause. I think ISIS does think that, too, and that's why ISIS didn't do anything to avoid clashing with the US. But I easily understand that many people around the world still think, US bombs can solve terrorist problems, so the anti-war movement against bombing ISIS is weak. Btw, as the US was bombing lefty leader Gaddafi and his followers 2011 to support a bunch of brutal racists grabbing power in Libya, it was even weaker. As most people in te west are uneducated, I understand this.

      But what I totally fail to understand is, why there is no anti-war movement protesting against the war waged by Israel against secular Syria using Al Qaeda as it's proxy force:

      link to

      Is it because people in the west still haven't learned yet that Al Qaeda is a bunch of mass murderous extremists doing completely outrageous stuff? Or is supporting Al Qaeda to wage war against neighboring countries OK for western folks when Israel does it? I'm clueless.

    • "The machine doesn’t trust the Shia"

      The machine assumes the Shia will lean towards Iran, the major Shia power. But that isn't about religion, it's about Israel. As Iran is taking on Israel, the machine wants distrusts Shia, that's all the reason behind. As long as Israel's buddy, the Shah, was in Iran, the Shia were fine for the empire. Came Khomeini and Khamenei, and the catastrophic defeat of the empire in Iraq due to Shia power, and now the sytem distrusts the Shia. But when Sunni leaders are suspected of really opposing Israel and the empire in a meaningful way, then the empire takes them out anyway. That's why the empire killed Saddam and Gaddafi - they opposed Israel and the empire in meaningful ways. Where as the grotesque and brutal clownerie of arabic kings and emirs is spared from being targeted by the empire - they support Israel and the empire as willing stooges.

    • "... blind support for the Shia majority who sidelined the Sunni minority ..."

      In my opinion, this is pure nonsense. The US has in post 2003 Iraq supported the Kurds and the Sunnis. It was the resistance against the US occupation - led by Iran and Iraqi Shia clerics like Sistani and Sadr - that forced the US to accept an Iran-friendly Shia government in Iraq as the outcome of the US war against Saddam. It was a strategic defeat for the US. And to reverse this strategic defeat in Iraq is exactly why the US and it's partners in crime (Sauds, Turkey, Qatar, Israel, Barzani-Kurds) incited and supported a Sunni insurgency in Syria and Iraq in 2011/2012 - which now inadvertently morphed into ISIS.

  • Netanyahu's 'poison' -- latest settlement will distance Israel's closest allies, State Dep't warns
  • Netanyahu at the United Nations: Hamas, Iran, ISIS and 100 cheering Israelis
  • Jodi Rudoren effectively annexes Golan Heights to Israel
    • Even more important than the failure to report on the fact that the "Israeli Golan" is territory illegaly occupied by Israel I find the failure to report that Israel with that strike and other military actions directly supports the Al Qaeda group Nusra Front, which is deemed as a terrorist organisation by the UN, and while the US together with some partners of the US are fighting a difficult war against ISIS and Nusra Front. Israel's army is directly aiding the Al Qaeda enemy.

      link to

  • ISIS, 9/11, and the terrorism time loop
    • elephantine

      Yes, I know, there are lot's of tricks to maek any text readable. Ctrl-+ to make it larger, disabling styles in the browser to get rid of a hard to read font - or, copy paste text into an editor to read it with a nice font.

      When I first so the new MW layout, I thought I'll get used to the new layout, but now, after some time, I remarked, that I didn't get used to it, and I unconsciously react to the new layout by visiting the MW site a lot fewer times than before the new layout.

      Since I can imagine that I'm not the only one experienceing such an effect, and I find the MW site and it's content very important, I wanted the editors here to know that.

      But maybe I'm just still mourning: the old MW layout was so nice to read ...

    • Seems my comment mmetiately got published, so I repudiate: that part is working again.

    • MW

      I still wonder when there is the bugfixing since the "New Layout."

      When I said I was optimistic about the "New Layout" I didn't know that it would last that long.

      Sorry that I couldn't read this article: my eyes are not that good and I didn't make the effort to paste the text into a text editor to be able to read it.

      I also noticed that a feature of the new layout is to have me in a waiting queue, I don't know whether that's intentional, however I want you to know it's discouragang.

      So it goes. (Sorry for my blunt criticism, I would much more like to be more positive, but I really can't read articles here now anymore - my eyes are not good enough for that)

  • Our new look
    • Peter

      Is it possible to get a chronological list of all articles? - See more at: link to

      I had the same problem. I just did my quick daily visit to MW to check for new articles - ugh.

      As a workaround I use the feed for a "recent article" list:

      For a list of recent comments I use the comment feed

      For a chronilogial list of comments to a specific article it also works

      What is likely a minor css bug quickly fixed is that there is no text highlighting for copy/paste. As a workaround I found out that switching off the style in Firefox makes highlighting work again - that the way I just quoted you here. I guess quoting will become a bit more work in future to put away the javascript auto attachment " - See more at: URL" - but OK, I understand it's for promotion, and when I switch off Javascript in my Browser it's gone, too.

      But all in all, though I found the previous design more comfortable from design to font, more news-like and making it easier to find things with a better overwiew over recent articles and comments, I think I'll get used to this new design.

      So let me try to be constructive with my criticism. What I find a bit odd is the category "Middle East" filled with quite old stuff. Maybe it would be an idea to broaden it to something like "International" or "Worldwide" news.

      Then it could also feature news like this one of Hugo Gutierrez filing charges against Netanyahu in Chile for crimes against humanity:

      On Friday, Chilean congressman Hugo Gutierrez (Communist Party) filed a lawsuit against the Israeli Prime Minister for “crimes against humanity”. He was accompanied by the Palestinian Federation of Chile.

      link to

  • Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza -- same way she lost it in Iraq the last time
    • Sean

      Thanks for that information. It sounds strange to me. From what I see most Americans are quite dissatisfied with the current Democrat government. The economy seems not to get back on track, health care far less popular than envisioned and other great domestic advancements not in sight. So my understanding is that in the 2016 elections U.S. people will likely vote for change, voting the Democrats out and Republicans in. Yet, as you point out, Hillary seems to be seen as a bright light in all the mess. I wonder why. She was part of that Democratic government.

      Foreign policy I generally expect to be no decisive factor in the elections. The only thing where it may count is for Hillary personally, as her record as successful or unsuccessful foreign policy manager may be seen as a hint on how well or bad she will manage domestic issues.

      When Hillary's foreign policy is scrutinized I expect Libya to become a major topic. The war on Libya was her baby and she was very happy with the success of having managed to get Gaddafi killed in a most cruel way. But the resulting situation in Libya and Northern Africa is a mess which I hardly expect to get cleaned up before 2016. And I guess this mess will stick to Hillary.

      From a campaign point, I'm looking forward to see the video being embedded in a campaign video of Hillary's opponents:

      link to

      Presented in the right way, I cannot imagine that many people will vote for Hillary after watching this. She sounds just bloodthirsty and mad - and given the mess she caused in Libya, she looks also stupid.

    • I don't think that the support for Israel's massacre in Gaza costs Hillary the White House.

      As things develop in the U.S. - at least from what I see from here - I suspect the next U.S. president will likely by a Republican.

  • Amid fierce debate, members of German think tank take a stand on Gaza
    • LeaNder
      The underlying reason why the Rosalux Stiftung disinvited Finkelstein is that the left party and the Rosalux Stiftung are dominated by ardent Zionists (Antideutsche ...) like the left party in general is dominated by ardent Zionists in top positions (Gysi, Pau, Ramelow, Liebich...) supporting ultra-rightwing zionist basis groups (BAK Shalom etc), too. And these rightwing zionist supporters just hate Finkelstein, that's the reason. The campaign run by zionist MSM against Finkelstein was just a pretext.

      The anti-imperialist left in the left party is clearly a minority in the Left party, the zionists in the left party (Mossad faction once they were called) are the majority even in the left, but the left party can't get rid of the anti-imperialist minority cause they might fail on the 5% threshold due to that in next elections.

    • Here is a more powerful open letter from 90 German I/P experts, some of them from Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung and the same as in the letter above, but also many others, professors from universities, to the German government demanding:
      - stopp of weapons exports to Israel
      - liftung the blockade of Gaza
      - reimburse Israel for the damage done to infrastructure in Gaza paid for with German tax money
      - and more ...

      link to

      Spiegel Online, the most popular "serious" German magazine reports on it's website about that open letter (Huh, I never thought Spiegel Online would report on it and not spinning it all too negative):

      link to

      (Sorry, all in German)

  • Israel correctly fears its 'delegitimizers,' says leftwing member of Irish parliament
    • Among the factors: “The existence of an ‘insoluble problem’… The growth of private violence… Multi-racial or multi-tribal conflicts…” Israel meets several of those tests.

      Israel, it's lobby and lackeys have one more feature which in my view is even much more horrible and should not be forgotten. Besides that Israel commits serious serial crimes against Palestinians, Israel, it's lobby and lackeys are constantly trying to push others into wars and bloody conflicts.

      Most prominent:
      - Israel lobbying for war against Iraq
      - AIPACs lobbying for bomb Syria
      - constant lobbying for bombing Iran

      And many of the usual prominent guys of Israel firsters were also on the forefront in lobbying for:
      - Tough action against Russia over conflict in Ukraine
      - Bombing Libya
      - Georgian attack on South Ossetia and Russian peacekeeper troops stationed there
      - ENcouraging Kurds to fight secession wars in Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran
      - Encouraging Azerbaijan warmondering against Armenia
      - Bombing Belgrad
      - Pressure Sudan to heat up conflict there with campaigns like Save Darfur
      - Supporting contras in Nicaragua
      - Supporting apartheid South Africa
      - and so on and on and on

      Besides that Israeli forces massacred many people in Lebanon, bombed Syria and Sudan, and it's intelligence service murdered people in, among others, Norway, Syria, Dubai and Iran

      I think this record of permanent pushing for wars, conflict and suppression of people's rights everywhere is - combined with the power of it's global lobby - what distinguishes Israel from so many more other rogue states.

      And, adding to this, Israel coordinates it's vicious policies closely with Saudi Arabia, a similar rogue state that is constantly poisening muslim people in the whole world by propagating a medieval interpretation of Islam and encouraging racist violence mocking any idea of universal human rights around the world.

  • Liberal Zionism has lost its refuge-- a plausible two-state solution
    • I think the economic collapase - or, what I find more likely what will happen, the relative economic decline - of the U.S. will have a huge effect on liberating Palestine.

      Even if the Israel lobby manages to stay in charge of the U.S. - what I wouldn't take as a given - the power of the U.S. to coerce independent nations like BRICS to accept Israeli behaviour and abondon Palestine will decline.

      Today, the Israel lobby in the US manages to push global sanctions against anyone who supports Palestinian resistance and resists worldwide wars for Israel projects. In a couple of years that trend may resverse. Countries like BRICS may pile up sanctions on the U.S. and EU then for their support of a brutal Israeli apartheid regime.

      Add that to other factors, like the public discovery that disastrous US-led wars of aggression worldwide were fought for narrow interests of Zionist settlers, and the costs may easily become so huge for the U.S. elite in a couple of years, that they abandon the zionist apartheid state. In the end, most of the rich men in the U.S. love their money even more than they love Israel.

  • Hope in the one state solution 
    • JeffB
      When Israel becomes Palestine again I do expect many jews to stay there.

      I think that even many of the die-hard racists of which the Israeli society mainly consists today, will prefer to live in a equal Palestine than going somewhere else. Some of the racists may want to try to start something like a civil war, however, when a unified Palestine will become reality, they won't get the international support they'ld need to win, so that option will be limited,too. The typical zionist method of false-flag-terror won't work neither, because by then the zionist false-flag-terror will have been long exposed.

      What I think will be the only thing what likely will remain of Israel for a long time in the hearts of many then-former zionists will be a deep feeling of shame.

  • Tunnels-to-kindergartens propaganda Netanyahu peddled to NYT and CNN is exploded by Israeli news site
    • The final line I read in this hasbara piece is:

      Clarification: An earlier version said a building in Gaza that was booby-trapped, killing three Israeli soldiers, was designated as a United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. This was based on information provided by the Israel Defence Forces, which has since confirmed the building has not been used as a UNRWA facility for many years. The IDF said it regrets the error.

      One more hasbara propaganda lie blown away.

  • Hamas equals ISIS in 'grisly creeds and grisly deeds,' Netanyahu tells a nodding Cuomo
    • Walid

      Die Zeit is a major German newspaper but it's totally pro-Israel, one of the most biased for Israel I would say. I remember, that in 2002 it acted like a mouthpiece of AIPAC. One of the big wigs at Die Zeit, Josef Joffe, is on especially good terms with the Washington NeoCon-Israel-Lobby cabal. I suspect most of what it prints is spoonfed Israeli propaganda. The quote from BBC above reads to me like this: the hasbara tries to paint an image as if the Israeli spies and agents in the US were trying to warn the US of 9/11 while in reality some of them were doing false propaganda dancing to 9/11 and trying to create the impression Arabs danced to 9/11 in the US.

      By the way: to me it seems to be quite clear that 9/11 was a Saudi-Israeli co-production. "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way," Bibi said some months before it to a settler fearing peace, and then Bibi's buddy Larry Silverstein bought the asbestos-contaminated WTC towers for a lot of money and insured them remarkbly well against terrorism.

    • Interesting what Israeli agents did and Netanyahu said about Israel and 9/11. I thought most of the world knows today that five Israeli agents were arrested in the U.S., playing Arabs dancing for 9/11.

      link to

      And guess who said these words:

      "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon..."

      Netanyahu himself, of course.

      link to

      And now Netanyahu says:

      Remember that Hamas celebrated 9/11. They celebrated the murder of thousands of innocent people, including thousands of New Yorkers… They were standing on the roof and cheering while all of the people of Israel grieved… with the United States…

      Netanyahu is really stunning.

  • US branch of the Jewish 'family' owes the homeland 'unconditional love' -- Rosner
  • Daily News publisher, Gov. Cuomo, Yankees president, and NE Patriots' owner are latest to rush to Israel's side
  • Goldstone sequel to be co-authored by Amal Alamuddin, Clooney's fiancee
    • Kay24

      I can't see that James Zogby claims that the Goldstone report played a part in Israel getting away with slaughtering civilians. I understand the article as describung the propaganda efforts made by Israel, and supported by NYT and WaPo, to neutralize the Goldstine report, and further lining out that, when this failed, Israel "resorted to intimidation to silence critics — even pummeling the venerable Justice Goldstone into submission."

  • Propaganda on Palestine: All-Knowing White Man & Angry Black Woman conjure good Jews and evil Arabs
    • Regarding Chloe Valdary, two things:

      Richard Silverstein, 28/2/2014:

      Chloe Valdary’s Suspect Pro-Israel Marketing

      Chloe Valdary is an African-American, Christian Zionist, and University of New Orleans undergraduate who’s been embraced by the Israel Lobby. It has showered her with Israel junkets (Aipac, CAMERA and ZOA have each sent her), funding ($6,000 per year from CAMERA), and lots of promotion (her video was produced by a group founded by the David Project‘s Charles Jacobs). She blogs at the Seth Klarman-funded Times of Israel and the settler media portal, Arutz Sheva. ...

      link to

      And JTA 05/08/2014:

      Ebbing support for Israel among key groups stirring alarm

      ... AIPAC would not comment for this article but is aware of the vulnerability of the pro-Israel outlook among Democratic constituencies. Earlier this year, the organization hired from within its ranks Marilyn Rosenthal, a former deputy political director for the lobby, as its national director for progressive engagement.

      AIPAC’s pitch to students is more apt to include pro-Israel students from traditionally black colleges, Obama voters and feminists, said a former senior Senate aide who is familiar with the lobby’s strategies.

      “They know they have a problem; they’re working on it,” the former staffer said. “Go to their events for students and you’re likelier to see a female rabbi who identifies as progressive. You’ll see black pastors.” ...

      link to

      PS: To the editors of MW: Some text in this MW article seems to appear two times in my browser. I suspect there went something wrong in MW while inserting the article text into the CMS.

  • 'One nation, one state, one leader' -- frightening slogan at Tel Aviv protest
    • At the time when Zionism was created at the end of the 19th century racism was not a discredited idea. Quite the opposite, it was flourishing and modern science. Of course, there was some opposition to racism, like Marxists and some other Europeans like many jews and some christians, but in general the existence of human races was a widely accepted fact of modern science.

      In the 20th century racism was largely discarded as a science and as a good idea, largely due to the abhorrent crimes and the following defeat of racist Germany in 1945, but in took still decades to push back the idea of racism. In the US, a big pushback against the idea of racism came, I think, with Montgomery Bus Boycott 1955, and for South Africa it took several decades longer.

      The problem with the born-out-of-racism ideology of Zionism as I see it, is how it adapted to the continuning defeat of the racist worldview. From what I see Zionism adpated to this largely by exchanging the word "race" for "ethnicity" and "people" but leaving the rest of the underlying racist ideology largely like it was. This bluff was called in the 70s when the UN parliament sigled out zionism as a racist ideology. When Israel's best ally, the US, won the cold war, the UN parliament retracted that criticism of zionism as racism due to US pressure, but the underlying problem that zionism in it's core is indeed a racist ideology largely unchanged from colonial Europe in the 19th century persisted and so the problem persists up to this very day.

    • yonah
      Of course two different groups of people are never the same, so what ever Israel does, it will never be the same as what the Nazis did and the equation Israel = Nazi is wrong.

      So, I find it wrong to use it. I agree that the equation prevents a sensible discourse on a sensitive topic: why do the ideologies of Nazism and Zionism are so similar in many regards?

      I think the answer is that both, Nazism and Zionism, are ideological sister products of the wave of racism sweeping over colonial Europe at the end of the 19th century. Both these ideologies are born out of affirmation of the racist ideas of Europeans and European colonialists at that time. It was the time when in European towns black people in cages were publicly exhibited so that exited white parents could show their children what real negroes look like.

    • Citizen

      Regarding the link you provided: the server checks the referer. To see the poster, one has to go to this site:

      link to

      then down to 63. and click on the image.

  • How the Israeli discourse on terrorism seeks to justify blatant war crimes
    • Remi

      I'm sorry I misread your conclusion.

      So, please go ahead with your good scolary work of exposing the double standards in the misuse of terrorism, while I - as just a citizen - will continue to express my outrage about the continuing and systematic use of terror and false flag terror by theUS- Israeli-Saudi empire of terror targeting the innocent people of the world while these very real terrorists cynically smear the victims of their terror campaigns as terrorists at the same time.

      And thank you for the fine links you provided, especially those on the history of the use of the word of terrorism in the US during the US-led terror campaign against the people of Latin America in the 70s/80s. I learned something from that I didn't know before.

      What I wondered is that I didn't find the common military tactic of false flag terror, ie terror acts committed to blame them on an opponent party, mentioned there. I wonder how the discourse regarding false flag terror is developing in the scolary world. While it seems to that in military circles false flag terror is widely discussed, in western mainstream media, a serious discussion of that subject, especially regarding US and Israeli false flag terror, seems to be almost missing at all.


    • While I agree that terrorism is not a term of international law and that Israel and it's friends misuse the term terrorism I completely disagree with Rémi Brulin on the conclusion. My opninion is that we - as activists for justice, humanity and Palestine - should talk more about terrorism, not less.

      The reason in short: we should not let get Israel and the Israeli-led international axis of terror get away with their terror tactics, and we shall fight back.

      The reason a bit longer. Terror is, like massacre, not a term of international law, but it is rightly and commonly understood as horrible behaviour, and the almost all people in mankind in all parts of the world rightly rejects terror from the deepest of their hearts and with greatest disgust.

      When Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff just called Israel's military actions in Gaza a "massacre" she didn't speak in terms of international law, but people around the world understood very well what she meant with that word: Israel committed mass murder. How to hold Israel judicially accountable for that mass murder shall now be a task for jurists.

      An act of terror is not defined as a term of international law, but people around the world have some basic understanding of what it means: the deliberate killing and injuring of innocent people and/or the destruction of their collective or private property, with the intent to achieve political or military goals.

      What many people lack is a deeper and sound understand of terror. We should educate the people about some basics of terror tactics. The most important: the logic behind an act of terror usually follows one of two basic strategies:

      - either the act of terror is executed straight with the intent to be applauded (and replicated) by their own terrorist (supporter) group, with the ultimate goal to spread fear among a group to which the targeted victims belong so they subjugate themselves to the political and/or military demands of the terrorists
      - or the act of terror is executed as "false flag terror" with the intent to blame the act terror on a third party to provoke outrage and action against that third party.

      The use of terror actions by Israel to subjugate opponents to their will is beyond any question. Israel has a long record as a user of terror means. From the King David hotel bombing over endless massacres like the ones in Deir Yassin and Sabra and Shatila, what Israel did is straight mass murderous terror, executed by the IDF with the clear intent to subjugate opponents to the political will of Israel. One could say, that acts of terror in the distant past should not count to make a group of people, or a state, rightfully be labelled a terrorist. I agree. But then this rule should be applied to states like The Islamic Republic of Iran and groups of people like Hezbollah and Hamas, too. However, as Lebanon 2006, Gaza 2008/2009, the Mavi Marmara raid and now Gaza again show, Israel is still routinously using straight terror tactics. Israel shall be condemned for the application of terror means, and should rightfully be labeled "terrorist," a "terror state" or a "terrorist entity". With Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups the situation is not so clear. They were earlier confronted with quite substantial allegations of terror, but they seem to have changed behaviour since and their record of terror became quite clean in recent years. For many of the newer terror accusations against these, there are indications that these were acts of false flag terror commited by "someone else" - exactly to falsely blame it on them.

      Since it is very clear that Israel routinously uses stright terror tactics since decades and to this very day, it should be also a prime suspect for the routinous application of false flag terror tactics. When we carefully look back in history, we find some quite clear hints that Israel seems to have a record of using false flag terror tactics, too, like the killing of many innocent US soldiers on the USS Liberty warship with the obvious intent to blame this act on Israel's enemy Egypt. Israel and it's lobby also constantly try to blame others with crimes they know they did not commit. See as an example the four generals who sat years innocent in prison in Lebanon for being framed by friends of Israel of having murdered Rafiq Hariri. So there are quite clear indicators that Israel do not only routinously execute straight terror like the recent massacre in Gaza, but that Israel - and it's friends - also still execute false flag terror plots.

      In sum: Israel should be named and shamed as cruel terrorist state, Israels hasbarists shall be named and shamed as propagandists of a cybically lying terrorist state, and whereever a terrorist act with no clear perpretrator occurs, from which Israel might benefit, an Israeli false flag terror attack shall be seriously considered as a possibility, because Israel has a clear record as terrorist and false flag terrorist and there are no signs that Israel changed it's terrorist behaviour.

  • Three Palestinian men killed in separate West Bank protests, one outside a Jewish settlement
    • Let me add this news item to the list:

      Israeli hospitals open to more terrorists fighting in Syria

      Injured terrorists of those fighting in Syria continue to find the doors of Israeli hospitals wide open before them to receive treatment. A new terrorist was admitted in Poria Hospital in Tiberias last night. 95 injured terrorists have so far been treated at the hospital. The Israeli Walla website said the a 42-year old injured terrorist had shrapnel wounds to his leg.

      link to

    • Page: 5
  • When the smoke clears in Gaza
    • At the "Jurist" Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, and a former president of the National Lawyers Guild, just penned an opinion piece titled "US Leaders Aid and Abet Israeli War Crimes, Genocide & Crimes against Humanity"

      link to

      There are a lot of links in that op-ed by Ms Cohn, and, I think, her language is pretty clear and quite easy to understand even for people who are not jurists.

  • Despite potential groundswell, Congress reluctant to recognize Palestinian rights
    • fledermaus
      The problem with the German media's pro-Israel and pro-US bias is a far larger then the about 10% of Germans who are brainwashed by Bild. More than 90% of private German media in print and broadcast belong to about 10 major media cooperations, who all relentlessly push propaganda of the US empire and an Israeli hasbara narrative. For the rest of the print media market the strong pro-Israel bias is almost everywhere the same, too, with some small exceptions on the political fringes like the socialist "Junge Welt" - a relict of the GDR. And in the state owned broadcast cooperations the problem of a constant pro-Israel and pro-US bias is hardly better than in private media.

      The current change in German attitudes regarding Israel and Palestine seems - besides the indefensibility of Israel's actions - largely to come from the internet, where activists expose the propaganda of the mass media and spread counter narratives, and from foreign media and websites in English language.

    • A little bit OT, but I think you might be interested. A new report from German public opinion.

      The major German state TV just released poll results for Germany regarding the "Gaza conflict" - the poll data were taken between August 4 and August 5. Here are the two questions polled and the results (my translation):

      Gaza conflict: Who bears the main resposibility?
      Israel: 15%
      Hamas: 14%
      Both the same: 64%

      Gaza conflict: What should Germany do?
      Stand up stronger for Israel: 6%
      Stand up stronger for Palestinians: 10%
      Stand up for both: 9%
      Staw away from the conflict: 69%

      link to
      link to
      link to

      I'm not quite sure about past results in Germany with the same wording, but as Germany is the biggest European backer of Israel I find the results very significant:

      A big majority of people in Germany blames both, Israel and Hamas, the same for the conflict, and wants from the German government that Germany stays away from the conflict. From those who blame either side, the camp of Germans who blame Israel than the camp of Germans who blame Hamas. From those Germans who want the government to stand up more for either side, the camp of Germans who want the government to stand up more for Palestianians is bigger than the camp of Germans who wants the government to stand up more for Israel. Such poll results from Germany, Israels best ally in Europe, look quite historic for me.

      The German government may or may not translate this public mood into policy, but it looks like a sea change.

  • How many Israeli civilians have been attacked from the Gaza tunnels? Any?
    • The bottom line is that no innocent Israeli jews have been killed by any action from Gaza at all, neither in a tunnel attack, nor by missile or mortar. The only Israeli jew who was killed by action from Gaza was hit because he deliberately went to the battlefield to morally support the IDF on the frontline while massacring the people of Gaza. Neither a child nor a woman in Israel has been killed by the actions of the Gaza resistance, absolutely zero. And even the two non-jewish civilians killed by unfortunate actions from Gaza might be still alive if Israel had taken appropriate shelter measures as it does them for jewish Israeli civilians.

      Of course, Hamas, PIJ et al could have killed Israeli jewish civilians, by tunnel, missile or mortar, but the pure facts expressed in casualty numbers make it seem, that the resistance in Gaza was careful to avoid civilian casualties in Israel. And Mohammad Daif, the general commander of Hamas' Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades, said so, too:

      Hamas: we only target Israeli soldiers

      General commander of the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades says Gaza's Hamas fighters – unlike the Israeli army - do not target civilians

      link to

      Now compare that with the statements, the means, the behaviour and the results of IDF actions in Gaza.

      Both sides in that conflict, Israel and Hamas, said they target only military targets. The results of actions of which side in the conflict look like it deliberately targeted civilians, and the results of actions of which side don't look like that? After answering that it may lead to a next question: Which side in that conflict behaved like terrorists and which side didn't?

    • Yes, you are right. The three civilians killed on the Israeli side by action from Gaza are:
      - Narakorn Kitiyangkul, killed "in a mortar shell attack" - one of 4000 Thai migrant agriculture workers, who are now to be relocated away from the Gaza border in times of conflict
      - Ouda Lafi al-Waj, a Beduoin Arab, killed by missile near Dimona in a defenseless region
      - Dror Hanin, an Israeli volunteer killed by mortar fire while delivering "sweets" to IDF troops on the frontline

      In addition to this "an elderly woman" (sorry, I have no name or source here) in Israel alledgedly died after suffering a heart attack while speeding to seek shelter in the face of alarm due to an incoming missile threat from Gaza.

      That's it for the dead on the Israeli side.

      But, of course, there were also some civilians injured in Israel, some of them apparently quite seriously.

  • Jodi Rudoren and Abe Foxman mull over 'the Arabs' owning New York hotel
    • David, thank you very much for this backgrounder article. It says a lot about what's wrong with the NYT and ADL and it speaks for itself.

      Just before this I read here:

      ‘NYT’ is furiously rewriting history of Gaza conflict

      The only thing I really don't understand is why the NYT is somehow deemed a good-reputed paper? When I think of NYT the first thing I always have in my mind is Judy Miller.Normally that story should have been the end of the NYT, but somehow the NYT still exists and is still regarded as a good-reputed paper.

  • Palestinian refugees displaced again as they flee Islamic State in Iraq
    • Walid
      Amnesty International DID play an important role in that super con war lie by using it's good name to give it credibility. Francis Boyle remembers Amnesty's role in that lie in an interview with Covert Action Quarterly:

      Of course the worst instance is well known, and that's the Kuwaiti dead babies report. I was on the AI USA board at that time, it was the late Fall of 1990 and, as you know, we were on the verge of going to war. There was going to be a debate coming up in the United States Congress, and a vote. And at the end of November or so, mid-November, since I was a board member, I got a pre-publication copy of the Amnesty report on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. So I immediately read through this report and it was sloppy, it was inaccurate – even its statement of applicable law. It did not seem to me that it had gone through the normal quality control process.

      As for the allegation about the Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and putting them on the floor of the hospital where they died, I didn't know if that was true or not, but it certainly sounded very sensationalist to me. And as a result of that, I made an effort to hold that report back for further review, on those grounds that I gave to you. I also enlisted a fellow board member for the same reason, and he and I both tried, and I made the point, even if this story about the dead babies is true, it's completely sensationalist, and it is simply going to be used in the United States to monger for war, and could turn the tide in favor of war. And so you know, we really need to pull back on this, further review, more study.

      They wouldn't do it. It was clear it was on the fast track there in London.

      link to

      Though it's already a decade old and talks are there about another decade back then, I find it's worth reading the whole interview. It reveals deficits in Amnesty, it reveals that Amnesty is not monolithic. There are many people in AI who are honest and do their best for human rights, while others in AI do not do that. They follow with their mouth where the money is, spread rumors, and, what I may add from my experience, outright lies. As these people battle in AI, sometimes AI puts out very useful information helping to stop imperial prime crimes, but sometimes the other side wins the internal battle and AI puts out propaganda lies serving the empire.


      I didn't want to say that all what AI and HRW do is bad and all what they say is worng. However, sometimes they really do give credibility to ugly rumors intended to make a bad situation worse, and sometimes they are silent when a voice would be needed.

      Let me give an example. AI director Donetella was a big champion for regime change in Libya (and elsewhere in MENA), because Gaddafi was seen as a bad dictator and human rights violator. I remember Donatella giving an interview at the end of the year 2011 - after the war in Libya. She was asked about the widespread allegation that Libya gave masses of Viagra to it's troops so they can use mass rapes as a weapon of war. That Viagra allegation was in many major media reported like a fact and from what I have seen it had a major role in Libyan "revolutionaries" torturing and "revenge-killing" Libyan soldiers, black people and raping Libyan women from families they deemed government-friendly. Donatella laughed, saying that nobody could have been so stupid to believe that Viagra lie. Who would believe that young black soldiers need Viagra to get it up? When the devastating lie was spread and people got murdered, tortured and raped due to that lie, she was silent. In my eyes it looks like an admission of having been an accomplice.

      So now you linked a statement by AI's Donetella regarding Iraq. I said what I - besides that I regard Donetella as a very untrustworthy source for anything - have to criticize in her report. She put a decidedly sectarian spin on her AI report, "Sunni's" were killed was alledged in title, and in the report there was a questionable, but unquestioned by Donatella, allegation of some unnamed "Shia militias" being the perpretrator of the crime. That I based my criticism of inciting sectarianism on, not that AI and HRW always lie for imperial interests.

      They, AI and HRW, do not always lie for imperial interests. In some cases they do good jobs, and also against imperial interests. But sometimes they do spread ugly lies in the interest of the empire, und even more often they peddle unfounded rumors of war propaganda which serve to incite more bloodshed.

      So, what I think is one should be very critical with reports from AI and HRW. That's what I did, especially as I noticed a clearly misleading pattern I described above in western reporting on Iraq that does fit the AI and HRW storylines from there.

      My criticism of HRW I didn't detail or source here, but it's quite similar to my criticism of AI.

    • Donald

      Yes, there are reports of horrible human right abuses from the pro-government-side. Some are likely true. It's a brutal war, in a brutalized society, so I expect to find brutality an all sides. And since the US has enrolled lot's of Al Qaeda type jihadis into Iraqi government forces - the US called that strategy of arming and paying Al Qaeda type jihadis to remain silent for a while a successful surge, Sahwat, also known as Sons of Iraq - I would wonder to be it otherwise. What is called the "Iraqi Sunni uprising" is in part not only fighting against government, terror against Shia, but also score settling between jihadis and jihadi traitors who faught in the US-led Sahwat against their fellow jihadis.

      Other reports of human rights abuses I think are more likely fabrications to serve the goal of incitement of conflict. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and also the ICC I have seen in other conflicts to spread horrific war propaganda, directly serving emperial goals of inciting strife and justifying wars of aggression. Amnesty International has an especially infamous record of spreading war propaganda lies to incite mass killings. I will never forget that it was Amnesty International, who spread the "throwing babies out of incubators" story instead of uncovering the lie. When confronted with the allegation of spreading propaganda to incite war, Amnesty director Donatella Rovera once said: Amnesty is not an antiwar organisation.

      So now she is in Northern Iraq and publishes reports from there. And there are clearly signs in one of the Donatella reports you linked in from there that it is designed to cause more sectarian strife. Look what Donatella reports:

      "Iraq: Testimonies point to dozens of revenge killings of Sunni detainees"

      My main point of criticism here is the word "Sunni" - it suggests that Sunnis are the victims of sectarian violence and thereby serves to stir sectarian strife. And in her report, there is then even this: "He was killed along with a number of others by members of a Shi’a militia in the presence of the head of al-Wahda police station in in Ba’quba" When I read such an account all red lamps start to light in my head. They don't name the militia who killed the man, and the only thing they pretend to know for sure, it was "Shia." From Tel Afar I heard the opposite from what Donetella's witness alleges: Al Qaeda jihadis rounded up shia and Kurd people in a kind of prison, then they massacred them there and spread images titled "Shia massacre Sunnis."

      If Donetella and AI were honest, they would notice that the claims from partisan witnesses she spreads are highly doubtful and serve to incite sectarian strife. But Donetella does the opposite: she pushes the same GCC-zionist story of one sect killing another sect, Shia killing Sunnis, without any credible proof, in what I suspect to be an specific attempt by AI and Donatella to incite Sunnis against Shia and cause more sectarian warfare in Iraq. As she once said: "Amnesty is not an antiwar organisation." Sometimes AI acts more like an organisation to spread war propaganda lies to cause more war.

    • Annie

      I think many people around the world, many activists including, have still not learned a basic calculation of Zionists: Bloody conflict in the world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world, is always good for Israel. It functions as a diversion for Israel. While the world is preoccupied with very bloody conflicts in the Arab and Muslim world, Israel can build more settlements instead of making peace, can paint arabs and muslims as uncivilized savages, and Israel will get a pass for it's role in inciting these conflicts because to say Israel and it's lobby had indeed a major role in inciting such strife can be easily brushed away as anti-semitic. A secession of Iraq in three pieces would almost be a guarantee for a protracted bloody intra-arab/intra-muslim conflict in Iraq about borders and resources. It would thereby divert attention from Israel's actions and it's lobby.

      Remember when Benjamin Netanyahu said to a settler worried about the possible inevitability of peace in spring 2001: "America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction.They won’t get in our way." Then came 9/11, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, and while the world was bleeding from that madness, Israel built many, many new settlements in the meantime. Then came Obama, who told Bibi that settlements had to stop, but shortly after that came the bloody conflicts of the so-called "Arab spring" - which was prepared by Feltman's MEPI - and Israel builds many, many new settlements in the meantime. That's how diversion by other conflicts works.

      Sadly, many people around the world still don't understand that mechanism.

    • john_manyjars

      ISIS DID get major support from the US Senate. And now, surprise, surprise, ISIS did get that support from the US Senate especially from the very same people who are known as "best friends" of Israel there. Of course, the US Senate cannot pass a law to officially support Al Qaeda with US taxpayer money. But what US Senators can do - and did do - is to greenlight and encourage other friends of the US - who are also good, but covert friends of Israel and it's lobby - to support ISIS and Al Qaeda and shield them from negative consequences like to get a listing as a state sponsor of terror from the US.

      Read the story from the Atlantic I quoted above on who created ISIS. It begins:

      “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar,” John McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley in January 2014. “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the senator said once again a month later, at the Munich Security Conference.

      McCain was praising Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.

      A couple of days ago, I already posted a link here to an article from David Hearst about the covert friendship between the Saudi monarchy and Israel and it's lobby:

      link to

      Two interesting paragraphs from that article by David Hearst:

      And are the kingdom's dealings with Israel really "limited to bring about a plan for peace"? You are privy to the cables, Mr. Ambassador. Tell us what passed between Prince Bandar and the Mossad director Tamir Pardo at that hotel in Aqaba in November last year. The Jordanians leaked it to an Israeli newspaper in Eilat. Were Bandar and Pardo: 1. soaking up the winter sun, 2. talking about the Arab Peace Initiative, or 3. plotting how to bomb Iran?

      And why are your new friends the Israelis being so loquacious? Why, to take the latest example, did Dan Gillerman, Israeli ambassador to the UN 2003-08, say at the weekend that "representatives from the Gulf states told us to finish the job in Gaza time and again." Finish the job? Killing over 1,000 Palestinians, most of them civilian. Is that what you meant when you said "we will never do anything to harm them"?

      I'ld say it means nothing less than that the Saudis and the Israelis are in a covert strategic partnership, and one of the main purposes of that partnership is to weaken the position of Iran. Israel does so because Iran supports the Palestinians, and the Saudis do so because they see Iran as a strategic competitor for influence in the region. Israels assets in that partnership are mainly it's lobby in Western countries, influence on western media, while Saudi assets in that partnership I'ld see mainly as money and Takfiri terrorists.

      From what I see Israel and the Saudis have brought those assets into play in quite similar ways against Iran's allies in Libya, Syria and Iraq, and, in a longstanding Saudi-Israeli understanding in Lebanon, of course, too. But in recent years, the most desastrous application of these combined Saudi-Israeli assets was brought to play in Libya, Syria and Iraq.

      There is one more hint for that partnership in Iraq. Israel was the only country publicly backing Kurdish independence based on the argument that the Iraqi state led by Iran-friendly Shia, is finished anyway. At the same time,Iraqi insurgents allied with ISIS (they call themselves Tribes Revolutionary Council) met in Erbil, the center of Iraqi Kurdistan, to organize themselves better and to plot the conquest of Baghdad. Zionist media and lobbyists helped to further this agenda by tirelessly repeating "Maliki must go" and spreading largely unfounded rumors of unjust of oppression of Sunnis by Maliki-led Shia, therefore justifying the ISIS-aligned terror groups in Iraq.

    • Some clips from the papers:

      Efraim Halevy, a former Israeli national security adviser and ambassador, who was director of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002, in NYT, 7/2/2012

      Iran’s Achilles’ Heel
      ... Iran is intent on assuring its hold over the country regardless of what happens to Mr. Assad — and Israel and the West must prevent this at all costs. ...

      link to

      Algemeiner, 4/6/2013

      Israeli Officials: We’d Prefer Al-Qaeda-Run Syria to an Assad Victory

      ... According to Israel Hayom, senior Israeli officials were quoted as saying that “al-Qaeda control over Syria would be preferable to a victory by Assad over the rebels.” ...

      link to

      Jpost, 17/9/2013

      'Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war'

      ... “Bad guys” backed by Iran are worse for Israel than “bad guys” who are not supported by the Islamic Republic, Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the US Michael Oren told The Jerusalem Post in a parting interview. ... This was the case, he said, even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated to al-Qaida. ... "... With these Gulf States we have agreements on Syria, on Egypt, on the Palestinian issue. We certainly have agreements on Iran. This is one of those opportunities presented by the Arab Spring."

      link to

      The Atlantic, 23/6/2014

      'Thank God for the Saudis': ISIS, Iraq, and the Lessons of Blowback
      U.S lawmakers encouraged officials in Riyadh to arm Syrian rebels. Now that strategy may have created a monster in the Middle East.

      ... Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra, to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.” ...

      link to

      If this was a Kojak TV series, now the handcuffs should probabaly click. However, this is real life, and sadly, here is no Kojak in sight to arrest the culprits.

    • That story sounds to me like it has been cooked up. I want to tell you why. Take this key paragraph:

      “It is scary now that these Islamic State people are in Mosul, because we can’t predict them, we don’t know what they want or if they like Palestinians. And now the Iraqi government is bombing everything. They’re doing this everywhere, the army airstrikes can hit anyone at anytime,” Abu Khalil said.

      From all what is known it's very clear that ISIS or IS are not anti-Palestinian, and not so few ISIS members are Palestians themselves. There are rabidly sectarian, they are brutal, they are medieval extremists, but they are anti-national, for the ummah, they couldn't care less what arab national ID an arab Sunni muslim has - they publish videos of their people being proud to burn their national ID cards, because their now only part of the ummah. As Palestinians are usual Sunni arabs, they have not more to fear as any other Sunni arab. The ones who have really to fear ISIS (and I find the argument that genocide might be a correct word for what ISIS is doing to them quite substantial) are Shia, Allawi, Alevi, Christians, Yezides and Kurds (who are suspected of being PKK/YPG communist infidels) as ISIS sectarian violence specificially target these sects with persecution and violence up to murder and mass murder for having the wrong religion. As far as I understand everyone in Mosul knows this because large parts of Mosul are run by IS, ISIS, ISI, Al Qaeda in Iraq or however these wahhabi jihadis call themselves for many years now.

      Add to this this paragraph:

      Abu Khalil said the problems in Mosul started with the IS’s takeover of the city but continued with the Iraqi Army’s airstrikes against the city after the seige.

      Really? Problems in that city where large parts were run by Al Qaeda and similar violent extremists for years, which had regular bombings, Al Qaeda openly collecting taxes, official Iraqi courts run by Al Qaeda, plenty of murders for illoyalty with Al Qaeda, and so on, problems started this June? I find such an assertion just outright ridicolous.

      I also note that the typical western propaganda meme against the Iraqi army is there: "the Iraqi government is bombing everything." Really? Are we really to believe the story cooked by GCC anti-shia sectarian propagandists (and their Zionist helpers in western anti-Iranian Hasbara) that the evil Iranian-aligned Shia prime minister Maliki bombs "everything" - just because he's pleased to bomb the Sunnis of Mosul? That said, the Iraqi airforce is doing airstrikes, and I guess it causes substantial collateral damage, but the meme pushed that the Iraqi airforce is bombing "everything" or even specifically civilians is ridiculous.

      Finally, three English language websites I'ld recommend to get a better idea of what's currently going on in Mosul and Iraq then from reports from Erbil.

      link to

      link to

      link to

  • Conflict Resolution 101: Talk to Hamas
    • Alarm!


      Ebbing support for Israel among key groups stirring alarm

      ... Last Friday, a select group of Jewish institutions was sent a confidential summary of the staffers discussing the recent Gaza conflict. The tone of the summary, which was obtained by JTA, was one of alarm.

      “Congress is supposed to be our fortress,” wrote authors Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi and Meagan Buren, the founder and a former top aide, respectively, at The Israel Project. “... it appears that the negativity and lack of support among young people is tunneling its way into congressional offices, even while the congressmen and senators remain steadfast on the surface.”

      ... Among the statements the dozen congressional staffers agreed on: “Israel attacked Gaza in a wild overreaction.” “It’s Groundhog Day every 18 months, perennial conflict, doesn’t seem like anyone wants peace anymore.” [The Israeli government is] “not peace loving.”

      Several JTA interviews with staffers for pro-Israel lawmakers suggested that the Mizrahi report’s conclusion is on target. ...

      AIPAC’s pitch to students is more apt to include pro-Israel students from traditionally black colleges, Obama voters and feminists, said a former senior Senate aide who is familiar with the lobby’s strategies.

      “They know they have a problem; they’re working on it,” the former staffer said. “Go to their events for students and you’re likelier to see a female rabbi who identifies as progressive. You’ll see black pastors.” ...

      link to

      "And yet it moves" - What we all do here has an effect.

  • The selected writings of Samantha Power
    • Thank you for this article showing the moral bankruptcy of Samantha Power.

      Her behaviour is no surprise. A year ago Nima Shirazi reported this:

      Samantha Power Boosts Israel’s Cause
      July 20, 2013

      The safest way for any U.S. foreign policy nominee to win Senate confirmation is to pander to Israel’s interests and to bluster against its enemies. That was the route Samantha Power took in her bid to win confirmation as the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, reports Nima Shirazi.

      To read further: link to

      Some time ago I read, but I can't remember where, that when Samantha Power was given the US ambassador job of securing Israel's interest at the UN it was a kind of consolation gift by the Obama administration to Netanyahu after Obama boxed Hagel through the nomination for defense secretary against the will of Netanyahu and the lobby.

  • Israel, your brand is tanking
    • Boycott Garnier! story @ link via Susan Abulhawa’s twitter

      "All Garnier products in my house are in the garbage now."

      I'm shocked. I couldn't imagine that Susan Abulhawa had any Garnier products in her home.

      I have definitely none of any of L'Oreal's brands in my home. That firm is known for long to be a major rabid Zionist company, and all it's products are completely avoidable.

      And no, I have none of Ronald Lauder's products in my home neither.

    • There is one thing what the recent polls don't reflect, what I - based on my anecdotical view - assume that there is another big and very relevant change happening in the US. From what I see, a big change regarding Israel is underway in the US military establishment.

      I have no data for this yet, but from my personal social bubble it looks like that more and more US soldiers view Israel instead of an ally against Islamic terror hordes more and more as a ruthless enemy occupying US power and making US soldiers die and suffer in senseless wars for Israel, and that view is even more often to be seen among US officers.

      As I said I have not seen polling data for this yet, but my feeling is that there might be a big change underway in the US.

  • Seven congresspeople go to Israel on AIPAC's dime-- and one gets defensive about it
    • ritzl
      Thank you for the flowers. Yes, I do try to put things in perspective, and yes, I agree to you, that the current global problem of rabid Zionism must be properly addressed.
      Regarding Israel being global problem #1, if you visit my website for global news mostly from the so-called third world, you may understand why I put even the abhorrent problem of raging zionist extremism into a somewhat diminishing perspective. Some people may find it hard to accept but I believe that in a couple of years, 10, 30 or 50 years, who knows, if current western world leaders refrain from blowing up the world into a nuclear winter, problems inbetween sects of the Abrahamic religions may look like minor problems in the world, whatever Israel and it's backers in Abrahamic countries might do in the meantime or do not so.

      I expect China, India and some other Asian countries to become the most potent in the world in a couple of years, not so distant from today as some people might think. This development I expect to come gradually, if, as I assume, the western leaders don't want to challenge it in a serious military way. But if they do, I expect this global development to accelerate, so it won't make much of a difference in historical terms.

      Anyway, I expect populous and large countries like China, India and Russia to become the most powerful countries in the world, may that development come a bit more distant or quite close. So,what will the I/P conflict look like from Beijing or Mumbai then? I think it will look like some Abrahamic people kill each other. Their bad. Their bad meaning the bad of the Abrahamic people. And it wouldn't look much different if an Israel lobby in some western states would try to put through a senselessly aggressively foreign policy. It would be: Their bad. The bad of the uncivilized Western world.

      So, to conclude, what I expect to happen in the next years, will be that the "Israeli problem" - if it will be unsolved - will over the next years diminish from the global problem that it currently is to something more like a regional problem of Abrahamic states.

      All of before should not mean I think that Israel and it's global lobby are not one of the most pressing problems of the current time. They clearly are. But strategically spoken, I think, Israel will likely morph from a global problem into a regional western problem in a couple of years. It will be up for the western and Abrahamic countries to solve this problem.

    • ritzl
      I didn't want to use the superlative Israel #1 and I mean it.

      There are other problems in the world which have nothing to do with Israel and which are also ugly, say world population growth in direction of overpopulation, neo-imperialist competition among major global powers, human destroying of some global nature resources which are the basics for human life, conflicts in Kashmir, East Asia, Africa, drug addiction, and so on.

      But what I also think, what is proven beyond much doubt: Israel and all its support infrastructure and machinations are currently one of the causes of major global problems. Let me add: causes of senseless and avoidable global problems.

    • Hophmi
      Of course, I think, you and everyone else here understand that talk is now about what was just shared by Adam Johannes and Nancy Kricorian as "Talking Point 6"

      link to

      I agree with you that the current zionist massacre in Gaza is not the worst thing happened to mankind, and I would add it's not the worst thing Israel and it's lobby did so far. I find it more like a public showcase of Israeli cruelty.

      You rightly insist that there were worse things done by mankind in recent history than this Zionist massacre in Gaza. But you forgot to mention that many of the things worse were advocated or spearheaded for by the Israeli lobby and it's close partners in the US and worldwide.

      Besides massacring Palestinians Israel, the global Zionist lobby and it's close partners had in recent years leading roles in many massacres, bloody coups, desastrous regime changes, false flag terror attacks, instigations of murderous conflicts, and wars of aggression. Take Lebanon, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Savador, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and now Ukraine as some examples where Israel, the global Zionist lobby and it's close international partners had important roles in sparking other massive bloodsheds worldwide, too, to put it mildly, because many of them seem to have been spearheaded by Israel and it's global lobby. Besides the destruction of entire societies and the death of millions of people, the recent expensive Iraq carnage advocated for by the Israel lobby was also a major factor in the destruction of the international financial system making billions of people a lot poorer. This multi decade long bloody desaster spearheaded by Israel and it's lobby is why I find it so important to expose Israel and it's lobby.

      However, I understand that there are people who disagree with that argueing that Israel and it's lobby had either no role in these desasters or the victims of the bloodshed are to blame for their perils. May it be as it is.

      Given the current Israeli carnage in Gaza I would agree to treat Israel just like any other rogue state, ie put in place a strict international arms embargo under Chapter VII against Israel and add to this tough economic sanctions until Israel stops all it's bloody racist and illegal policies. Such a compromise I'ld find fair, given that some people doubt the extent of bloodshed enabled by Israel and it's lobby elsewhere.

  • I'm waiting for Roger Cohen to say that Zionism is 'often' racism
    • Goyjim, seanmcbride
      I can't resist to reply to these comments, though the second is marked as sarcastic.

      Let me say this: Brainwashing is a very potent tool of power. The concept of having been brainwashed doesn't exclude guilt or shame, but it makes more understandable what happened and why. The assumption of collective guilt of large groups of people, say a nation, a religious community or whatever, is even more problematic in my view. It leads to easy to the simple assumption of the world being divided between good and bad without any understanding how to make things better in the future.

      To make a more specific point: let's assume for a minute the USA is hijacked by evil Zionists who do incite one bloody war after the other, and who are in power due to the support in the jewish community, so jews therefore are guilty. Even if that would be true, what about the guilt of the majority non-jewish U.S. community who doesn't resist against this evil? What about the guilt of billions of people worldwide who don't resist? Assigning guilt in such a collective way is not a concept to make things much better, but a concept to make fronts harder and bring more conflict.

      You bring the example Germany. Well, I think it's not too controversional to argue that Germans had indeed been brainwashed. The Germans back then followed horrific racist concepts laid forward by guys like prominent US citizen Henry Ford, whose "Eternal Jew" was much of a blueprint of Hitler's "Kampf." The Germans further misidentified a partly US-sponsored "colored revolution" of the color brown, a fascist coup, back then as a "German revolution." Many other people today make similar mistakes confusing US-sponsored colored revolutions and fascist coups for national revolutions. So, do I blame them? Yes, I do. But much more I like to convince them that they are in error so that the chances are better to stop the carnage. The guys I really blame are those who understand all this, but supporting such desastrous policies for personal gain or so anyway.

      Wer die Wahrheit nicht weiß, der ist bloß ein Dummkopf. Aber wer sie weiß und sie eine Lüge nennt, der ist ein Verbrecher.

      He who doesn't know the truth is just stupid. But he knows it and calls it a lie is a criminal.

      Bertolt Brecht. (My translation)

    • Donald

      Please take my apologies. I didn't want to appear personal against you, quite the opposite, your article makes a good point.

      My point was only to shoot down Cohen's implicit argument - that is wide-spread in Zionist propaganda and often unchallenged - that Anti-Zionism is some kind of "beginner's drug" for anti-semitic racism, and that the anti-Zionism is kind of in a more racist camp than Zionism - while exactly the opposite is true.

    • Donald

      Of course, there are some confused individuals in all spectres of society. And, with doing outragous things like the current carnage in Gaza in the name of the "Jewish state", the "State of the Jewish people" or even in the name of"the Jewish people" Zionists contribute in my opinion Zionists contribute a lot of people confusing crimes of Zionists with judaism, thereby contributing to Anti-Semitism. The big news is that it seems not to work anymore like before.

      Besides personal experience in one's personal social bubble, there are sciences like sociology which help to identify larger trends. What I referred to in my comment is a detailed sociological study showing that there exists a group of people holding generally racist views, and usually they hold both anti-Semitic and anti-muslim ressentiments at the same time, while Anti-Zionists are usually to be found in the opposite camp. And, surprise, surprise, Zionists are often in the opposite goup as anti-Zionists, the group of people holding racist ressentiments. That's facts.

      For those able to read German (or willing to use Google translator), here is a comment from Rolf Verleger (former director of Germany's top body of organized judaism, he was kicked out of that chair due to his criticism of Israel a while ago) on that study (Kempf: Israelkritik, Umgang mit der deutschen Geschichte und Ausdifferenzierung des modernen Antisemitismus):

      link to

      I guess in the USA the situation maybe similar. When I read detailed polls on support of US people for Israel, it regularly shows the following picture. The staunchest supporters of Israel's actions are usually "white old conservative Republicans" while the most opposition to Israel's actions is to be found in the group of "Hispanic/black young liberal Democrats." In which of those two groups one would you expect to find more "racist ressentiments" in general? I would expect that to be in the former. And I would expect that, when a sociological study is done about it, it would reveal exactly that - as it was revealed in Germany.

      I guess Zionist journalists and media know that all too well, at least in Germany there was a lengthy discussion about it, but Zionist media nevertheless do not tire in trying to give the false impression that Anti-Zionists are in the group of racists, in the more racist group or a group of latent racism. It's a plain bold Zionist lie.

    • Donald

      Thank you for your article.

      But one major point: What Roger Cohen asserts is not true, at least not here in Germany. His big lie is in the word "moving" as in "moving beyond anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism."

      There were detailed studies here in Germany and they revealed the opposite is the truth. The findings were very clear: there is still quite a large group of people in Germany which have generally racist worldviews. Politically they are to be found on the extreme far right spectrum following ideologies like Neo-Nazism.

      This group of people that has generally racist worldviews is usually as much Anti-Muslim as it is Anti-Semitic. As Turks and people of Turkish origian are the largest Muslim group in Germany the Anti-Muslim ressentiment often comes as Anti-Turkish ressentiment packed as anti-immigration demand like "Turks Out!" The Anti-Semitic ressentiment in it's sharp form is not often heared in public, last not least because, in difference to anti-Muslim ressentiments, law enforcement is quite strict in Anti-Semitic matters, and German mass media, who have no problem of stirring up Anti-Muslim ressentiments, don't do that against Jews.

      Therefore, what really happens is that Anti-Semitic ressentiments are sometimes disguised as Anti-Zionism - especially by the far right. That is what we can see quite often. This racists come then to Anti-Zionist or Pro-Palestinian demonstrations, masking their racist Anti-Semitic ressentiments as Anti-Zionism. People organizing demonstrations against Zionist racism have a hard time of pushing such racist anti-semitic rightwing extremists away. As they usually come playing "concerned citizens from the middle" - it's not alway easy to notice who they are. So Anti-Semitics moving into Anti-Zionism is quite common.

      But what I very, very rarely, almost never, have seen, is that anti-Zionists move into anti-Semitism as asserted by Roger Cohen. All Anti-Zionists I know here are Anti-Zionists because they hate racism, and they see Zionism as racism. Roger Cohen tries to give the false impression that Anti-Zionist views are a kind of a light form of racism, from which people then move to Anti-Semitic views, like Anti-Zionism would be a kind of "gateway drug" for Anti-Semitism.

      But that's absolutely not true. That's the big lie Roger Cohen tries to spread. It's other way around, some anti-semitic and otherwise racist people moved to mask themselves sometimes, maybe even often, as Anti-Zionist.

  • Israel shells another UN school-- and even the US is 'appalled'
    • oldgeezer
      Shifting public opinion is a painstakingly slow process.

      However, when you look at the numbers, then you may see that there is some progress. Shift in public opinion doesn't come as a sudden collective change of heart, but as chipping off small numbers of the various Zionist support bases.

      Currently the main support base for Israeli actions are White old conservative Republicans, while hispanic/black young liberal Democrats are already more or less with Palestine. That has the potential to make support for Israel a partisan issue, what would be a huge change from unconditional bipartisan support for Israel during the last decades. Such a development could open a partisan debate, which in turn could chip away some more Israeli support at Independents and so on.

      Shift in public opinions is a painstakingly slow process, but if it plays out over time, it can be very decisive. What is however very important in my view, is that "team Israel" doesn't manage again to counter such a slow process of chipping off public support for Israeli brutalism with a shock event like 9/11.

    • A bit OT but maybe some readers might be interested. Two former CIA analysts have today published interesting articles on the happenings in Gaza.

      Paul Pillar writes at Consurtium News:

      Justifying Israel’s Slaughter in Gaza

      Mainstream U.S. politicians and press are engaged in their usual tolerance of Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, hitting the usual talking points by condemning Hamas as “terrorist” and accepting the mass killings of civilians and children with a shrug, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar reflects.

      More: link to

      Larry Johnson writes at No Quarter:

      Israel, Not Hamas, Started the Latest War in Gaza

      If you think the current Israeli invasion of Gaza is a response to the discovery of the bodies of three kidnapped Israeli teenagers in late June, think again. Israel’s invasion was a pre-planned action and, if you simply go back and examine the news reports since April, you will realize that the missing teens became a convenient, tragic symbol that Israel disgracefully used as a pre-text for trying to destroy Hamas. Let me walk you thru some of the relevant press clippings.

      More: link to

      From what I see there is nothing really new in what they write, but Pillar & Johnson did a good job in summarizing some basic things. I find these articles worth reading and believe they may help people who still don't understand what's going on to broaden their views.

    • Many U.S. people seem still to be off the opinion that Israel has not gone far enough:

      link to

      That poll was conducted a week ago, but I would be very surprised if that changed much in the last week. Such changes in people's attitudes and thinking are going on very slowly.

  • The British public and the world see that Israel's actions are 'wrong and unjustified' -- Miliband
  • Who broke the ceasefire? Obama blames Hamas against the evidence
    • Shingo

      Before Congress will pass a unanimous resolution supporting Israeli spying on Kerry I'ld expect that all main stream media in the US report that Kerry is such an unreliable and untrustworthy friend of Israel - Israel, the very best ally the US ever had during the history of mankind, whose interests are always 100% the same interests as the interests of the American people - that Israel was forced to listen to some of Kerry's phone calls with the sole intention of keeping harm away from the American people.

    • Mazal

      I can assure you that I will go to Gaza when the time is ripe. So far I'm here where I am more useful in the battle against the oppressor.

      But if I do so I will not go through the borders of the occupying Zionist terrorist entity as you suggest I should do. I can't imagine that relying on the mercy of the Zionist regime I can do anything to contribute to the liberation of the world from the Zionist regime.

      See you in Palestine.

    • Walid

      I agree with you that the Dahiya doctrine backfired. Throughout history disproportionate massacres with the intent of subjugating the population oftenly backfired. Take for example the German Wehrmacht in WWII, Britain in India after WWII, the US in Vietnam and Iraq, Israels massacres in Lebanon and many more. If I understand military history correct using disproportionate force is not labeled a war crime because it is cruel, but because it is senseless. War is always cruel, but disproportionate force was labeled a war crime because it's senseless.

      That in no way is any indicator that such massacres are not a crime. In the opposite, they are a grave and senseless crime, for which the perpetrator is rightfully shamed and - at least sometimes - persecuted. To this rightful shame and blame add resulting military defeats, just like the US was defeated in Vietnam and Iraq, and the IDF was defeated in Lebanon.

      And now, the IDF is on verge of being defeated in Gaza, not in spite of, but especially because the IDF employed the shameful, senseless and backfiring massacre strategy of the Dahiya doctrine.

      And I agree with you, that Gaza will live. In my opinion, internally in Gaza and Palestine Israel's Dahiya doctrine will lead to be the people more united against the culprit Israel. But that's not all, the Dahiya doctrine has also an external effect. More people around the world will support the poeple of Palestine and Gaza, and it's Hamas government, against the perpretrator of the Dahiya doctrine. I see as a sign for this for example that Brazil's president called Israel's actions in Gaza "a massacre."

      While Egypt may be in Israel's hands, and in the hands of it's covert Israel friend, the Saudi paymaster, more and more people in the world will demand that Gaza get access to the high seas, so it can blossom.

    • Israel now admits that it's pretext of a captured IDF soldier for violating the ceasefire and continueing to attack Gaza was completely bogus:

      A special committee of Israel's IDF just concluded that Israel was wrong and Hamas was right in the assertion that Lt. Hadar Goldin was killed in combat in Gaza on Friday.

      Source: IDF Spokesperson

      link to

    • It seems like Israeli goals of the military operation in Gaza shifted again. Haaretz reports:

      4:15 P.M. The security cabinet decided after a five-hour meeting Friday night that Israel will no longer attempt to reach a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip via negotiations with Hamas, senior Israeli officials said, adding that Israel does not intent to send a delegation to the Cairo truce talks as previously agreed in the course of the last cease-fire, before it was violated by Hamas.

      The cabinet also agreed that instead of seeking a cease-fire, Israel will consider ending the operation and retreating from the Gaza Strip unilaterally, relying on the restored deterrence.

      "If we feel that deterrence has been achieved we'll leave the Strip based on the principle of calm for calm," a senior official said. "If we feel deterrence has not yet been achieved, we'll continue the operation in the Gaza Strip, or leave and press on with aerial strikes."

      Israel will also seek to reach understandings with Egypt, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the international community regarding the reconstruction of the Strip, demilitarizing Hamas and the supervision of goods entering the Strip. (Barak Ravid)

      Source: link to

      I see there no mention anymore of an IDF soldier captured by Hamas whom Israel is trying to get back - but just the goal of "restoring deterrence."

      Put in another way I would read the Israeli strategy and aim of "restoring deterrence" as massacrering so many Palestinians that Palestinians subjugate themselves to whatever Israel wants from them.

    • Norman Finkelstein has just endorsed this AJ video: Why Does Israel Keep Changing Its Story On Gaza?

      link to

      Regarding the question who broke the ceasefire, there is - what I find - an interesing quote from Netanyahu in that video:

      "... We are determined to continue this mission with or without a ceasefire."

  • Inhuman shield: How 'The New York Times' protects US elites from Gaza's brutal reality
  • Reading Amos Oz on Gaza
    • Please note the notice at the bottom of DW World's page.

      An earlier version of this interview indicated that Amos Oz' relative had been liberated by American soldiers. Mr. Oz later corrected himself, explaining that Soviet soldiers had been responsible.

      The correction came after I tweeted and commnted here at Mondo Weiss about Amos Oz faking history. To me saying him a relative of him who survived the Nazi Holocaust in Theresienstadt "always" reminded her children and her grandchildren that her life was saved in 1945 not by peace demonstrators with placards and flowers but by American soldiers and submachine guns looked quite strange.

      That sounded to me like he wanted to jump into current anti-Russian propaganda campaign and deny the Russians even that they liberated Theresienstadt in 1945. In the German version of the interview, after I tweeted about it, at first DW silently deleted the attribute "American" and then, after a while, they put on the correction notice.

      I find it OK to make mistakes. However, I still wonder how much truth, knowledge and honesty is to be found in stories by Amos Oz in general, given that he used the word "always" to underline the strength of his wrong assertion of American liberation of KZ Theresienstadt.

      Or, maybe he did that error intentionally to expose the German media for their colportation of Zionist nonsense? I don't know.

  • Cease-fire breaks down: Israeli shelling kills 50 after reported capture of soldier
    • There is an important update to this story.

      Al Jazeera reports: Hamas denies taking missing Israeli soldier

      Qassam brigades carried out an investigation and released a press statement saying they have no idea on what happened to the soldier Israel is missing. The have no contact with the Qassam brigade fighters in question engaged in stopping Israeli advances in the area at at that time and think they are all killed, and the missing Israeli soldiers was likely killed, too.

      Here is the full Qassam brigades statement:

      link to

      It looks more and more like Israel declared a killed Israeli captured to justify more Israeli violence, much the same way as Israel did it after the three Israelis were killed at the beginng of this in the westbank.

    • jamienewman

      Put the wording a bit different and it makes sense: Israel insisted that fighting for the destruction of tunnels was exempted from the ceasefire, and Hamas agreed to such a limited ceasefire. While fighting for the destruction of tunnels therefore continued, Israel suffered losses and then blamed Hamas for the exemption of tunnel fighting from the ceasefire agreement.

    • Even more, the IDF claims the IDF soldiers were killed or arrested while "operating" (on a tunnel) in Gaza.

      link to

      So, the IDF claims that Hamas by hindering Israeli soldiers who were trying to destroy Palestianian property during the ceasefire. Israel also claims that operations for tunnel descruction were exempt from the ceasefire.

      So, when Israel says fighting for tunnels was exempt from the ceasefire how could Hamas violate the ceasefire by doing exactly that? Israel can't have it both ways. Either fighting for tunnels is included in the ceasefire, or it is not.

    • The "Israel" Ministry of Foreign Affairs asks me to share the following so I do it here:

      Please share:
      It took Hamas 2 hours and 4 minutes to violate the cease fire which was accepted by both sides and started this morning.
      Since the beginning of operation Protective Edge almost 3000 rockets were fired by Hamas at Israel and 8 cease fires were violated or rejected by Hamas.
      List of violations: link to

      Source: link to

      To me it reads like an official Israeli confirmation that Hamas did abide by the ceasefire starting at 8:00h local time for 2 hours and 4 monutes.

      Palestinian doctor Belal however reported at 8:03h local time that he still hears artillery.

      Source: link to

      ITN Channel 4 News journalist Stuart Webb reported: "Despite the 'ceasefire' #Gaza radio say 6 people killed in Rafah by shell fire and Israeli snipers still active."

      Source: link to

      To me it seems to look pretty much like Israel didn't respect by the ceasefire at all.

    • piotr

      Taken captive an opponent is called an "abduction" in an internal quarrel, eg between security forces of occupiers and occupied civilians. So one may take the word abduction as a confirmation that Israel regards Gaza as a territory occupied by Israel.

  • Gazafying Dissent
  • Video: Mark Regev, deciphered
    • Kay24

      It's not all lost in Germany. Many people in Germany have internet and so they do see what Israel does. The accusation of anti-semitism doesn't stick so well anymore as before. Many people from all spheres in Germany have understood that unfounded accusations of anti-semitism are a tool used by Israel and Israel's supporters to exert power. Some powerful politicians are therefore also not so shy anymore in criticising Israel for what the Israeli government does as they were some time ago. So what we currently have is that our government tells all the time that Israel has the right to defense itself. But, and, here is the good news, they also say the defense must be proportionate - mustnot be excessive.

      What we have in Germany is a problem with the mass media. Mass media permanently push propaganda for Israel and against Russia. Lot's of people online in Germany see this propaganda with horror and the mass media are flooded with comments and feedback exposing and complaining about the propaganda. Editors of mass media react to that by either exercising strict comment censorship or closing the comment sections altogether. Media now report that there are large gaps between journalists and readers. Many, many readers just don't agree with the stories anymore that the journalists of the mass media serve them. RT is just one click away.

      What Germany is still lacking is a mass media icebreaker. We lack a major news outlet in German language taht reports with real emapthy for the Palestinian people, and grill the Israeli spokespersons for the cynical things they say to the suffering of the Palestianians, like what NBC and Channel 4 currently do in the English language sphere.

      But what we sometimes have in German media is a storyline that Israeli defense shouldn't be excessive is also sometimes aired. Check this article from state funded Deutsche Welle: "Israeli author and peace activist Amos Oz explains, why he supports the ground attack in the Gaza strip - and which exit he sees."

      Amos Oz supports in that interview the full zionist narrative for the military operation without any questions, but with an important caveat:

      I believe it (the Israeli military operation against Hamas/Gaza) is partly excessive. ... justified, but excessive.

      That's the line what the German government may follow. As excessive (disproportionate) force is a crime, that may open the door to put blame on Israel, and arguments for consequences.

      What the interview also reveals is the following: To justify his position Amoz Os tells the story that a relative of him, who survived the holocaust in KZ Theresienstadt, always reminded her children and grandchildren, that her life wasn't saved in 1945 by peace protestors with posters and flowers, but by American soldiers with machine guns.

      From my point of view that story from Amos Oz begs a tough question, especially when one keeps in mind the current massive anti-Russian war propaganda in German media: Theresienstadt was liberated by the Soviet army. So why does Amos Oz tell the German mass media audience now his relative "always" reminded her children and grandchildren that American soldiers liberated her? But German journalists have neither the education nor the guts to confront a reputated "Israeli peace activist" with such a remarkable falsehood he spreads to a mass media audience in Germany.

      So, likely you see now how it goes with German mass media and their Israeli interview partners.

    • Kay24

      We have not been fortunate to have such courageous journalists and hear them challenge lies here in the US.

      From what I see here in Germany, the coverage of what happens in Gaza is here even worse than in the U.S. The Zionist narrative in the German mass media is currently airtight, I didn't find any exception from that in the mass here, yet.

      Just have a look at first German state TV news Tagesschau. There is only the zionist narrative, presented to the public by devoted zionists like Richard C. Schneider from Jerusalem. The news is like: Israel may have lost the media war, but the Israeli actions are just. Radical Arabs threaten te security in the west bank so Israel has to take action there. Somehow a UN school in Gaza exploded and killed some people, likely because radical islamist stored rockets there. Here is no NBC, no Channel 4, all mass media in Germany currently just spout the same Zionist narrative without any questions and with all major facts like rates of death between civ/mil killed by Palestinians and killed by Israel being ommitted.

      link to

      But as the news from Gaza is very damning for Israel anyway, mass media here currently use agenda setting as the main tool to deflect attention from what Israel does in Gaza. The big story here in germany is currently that Putin is a bad dictatator who killed 298 innocent people when he shot down a civilian airliner over Ukraine in cold blood, and Putin must somehow be stopped. The mass media here pushes out story after story what a bad mass murdering dictator Putin is, then contrasts it with other opinions that he is a bad dictator from KGB school, and other opinions that he is really a bad dictator, because he kills innocent European children in cold blood and must be sanctioned and stopped therefore. Somewhere in the middle of the paper there is then a small notice that Israel according to the IDF killed some radical islamic terrorists in Gaza, that the radical Islamic terrorists in Gaza are dangerous, but that the heroic and most moral army in the world, the IDF, manages to deal with the radical islamist terrorist threat emanating from anti-semitic islamic extremists in Gaza who take the peaceful part of the population hostage.

      link to

      I exaggerated a bit in this comment here but I hope you get the idea.

    • You may also want to have a look at an interview of Channel 4 with Mark Regev, which I found at the Facebook page of Shahzad Hussain and has also some subtitles:

      link to

      Hard times for hasbara shills to defend the indefensible when media ask tough questions.

  • Fabricated martyrdom?
  • Israeli leaders incite hatred against Palestinians and are shocked when people listen (and act)
    • Maybe the cartoon is too nice and Israeli leaders are not really shocked.

      Posted on Colonel W. Patrick Lang's blog Wednesday:

      The Golani Brigade's orders for the invasion of Gaza - jdledell

      " I can assure you the Israelis have no intention of reoccupying Gaza. They do not want the responsibility of managing the Gaza people. They will simply go in, kill as many young men(assumed to be Hamas) as possible and utterly destroy as much infrastructure and economic assets as they can. They will then withdraw and leave the people to their own devices. My nephew is a Golani captain and his unit is just outside Gaza the above is the essence of his unit's orders." jdledell

      Source: link to

      If that is true, I think that would likely mean Israeli leaders only play to be shocked - but in reality the people behave exactly as cruel and mean as desired by the Israeli leaders.

    • That reminds me of Israeli MP Ayelet Shaked, who had this to say a couple of days ago:

      ... Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there. ...

      Source: link to

      I'm off the opinion that her statement sounds pretty zionist.

  • Israeli army spokesperson responds to Mondo criticism
  • 'Washington Post' conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism
    • zhaomafan

      I read history. I had for example a look at what the respected German Rabbi Felix Goldmann (†1934 in Leipzig) said about Zionism in his booklet "Der Zionismus, seine Theorien, Aussichten und Wirkungen", published anonymously - for fear of retribution by zionists - under the name of "Antizionistisches Komitee Berlin" in the year 1913. Rabbi Felix Goldman laid out in great detail and very convincing that Zionism has always been a racist rithwing movement. Key quote:

      Anti-Semitism was primarily – you need not mistake or deny other moments that resonate more or less – religious hatred, and the emancipation of the Jews and their intrusion into economic life also made the economic side of Jew-hatred emerge much stronger. But the anti-Semitism of today is racial hatred! And that means a complete re-evaluation and a huge uptrend. Religious and economic anti-Semitism are more superficial nature, they are the nature and the perception of action, not the person. The racial anti-Semitism, however, is against the human person itself. It turned a forceful opposition, in which both sides seek to convince by arguments , into ​​an anti-Semitism of contempt of inferior Jews and preaches complete separation from him in all areas of culture and social life. With what success is known! If the “racial” moment has acquired a meaning in which nothing counts of everything else, merits, virtues, striving and disposition, if the Jew is outlawed, if you want to depress him into a pariah position, so it is a success, the national belief, the chauvinistic racial madness of our times, has won in diligent work.

      And this chauvinist, national racist madness is the theoretical basis, the spiritual soil of Zionism! That’s where it borrowed the specific features of it’s being and it’s effectiveness! Even the utterance of this undeniable and undisputed fact contains the most damning criticism of this pseudo messianic movement. With all clarity the consequences must be imagined of what it must mean for the nature and manifestations of Zionism that it grew up on the same marsh soil as the racial anti-Semitism, this scourge, which we Jews are suffering under so horrible. And it’s always the same water, may it now be called Aryan anti-Semitic, or may it now be colored Jewish-national that comes from the same poisoned wells, and no staining of the world can make it a healthy drink.

      If you stand on the position that the national hate speech and racial anti-Semitism is a crime against culture – and who would not – you must also condemn it’s brother in Jewish garb, the national Zionism, because it’s results will be as pernicious as those.

      I understand that Zionists tried to purge that booklets from libraries worldwide, but now in the internet age the text is available online. If you can read German, I recommend to read this booklet in full. It's an eye-opener about what the nature of the Zionist movement has been right from the beginning.

    • MHughes976

      I'ld put it different. Zionism is a child of anti-semitism. The ideology of Zionism is from the same ugly rightwing tree of racism as anti-semitism. Zionism can't exist without anti-semitism. The more real and perceived anti-semitism there is around, the more Zionism fluorishs.

      So, the basic strategy of zionism to make it's position stronger is stoking the flames of anti-semitism. The basic method zionists use for this is doing ugly things and claiming that they do them in the name of judaism, like expressed in the term the "Jewish State" - the "State of Jewish People" and so on. People who buy the lie that zionists act in the name of judaism then fall easy in the trap of affiliating themselves with anti-semitism, meaning anti-jewish racists. The logic is quite simple: if these all these ugly things zionists do are jewish, the people want to be anti-jewish. If that's the case, Zionists have been successful. When anti-semitism is on the rise, Zionism gets stronger, too, and Zionists can run successful hasbara camapigns for more support for Zionism and Aliyah.

      Other justice-minded people, those who understand that Zionism does not represent Judaism, become in the face of ugly Zionist behaviour Anti-Zionists. Zionism reacts to this danger by claiming that Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism, using the usual and common method of conflating Judaism with Zionism. So the perception of Anti-Semitism rises for many, and it's enough as a base for Zionists to run successful hasbara camapigns for more support for Zionism and Aliyah. That's what we see here in the WaPo.

      Of course there exists real native anti-semitism, too, but that makes the trick even more perfect, and builds the basis for Zionism to build on stoking anti-semitism for the sake of strengthening Israel. Sadly, many non-Zionist Jews fall also in the trap of equating Judaism and Zionism, though Jews are the ones suffering most from this mixing up two very different things. That's the basic method of Zionism, simple as that, and successful, over and over again.

  • What evidence is there that teens were abducted?
    • I think it may be interesting what the Iranian Press TV reports on these events:

      Israel minister reveals manhunt reason

      A senior Israeli official has admitted that Tel Aviv’s current manhunt in the West Bank has more objectives than finding the allegedly missing Israeli teenagers.

      Finance Minister Yair Lapid told Israeli media on Friday that the search for the three illegal settlers meant to “break” Palestinian resistance movement Hamas and its reconciliation deal with Fatah.

      Tel Aviv has accused Hamas of kidnapping the Israeli settlers, who were allegedly abducted in the occupied West Bank earlier this month.

      However, Hamas rejects the claim, saying Tel Aviv seeks to sabotage the recent reconciliation accord reached between the movement and Fatah, which led to the formation of the Palestinian national unity government. ...


      link to

  • Human rights activists are 'out front' of others and 'thank goodness they are' --Hillary Clinton
    • Is Robert Kagan an "activist"? He surely endorses Hillary Clinton, as the NY Times just got it. Quote Friday Lunch Club:

      Neocon Kagan: 'Hillary is our best hope!'

      "....But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president.“If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”..."

      Source: link to

      From my point of view, Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton should be seen as the frontrunner candidate of the Israel lobby 2016.

  • The Pope in Palestine
  • Report: Germany cancels military subsidy deal with Israel following breakdown of peace negotiations
    • ToivoS

      Do you really believe "crazed Poles" have anything similar to Israel lobby in the US? Come on!

      While it is true that Poland and Lithuania have a role in the power grab of Nazi militias in Ukraine, the fingerprints of the Israel lobby are all over there.

      Have a look at who's pulling the strings behind Ukraine's Nazi militias: Nuland, McCain, BHL, Kolomaoisky - it's all over the fingerprints of Zionist neocons.

      In Ukraine, the big game is all about disrupting western relations with Russia in the service of assumed interests of Israel. Check the many reports of Consortium news on this topic:

      link to

      link to

      link to

      Even the Chinese understand this - and published it:

      link to

      Do you really believe that the Zionist's ignoring of all the Nazi ideology of the new Ukrainian powers happens somehow accidently? To many poeple it's very clear, that Ukraine's brown revolution has strong zionist backing, and Igor Kolomoisky is Israel's pointman in Ukraine.

    • Palikari

      I love the picture! Don’t worry, Germans: you don’t like us and I don’t like you.

      So what?

      I suggest you shall advise Bibi to launch a Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions campaign against Germany. I'm sure it'll work.

      And best of all, hit Germany where it hurts most: the economy. Feel free to lobby Bibi to ask him to go to Germany's most valuable trade partner, Shanghai, where all the little Volkswagen are sold nowadays, so that Bibi will go to the central townhall in downtown Shanghai and proclaim there: "Either you do business with Israel or with the Germans, you have to decide!"

      I'm sure that would be most impressive to all Germans.

    • Thank you, Annie, for this report.

      I guess Bibi Netanyahu will not become friends with Avi Primor again.

      However, one hidden aspect likely playig a role in the story you missed: Ukraine.

      Germany is well aware, that Israel, while publicly displaying a face of complete neutrality, has indirectly via it's lobby and Israel-firsters played a big role in the crisis in Ukraine. I remember that Steinmeier, Fabius and Sikorsky signed an agreement with Yanukovich in February only to be broken a few hours later. That agreement was very much in line with German financial interests not to spoil relalations with Russia. However, as Russian ambassador Churkin famously said, it looks like somebody spoiled that European agreement. Was it those force who, like Israel-firster Kagan's wife Nuland, have deep disrespect for the Europeans?

      German politicins are well aware that Israel-firsters like Nuland, McCain & BHL and their Ukrainian tools like the Israeli-Ukrainian oligarch Kolomoisky were all pushing Ukraine into crisis to damage Russia, and they didn't care at all that conflict with Russia will cost Germany lot's of money. I can well imagine Israeli government people telling Merkel, that she shouldn't be angry about it, because her worries are only money, when higher values and friendship in the community of western values are at stake.

      Well, what's happening now could be payback time. Merkel didn't prohibit selling German subs to Israel. She just canceled subsidaries, for which, and in doing so, she, of course, has huge public backing in Germany. And it's tricky. When she is criticized, she can easily argue that canceling subsidaries has nothing to do with friendship and values, but it's only a minor dispute about money.

  • 'NYT' publishes unvarnished ADL propaganda: 93% of Palestinians are anti-Semites
    • I think this ADL piece is a good opportunity to remind all people who didn't so far to watch Yoav Shamir's great movie "Defamation." That movie explains this new ADL propagandapiece better than anything I know.

      Meanwhile Janet Yellen runs the international financial markets into the next big bubble, Muslim-haters in Germany regularly burn mosques without anybody caring for this, Shia-haters in Iraq & Pakistan bomb dozens of Shia people daily into pieces without anybody even finding it newsworthy, and of course, arab-haters in Israel kill arab people on a daily base while enjoying the full solidarity of the ADL and much of so-called civilized western world.

  • 'NYT' terms Islamic Jihad's 4 percent support-- 'new traction in Gaza'
    • By ‘positive’ I mean greater than zero. Islamic Jihad’s small but growing support in Gaza is not a welcome development for any who advocate for a secular outcome that respects human and political rights for all.

      Why? AFAIK, PIJ is non-sectarian and is committed to human and political rights for all.

    • ckg

      I got my figures from the very source Rudoren used for her article, and I actually linked them.

      In last three months there was a decline in these nonsense figures, but Rudoren used older figures to invent an uptrend of those figures, because the downtrend in latest figures had destroyed her story.

      Usind old figures to make up the story and being silent on new figures with other tendency was totally dishonest from her side.

    • There is so much nonsense in Jodi Rudoren's NYT article that it's hard to find anything to begin with. So, let me start with a few words.

      Both, PIJ and Hamas, take their ideology from the MB. What are the differences? Hamas is a political and military org, while PIJ is only a military org - and it's only aim is resistance against Israel. PIJ doesn't use it's military prowess to play hardball inside Gaza politics. While MB and Hamas have strong sectarianist elements, PIJ does not. PIJ, a largely Sunni org, therefore closely collaborates with Iran, something which MB dislikes for sectarian reasons and Israel dislikes for political reasons.

      What's worng with PIJ then, if it's not sectarian? Well, for zionists PIJs desire to abolish the perceived as unjust and racist Zionist state of Israel is certainly wrong. And even more so it's wrong for Zionists, because PIJ resists with military means while Zionists feel themselves deserved to military superiority, and PIJ isn't controlled by Israel's GCC allys, but takes it's power from the axis of resistance. Reading Jodi Rudoren's NYT piece one may only guess this. Recent Hamas & MB blunder to attack their Syrian & Iranian sponsors in Syria for sectarian reasons make PIJ an even more well-regarded partner for Iran, Syria & Hezbollah. As PIJ is not sectarian, it's easy to understand that Israel dislikes it even more for this because it can't be manipulated to attack Iran, Syria & Hezbollah. PIJ is also a very disciplinated military force focused only on liberation of Palestine, what makes it have no problem with whatever force rules Egypt. One more reason for Israel to hate it.

      Now, regarding Jodi Rudoren's claims regarding PIJs popularity.

      First, Jodi Rudoren frames the pcpsr as being run by PIJ founders director, which implies he is close to PIJ. What Jodi Rudoren doesn't tell the readers is that the pcpsr polls where made in collaboration with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), yes, this is the main foundation of Angela Merkel's US-friendly German gouverning party. A sentence like "polls made by pcpsr in collaboration with Germany's KAS" would sound completely different as "polls made by pollsters led by the brother of PIJ's founder."

      Second: As PIJ is not a political party trying to get political power, PIJ of course is an odd choice as a political choice for voters. PIJ as a military org pledged to be in service of whoever politically runs Palestine to defend Palestine from Israeli aggression. Just imagine a poll in the US: which party do you support: Democrats, Republicans, the greens, the National Guard or none of them? Choose one. The pcpsr poll question was similar: which party do you support: Fatah, Hamas, one fron a list of some others, PIJ or none of them? Choose one. To get an idea of how the organisation is respected or not, one would need a question like: do you think having the National Guard or PIJ is a good thing?

      Third: Cherry picking: Jodi Rudoren picks the December 2013 poll, where PIJ got for the question of the former type seeing it as competitor of Fatah and Hamas instead of a national guard serving whoever rules 4.8% in Gaza, 1.8% in the westbank and 2.9% overall in Palestine. Jodi Rudoren bases on these percentages the fantasitic story that PIJ is on the rise. However, she didn't cite the March 2014 poll with the same stupid question (likely introduced by KAS), where PIJ got 4.0% in Gaza, 0.4% in the westbank and 1.6% overall in Palestine. As the PIJ numbers declined from December 2013 to March 2014, this poll would have trashed Jodi Rudoren's whole story about rising PIJ figures.

      See for yourself:

      December 2013 poll (page, 20#66): link to

      March 2014 poll (page, 18#68): link to

      Conclusion: Jodi Rudoren's NYT story is a totally bogus fear-mongering hasbara piece not based in any reality, typically for the junk people are used to get from the paper famous for Judy Miller's fake WMD stories.

      I hope this comment may help some people to get a sense of reality about the extent of the crap the NYT publishes as reporting.

  • Mark Halperin excommunicates Rand Paul, over Israel
    • piotr

      I completely agree with you. And I would even go further: the Republicans have with Rand Paul a serious candidate who could stand up against the Israel lobby.

      What's missing is a serious candidate who could stand up against the Israel lobby in the Democratic party. Bernie Sanders? I doubt he has the guts to take on the Israel lobby. I'ld love to see Alan Grayson as a candidate - he played it really well rallying against bombing Syria and he recently also made a very sensible speech on the Crimea becoming part of Russia - but would it be enough? I doubt it.

  • 'Poof' -- Kerry blames Israel for breakdown of talks (Updated)
    • Citizen

      What Obama likely has to worry about are such figures:

      U.S. support for Israel
      U.S. general public
      22% Too supportive
      25% Not supportive enough
      41% About right
      11% Don't know
      link to

      The hard - and ugly - fact is: there is still a lot of public support for Israel in the U.S. However, truthfully assigning blame onto Israel may change that slowly, but don't expect quick results overnight.

      The art of the game is running policy with public backing by steering public opinion and than, when that's done, adopting the position. Being too quick means being vulnerable for a counter attack.

      So, all in all, I think, Kerry did it well here. He just gets more people used to the process that blame is assigned onto Israel, but he doesn't so much that he and Obama would be exposed.

  • Apathy in Ramallah as negotiations with Israel dive
    • Brenda

      "I think the Israelis will settle on the threat. But lovely pipe-dream don’t you think?"

      As it is reporting that Netanyahu shouted at Merkel I think Netanyahu is seriously underestimating Merkel. Merkel has a lot of experiences in dealing with arrogant men.

      Her own party, the CDU, is full of men who felt themselves powerful and didn't see a dispute with a girl like Merkel as something real serious. All of them are politically dead now. A similar thing happened on the European stage: Berlusconi, Sarkozy, and whatever man else felt himself powerful in the face of Merkel and behaved arrogant, all are gone. Merkel has her own way in dealing with arrogant men. When such powerful men realize that Merkel is seriously out to get them done, they are already in a hopeless position because, before Merkel tackles someone, Merkel changes the environment in a way that suits her. See Merkel's EU austerity policy as an example - I don't believe one second that she enforced austerity because she believes in it economically. I think Merkel used austerity as a tool to shoot down "unpleasant" European politicians like Berlusconi and Sarkozy. When Merkel fights against a political adversary the price for her victory may be whatever it may cost:

      link to

      A similar thing might happen to Netanyahu, especially now, after he screamed at her. It takes some time, but when Merkel's efforts kick in, they are usually very powerful. If, however, the Israelis ditch Netanyahu, and more constructive forces come to the table, it might that a compromise can be reached before the Merkel-effect takes a huge toll on Israel.

    • Brenda

      Thank you very much for your comment. It's very informative and very much on the point.

      Yes, I'm aware of Akiva Eldar's column in Al Monitor and I follow the news in diplo speak closely.

      Your analogy with Zumo ringers is quite fine. It's slow change, but it can accumulate to something very powerful. I prefer to see at as the sea where the tides change. The change is slow, when you casually look at it, you may not notice the change at all, but when looking at it over a longer time that slow change in tides may accumulate to an enormous amount. A key currency in which such diplomatic change is measured is blame. Blame is quite important and Israel is just about to get a lot of it.

      That said: the key diplomatic battleground in relations of EU and Israel will not be in Romania, but in Germany, the EU economic powerhouse with it's very special relation to Israel. That's where the change must occur when there shall be change. When Germany changes it's position on Israel the rest of the EU will likely follow.

    • Seems like today's efforts to save the talks failed.

      "Al Manar" offers this report:

      link to

      And "Times of Israel" offers this one:

      link to

      Both see "No breakthrough" just putting a bit different spin on it.

    • Have a look what Reuters says which side is to blame for the failure of the talks:

      The talks were catapulted into crisis when Israel refused to act on a previously agreed release of Palestinian prisoners unless it had assurances the Palestinians would continue negotiations beyond an initial end-April deadline.


      link to

      Reuters - which is not really known as a bastion of pro-Palestinian activism - blames Israel for the collapse of the talks!

    • Annie

      Yes, of course, the Palestinians wanted a settlement freeze all along.

      New is that Luxembourgs foreign minister Asselborn made a complete settlement freeze during a possible extension of negotiations HIS demand, HIS precondition for an extension of negotiations.

    • There is an interesting development happening in Germany and the EU. Just a couple of minutes ago Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg's foreign minister, was on state funded 1st German TV ARD - the largest and most serious German TV channel.

      Jean Asselborn declared that the negotiations are the last chance for a two state solution, they are falling apart and it's all Israel's fault, because Israel lacks the political will for a two state solution while the Palestinaians want it. Israel constructed even during the negotiations 12.000 new settlement units, and has shown thereby that Israel is not interested in negotiating a two state solution. While the Palestinians may agree to extend the negotiations by nine months, that makes only sense if their will be a complete freeze of settlement construction, because prolonged negotiations must not mean that Israel establishes more facts on the ground. If Israel doesn't want this, then there is only one alternative a one state solution, but such a state mustn't be an apartheid state. Yes, he uses the word apartheid.

      Such a critical comment regarding Israel I never heard on German TV before. For those of you able to understand German, here is a link:

      link to

      I think it's a historic moment that on German TV it is declared that Israel is guilty of not wanting peace and of running an apartheid system. And even more so it is important because Jean Asselborn is a very respected EU politician. It may well be a harbinger that serious EU action against Israel could be soon in the cards.

  • Obama's foreign policy has just one potential legacy-- Iran
    • A quic addendum to make my stance better understandable:

      The policy of the GWB admisnistration was set up to invade Iran. GWB didn't invade Iran, because after the misadventures in Afghnaistan and Iraq he realized, his US troops would get smoked up if he invaded Iran.

      The same things Obama was told by the generals: if the US invades Iran the US will lose and the US troops will get smoked up, don't do it, the US will lose.

      So, in the face of reality, Obama didn't invade Iran, but that's not worth any credit. It's just military reality. Worth a credit would be, if Obama manages to strike a peace deal with Iran, and Obama indeed made laudable inroads in that direction. However, the peace deal is so far not finally done. Real credit is due when the deal is done and stands against spoilers.

    • I more or less agree with Ahmed that ran could be a positive with the Obama presidency.

      However, I completely disagree about hanging around Obama's other policies an anonymous coat of history. Let me explain. Ahmed writes:

      And then, in 2010, the Arab revolutions began.

      But the reality, as I see it, is: in August 2010, Obama signed his "Presidential Study Directive 11" - which was the order to unleash the so-called "Arab revolutions."

      So, when someone judges the actions of Obama, I think, one should take such covert action into account, too.

      Obama signed the surge in Afghanistan, which caused some dozen thousand more ppl dead. Obama unleashed the arab spring, thereby bringing death to about 200K thousand Libyan and Syrian ppl dead. Add to this the dead American soldiers and some thousand ppl droned to death in places like Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. And, of course, add to this many more people in all these areas not killed, but maimed, in a ratio of about one to five, bringing maimed people following Obama's orders to over a million.

      Seeing all this, one might still judge that Obama has some net positive on his side, like his so far incompleted attempt to bring peace with Iran and his efforts in taking on AIPAC to resolve the I/P conflict. I tend to see it this way. The previous president GWB started even more devastating wars than Obama did, the president before, Bill Clinton, had his UN ambassador Albright saying 500.000 dead children is a price worth going after a man like Saddam Hussein and guys before him, like Nixon, LBJ and so on, where even worse.

      So, instead of lauding Obama prematurely, I would say, he just killed about 200k people, and that's better than some guys before him in the same job, but we are still waiting for the final results of the positives, like making peace with Iran or solve the IP-conflict.

      I think that would put things into perspective. And, yes, I appreciate that Obama doesn't say he will smoke up the world trying to secure the Russian base in Sevastopol.

  • Dateline, Ukraine: How the State Department 'midwives' democracy
    • Boomer

      I'm no fan of Juan Cole, however I 'ld thank him for running that important piece of Robert Parry.

      Robert Parry runs the outstanding website Consortium News, where he carries on the discussion over the "neocons" drive for regime change in Ukraine:

      link to

      For everyone interested in US foreign policy and a critical view of relations with Israel, I can highly recommend Robert Parry's Consortium News website. I find it very informative and very well informed. Robert Parry is a former AP journalist, and many people writing articales for the Consortium News website are highranking former CIA and other US government officials, most of them critical of the Israel lobby.

    • American

      Israel meddles all the time…in the ME they meddle ‘directly” … other areas of the world they ‘piggyback’ with some other power’s agenda

      I think Ukraine is a very special place for Israel. Lot's of people in Israel were actually born in Ukraine and emigrated after the collapse of the Soviet Union to Israel. But a lot of these people have still an attachment to Ukraine - see Boris Filatov, the new deputy governor of Dnepepetrovsk, who just came in from Israel, as an example. He doesn't speak Ukrainian, but he's now a leader of Ukraine's "nationalist revolution." See the RT article about him, which I quoted above.

      link to

      It's quite interesting:

      Apparently, Kiev’s new language policy affects the deputy governor personally, as all his posts on the social network are in Russian. Earlier, he was looking on Facebook for a teacher of Ukrainian. “Primarily, I’m interested in the spoken language,” Filatov wrote.

      In his earlier controversial post, the businessman stated that Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator and leader of Ukraine's Nationalist Organization, was his hero.

      “I am proud of Bandera. He is my Hero. Particularly, as I see that people are ready to die under red-and-black flags,” Filatov stated.

      One of the richest businessmen in the Dnepropetrovsk region, Filatov got his administration seat on March 4, just several days after returning to Ukraine from Israel.

      As far as I know, many of the Ukrainian people who emigranted to Israel in the last three decades are now settlers in the Westbank, and from what I understand of Israel's internals policies, the settler faction is quite influential in Israel's internal policies nowadays. So it's quite clear to me, that for these reasons Israel has a much closer relation to what's going on in Ukraine, as opposed to some more distant events, let's say, Thailand for example.

      But the bigger question is how that translates into Israel's overt and covert foreign policy.

    • LeaNder

      But concerning “betraying the US”, apart from the fact that no doubt it is always easy to construct coherent narative in a complicated mess, maybe the US “national interest” is not always aligned with Europe’s?

      Of course the US “national interest” is different from Europe's. My point is a different one. The US publicly stated it's national interest and policy is to improve relations with Europe and that's how Nuland's job was described. So, when Nuland instructed the US ambassador to Kiev to "F... the EU" - she either was betraying the US by not doing what her job was - improving the relations with Europe - or the US as a whole has secretly turned around it's own publicly stated policy by deciding to "F... the EU" instead of improving relations with Europe.

      Theories regarding “the Germans and the Jews” I find disgusting, because it uses old stereotypes instead of looking into details of who does what. Bollyns theories regarding Oleksandr Turchynov, Word of Life Center and Israel I find unnecessary far fetched. Turchynov belongs politically to the Dneprpetrovsk clan closely aligned to Timoshenko, Lazarenko and the likes. Turchynov in Kiev just appointed the Ukrainian-Israeli billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskyi as governeur of Dneprpetrovsk, and his vice governor Boris Filatov just flew in from Israel:

      link to

      So, it's quite obvious that Turchynov & some powerful ppl from Dneprpetrovsk are somehow connected to Israeli ppl.

    • Annie

      The blackwater story I would treat so far as a rumor. Russian media reported, about 300 blackwater - now called "academy" - mercenaries are in Ukraine to protect the Kiev regime. Here is a detailed discussion of the mercenary angle in the Ukrainian story in Russian:

      link to

      However, I'm not convinced. I haven't seen much hard evidence about newly arrvied blackwater mercenaries yet. A single short Youtube clip I find not enough as evidence for such a claim.

      But the snipers story, that they were shooting on police and protestors alike in Kiev to foment regime change, that I find a very significant story backed up with lot's of video evidence. Here is a good analysis showing four sniper points, some of them clearly in opposition controlled Maidan territories:

      link to

      And last not least the leaked Ashton phone call. The leaked phone call begs also a different question: why didn't Ashton make these suspicions public? She sat on them in silence for more than a week while her collegues accused Yanukovich to be without any serious doubt behind the bloodshed. The EU even sanctioned Yanukovich and his fellows based on that assumption. Russia made it clear, that it suspects the EU of knowing very well that Maidan leaders are behind the snipers shooting on protestors and police alike, and that's the reason they are so silent about it, and they do not pressure for an independent investigation. Seeing that Ashton apparently did nothing after she was informed on these suspicions by the Estonian foreign minister I find that assumption quite plausible.

    • LeaNder

      "as long as I can’t be sure that my own country or the EU for that matter is not equally active in the Ukraine, which no doubt it is"

      Germany is not as active in fomenting unrest in Ukraine as Nuland wanted to have it. Remember her instrcution to the US amb in Ukraine: F... the EU.

      And then think about that Germany was among the 3 foreign EU ministers that brokered the 21 February agreement as a peaceful way to diffuse the tensions in Ukraine. Neither the EU, the 3 oppo party leaders nor Russia and Yanukovich were really unhappy with the agreement.

      So, Russia's UN amb Churkin I quoted above asked an important question: why was the 21 Feb agreement made only to be broken hours later for a renewede push of violence? Churkin said "somebody must have been behind it being derailed, maybe those who, as we all know, expressed their strong dissatitisfaction with the work of the European Union in Ukraine." It's a clear reference to Nuland and the political faction she represents, be it called US, Neocon, Zionist or whatever.

      I think that makes it very clear that the EU and Germany were not the main driving forces in overthrowing the Ukrainian government. And it's quite logical: Germany has quite good relations to Russia, which it wants to maintain, and Germany has no interest in bailing out another southern Europe country. Germany was also not the main driving force behind the EU association agreement with Ukraine, back then, Germany had to be persuaded by US-backed Poland and Lithuania to start that new EU association program at all. However, the German government is, like the EU as a whole, under pressure from US political forces - as it was revealed in the leaked phone call of Schmid and Tombinski.

      I hope that clarifies a bit, where the most pressure to associate Ukraine to the EU comes from: it comes from the US. But there is more.

      The Nuland leak is even more revealing when one thinks about that her job description says it's her job to improve relations with Europe. So, when she orders the US amb to Ukraine to "F... the EU" - is she executing US policy - or is she betraying the US, too? I find the order to "F... the EU" not only in language inappropriate, but also in content totally incompatible with the stated US policies regarding improving relations to Europe. So, when Nuland works against what is described as her job - improving relations with Europe - whose policies is she executing, whose interests is she serving then?

      Given that her hubby Bob Kagan is an influental leader of a US pro-Israel policy network, the answer to the question, whose interests Nuland is serving, seems quite obvious to me. There is even a special term in the US to describe such behaviour: Israel firster.

    • ivri

      This your comment sounds completely different as your comment above where you compared discussing Israeli influence on US and world policies to the protocol propaganda.

      I agree with you that "there is nothing out of the ordinary here – it is all on the table and makes perfect sense" - so we should not be afraid to frankly discuss these matters of Israeli & Zionist influence on US and world policies, trying neither to exaggerate nor to underestimate it.

    • AP has now some follow up reporting on that video.

      link to

      So the new western spin is that it is likely true that one and the same snipers shot protesters and policemen in a provocation. But, so the new western spin as their guys were caught red handed in this false flag terror act to get regime change, it was of course not ordered by the opposition, but either Putin or the Interior Ministry & the SBU must have ordered the sniper provocation as pretext to clear the Maidan.


    • "They may well be in the larger boat of neo-cold-war thinking, but they hardly are the only force in play."

      You are perfectly right with this. Regarding Ukraine, there are other external forces at play than Zionists, too. Take the Polish and Lituanian anti-Russian networks as an example for this, and anti-Russian policy networks in EU/US are not all connected to Zionism, neither. Zbig for example is not at all what one would say is "a good friend of Israel" or an ardent zionist, quite the opposite. And then, of course, there are a host of internal factors at play in Ukraine's troubles, too, most of them having nothing to do with zionism. But that's not my point.

      There is evidence, that there is a quite strong zionist hand in Ukraine's current troubles, and it is largely ignored by western politicians and the western mass media. One may argue about the extent of zionist networks in Ukraine's troubles, but there is hard evidence of a more or less covert zionist angle in the story. That's my point.

      And that leads to an important question: why? Why do they do that? What's the motivation of zionist policy networks for working towards violently overthrowing the government of Ukraine?

    • ivri

      It's a fact that there is an influental Pro-Israel-Lobby at work in the US - and in other countries, too. The main Pro-Israel-Lobby group in the US is called AIPAC and it has a huge influence on US foreign policy, focusing usually on foreign policy items of Israel's concerns, and the US is the most powerful country on earth. And we have strong evidence, see the leaked call of very much pro-Israel assistant secretary Nuland, that the US was/is in the lead regarding government change in Ukraine.

      And Ukraine was also a topic on AIPACs recent policy conference. See here reporting on the JINSA-awarded US-politician John McCain blaining "Obama’s ‘feckless’ foreign policy for Ukraine crisis" for example:

      link to

      It's quite obvious to see the difference the Israel lobby's handling of encouraging protests and regime change in Iran, Libya, Syria & Ukraine, while being uninterested in other protests, like those in Thailand for example.

    • There is an argument in Ukraine going on on whether Yats is jewish or not. He denies it, so I - as someone who thinks religion is a point of confession - see no reason to dispute that claim. And anyway, I think jewish or not is absolutely not the point. Zionism and loyalty to the Israeli government is a point. To use a US term: being an Israel firster or a Ukrainian firster is a point. There are many influental jews in Ukraine, and many have affiliations to Israel, but other don't have.

      Just named governor of Dneprpetrovsk Israeli-Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskyi, Putin mentioned him in his presser linked by me above, is much more interesting in regard of being an Israel-firster than Yats. But other billionaires connected to the events do not have any known Israeli connections, take Poroshenko as an example, who seems to be connected to the strong anti-Russian circles in Poland.

      But even if, let's say, Israel played a major role in Ukraine's people revolution or Neonazi putsch, just like one wants to see it, and I think strong zionist links to the recent regime change in Ukraine are evident, I find Putin's question very valid. Why?

      Yanukovich's Ukraine had good relations with Israel. That's why I find Kiracofe's opinion so important to think about.

    • A flea in my ear whispers: it would be not the first time the Israeli neocon rightwing lobby runs such a strategy. Under Ford & Carter the Israeli lobby was also one of the driving forces to derail USA-SU relaxation policies.

      However, today this rightist Israeli lobby is much stronger than it was back then. So, for me the more interesting question is: will Obama and Putin anyway find ways to prevent spoiling their relations due to Ukraine?

      Russia seems to understand that angle of the events in Ukraine. See RT:

      “Those who seized power in Kiev want to sour relations between West & Russia – Lavrov”

      But does Obama understand that, too, and if so, will he want and be able to prevent it happen?

    • Thank you for bringing up this topic again. I believe the situation in Ukraine has a lot to do with the interests of extreme right wing neocon zionists.

      Putin in his presser two days ago asked:

      First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment: this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power. Does anyone question this? Nobody does. There is a question here that neither I, nor my colleagues, with whom I have been discussing the situation in Ukraine a great deal over these past days, as you know – none of us can answer. The question is why was this done?

      Source: link to

      I think this question is self-evident to answer. It is not the EU driving all this, but a zionist neocon faction in the US goverment.

      Let me give some quotes:

      Quote Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State, and wife of Bob Kagan, instructing U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in a telephone call:

      "F*** the EU."

      Source: link to

      Who derailed the 21 Feb agreement?

      Quote Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin:

      "...Someone must have worked against that agreement which was singed on Ferbuary 21 with the support of three foreign ministers from the European Union. Somebody must have been behind it being derailed, maybe those who, as we all know, expressed their strong dissatitisfaction with the work of the European Union in Ukraine"

      Source: link to

      What kind of trained military guys were fighting the Ukrainian government?

      Quote JTA:

      "In Kiev, an Israeli army vet led a street-fighting unit

      ... Delta, a Ukraine-born former soldier in the Israel Defense Forces, spoke to JTA Thursday on condition of anonymity. He explained how he came to use combat skills he acquired in the Shu’alei Shimshon reconnaissance battalion of the Givati infantry brigade to rise through the ranks of Kiev’s street fighters.

      He has headed a force of 40 men and women — including several fellow IDF veterans — in violent clashes with government forces. ...

      As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party that has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism..."

      Source: link to

      What could be the overall motive behind all this?

      Quote Clifford A. Kiracofe, former senior professional staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations:

      "... Western media reported the vulgar remarks concerning the EU by Victoria Nuland, who is US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

      The media refrained from reporting that Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan who is a key leader of the pro-Zionist neoconservative policy network.

      It is well known that the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservatives express deep political and cultural aversion to Russia, and promote Cold War perspectives. Such a mindset undermines US global diplomacy and US national interests. Thus Ms Nuland is the wrong person for a high US diplomatic position, critics say.

      Using the Ukraine crisis to subvert major power relations between the US and Russia and their constructive joint action in the Middle East serves Israeli interests. It helps Israel and its neoconservative allies in the US and in Europe push for unilateral US military action against Syria and Iran. ..."

      Source: link to

      And, of course, Sevastopol is the backup port for the Russian navy in the eastern mediterranean, and any trouble elsewhere allows Israel to not come as much in the world's spotlight for settelement building as it would become in other circumstances. And if the current crisis in Ukraine will lead to more "Aliya" from Ukraine, the settlement builders in Israel would likely be quite happy about that, too.

  • Thought experiment. Dateline Ukraine
    • W.Jones

      Thank you for that link. Yes, Kolesnichenko is also the PoR representative, who comments on the situation in the video I posted above. It is very obvious to me, too, that what happened in Kiev on Feb 20 was a preplanned armed provocation. The more interesting question is: who are the criminals, who did this? Kolesnichenko suggests Yatsenuyuk and Klitschko and their US/EU backers are the ones to blame primarily.

      However, I see, see my post above, a strong Zionist angle in the coup, that Kolesnichenko does not speak about.

    • Stephen Shenfield

      As there are currently very many brand new dollar bills floating in Kiev it seems to be quite clear that the US government had a huge role of paying the "protests" with lot's of brand new Dollars, but definitive proof is still missing.

      Regarding to who paid out the money, pay special attention to the fatherland MP Stepan Kubiv, who was also - besides Svoboda founder turned fatheland MP Parubi and right wing extremist Yarosh - named as one of the leaders of the right sector:

      About 50 companies contribute every day, according to Stepan Kubiv, who manages the finances and supplies at the camp. (Source)

      "It's a provocation," said Stepan Kubiv, the protesters' chief of security, on Monday. (Source)

      One of the three overseers of the Maidan, known as commandants, is Stepan Kubiv, a lawmaker in the national parliament for the pro-Western Fatherland party. On Tuesday, as the government troops surrounded the Maidan and tire fires raged along its perimeter, he got on the stage in the center of the square to explain what was at stake. “Stand up, Ukraine!” Kubiv shouted into the microphone. “Today the fate of our children and grandchildren is decided. The fate of all of us!” Then, in a hint at the bloodshed likely to ensue by morning, he told the armed men guarding what was left of the barricades, “Death to the enemies!” (Source)

      Stepan Kubiv, a commander from the Right Sector, says that they are collecting around $30,000 to $40,000 daily, but that is still not sufficient to finance operations. (Quelle)

      Stepan Kubiv, the former Kredobank head and a current member of parliament with the Batkivshchyna Party faction who worked as one of the commandants for the EuroMaidan demonstrations, was selected as governor of the National Bank of Ukraine. (Source)

      I find it interesting. Stepan Kubiv, a commander of the extremist "right sector" just became governor of the National Bank of Ukraine.

    • W.Jones

      Thank you for that link, very interesting. And no, I don't need google translator, I'm quite fluent in Russian, and understand a bit of Ukrainian, too. I googled a bit and found a video which may be related to the statement of UDAR lawmaker Victor Chumak in parliament regarding a caught sniper:

      link to

      In the video title it's said that the guy is linked to organized crime. In the video there is no weapon shown, and the guy says it's stupid to allege that he shot from his car on people, but one woman insists, that that guy just has shot on her and some of the other people seem quite convinced that he shot on people, too. But as their is not shown any weapon, that video doesn't clear much.

    • Oops, one correction. It's not the UNA-UNSO leader who fled to Britain, but the leader of Spilna sprava, another fringe Ukrainian right wing extremist group.

    • W.Jones
      Do you have a link to the source claiming an UDAR guy saying an UNA-UNSO guy was caught as sniper? I looked at Veterans Today, but couldn't find that.

      The best video I found on that topic so far is this one:

      link to

      Unfortunately it's in Russian, and I have no English translation. So let me give you a short summary. The speaker argues, that besides protesters and policemen each having batons and shields, there were at least two factions operating with real guns on Feb 20 in Kiev:

      - "protesters" encouraged to use guns and supplied by the opposition with guns
      - a Ukrainian anti-terror-force trying to take out the terrorists shooting with guns on people

      The video gives ample video evidence of - what looks like protesters - having and using real guns. But some of these armed terrorists seemed really professional, so for example they managed to escape the hotel as an Ukrainian anti-terror-unit tracked them there. So it's quite likely that kind of militarily trained commando soldiers were shooting at Maidan - and likely on both - protesters and police.

      The head of UNA-UNSO escaped from Ukraine to Britain some weeks ago, which says something on which state backs this extremist organisation. But I find it likely that real soldiers were involved in the sniper provocations and arming ordinary protesters with guns was just a method of preparing the environment for these specialized soldiers. As Israeli army veterans now come out in the open to say they led a "protester" brigade on Maidan, it would be a real possibility that there is a connection.

    • Walid
      "... very refreshing to see something else being discussed here other than evil Zionists, so far but it’s still early in the discussion ..."

      I think it would be good to discuss "evil Zionists" here - especially in the context of these coloured and violent regime changes. So let's start with this Ukrainian one.

      Quote Press TV:

      Israeli ex-officer leads Ukraine protests: Reports

      According to reports, the unnamed Israeli commands a group of 20 Ukrainian militants.

      Four other Israelis, who had previously served in the army, were recently reported to have taken part in opposition rallies in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev. ... Meanwhile, Ukrainian media said that an Israeli tycoon provides financial support to the opposition in Ukraine, adding that Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency is one of the instigators of the unrest in the country.

      It couldn't be, couldn't it? Isn't a leading protest party made up of Nazis? See here, Oleh Pankevych, the vice president of leading Ukrainian protest party Svoboda, speaking on a funeral in honor of the SS, in front of ppl dressed up completely in SS uniforms:

      link to

      Sounds too crazy that Israelis cooperate with Nazis for regime change in Ukraine to be true?

      Quote JTA:

      In Kiev, an Israeli army vet led a street-fighting unit

      ... Delta, a Ukraine-born former soldier in the Israel Defense Forces, spoke to JTA Thursday on condition of anonymity. He explained how he came to use combat skills he acquired in the Shu’alei Shimshon reconnaissance battalion of the Givati infantry brigade to rise through the ranks of Kiev’s street fighters.

      He has headed a force of 40 men and women — including several fellow IDF veterans — in violent clashes with government forces.

      ... As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party that has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism and whose members have been said to have had key positions in organizing the opposition protests. ...

      But why in all hell should Israel orchestrte regime change in Ukraine, when the Yanukovich government in fact had good relations with Israel?

      Quote Clifford A. Kiracofe in Global Times:

      ... The media refrained from reporting that Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan who is a key leader of the pro-Zionist neoconservative policy network. ... Using the Ukraine crisis to subvert major power relations between the US and Russia and their constructive joint action in the Middle East serves Israeli interests. It helps Israel and its neoconservative allies in the US and in Europe push for unilateral US military action against Syria and Iran. ...

      I think discussing Israeli or Zionist orchestrated regime changes - hand in hand with Takfiris and even Nazis - in foreign countries around the world would be very appropriate here. Maybe even in an extra article.

  • EU Prez Martin Schulz wreaks havoc during speech at Knesset
    • The speech of Martin Schulz does not only get coverage, but it did also get cover - most importantly from Avi Primor, former Israeli ambassador to Germany.

      Avi Primor offered the follwing comment on Schulz speech:

      It was a very beautiful, very very good speech. That Schulz didn't use verified figures to state that Israel uses more water than Palestinians was merely a technical error. It has been a good excuse for the rightwing extremists to say that he lies. The extremists were anyway lurking and looked for any mistake. But it is totally true that Israelis serve themselves better with water than Palestinians. The angry attacks against Schulz originate in that the rightwing extremist Israelis, the settlers, the settler parties and the religious parties fear the Europeans. It's because in the EU a two state solution is wanted, and the EU can excert economic pressure in that direction.


      link to

      Having a former Israeli ambassador on Germany on his side means that any label of anti-semitism or anti-Israeli bias will not stick on Schulz.

      I might imagine that Martin Schulz even consulted Avi Primor before he gave his speech.

  • Outsource Thomas Friedman's column to India
    • Fine article. If one day I'ld see the foreign policy columns of Melkulangara Bhadrakumar printed regularly in the New York Times instead of Mr. Friedman's, I might consider the New Nork Times as a newspaper and not as an outlet of grotesque propaganda anymore.

      Currently Mr Bhadrakumar's foreign policy columns can be read at the website Strategic Cultures.

      I recommend them, and while I do not agree with all the things he writes, I find them usually a lot more informative than anything written in most western newspapers.

  • How we can oppose the Assad regime and Western intervention at the same time
    • Annie

      Thank you for your reply.

      I'll try to piece an article together, contact you via email and then we'll see further.

      It may take some days.


    • Shingo

      In place of a that I reply here in the MW comments, have a look at this fresh blog entry on Zahran Alloush and his connection to the CW attack in Ghouta:

      Zahran Alloush – Prime suspect for the CW attack in Ghouta

    • The question how many percent of the Syrian population support Bashar Assad is hypothetical, depends on how the question is asked and - in reality - it doesn't matter .

      What is undisputed is that there is a huge chunk of the Syrian population that supports Bashar Assad, personally, and the system and ideology he represents. What these people want mostly is the return of safety and stability. Bashar Al Assad is seen as a guarantor that terrorism will be defeated. If Bashar Al Assad would not stand for reelection, what is quite possible, his logical replacement I would see as someone like defense minister Fahd Jassem al-Freij, who would be seen by this constituency as guarantee that the fight against terrorism will be won, and that is what matters for this constituency. Also, Bashar Al Assad is immensely popular in the Syrian Army, and that matters a lot. If Bashar Al Assad would "go" whoever would replace him had to be acceptable for the army. Al-Freij obviously would meet this criterion.

      Why doesn't it matter how many percent in Syria support Bashar Assad? Because in a democracy it's not the percent of support what makes a president, but winning an election. Those who dislike Bashar Al Assad and the system he represents have hardly a chance in an election because they are completely divided.

      As I see it the Syrian Kurds mostly see Abdullah Öcalan as their real leader, but since he is imprisoned in Turkey, they largely unite behind PYD chairman Saleh Muslim. However, the Kurdish constituency is far too small to win a national election in Syria. If there would be a run-off ballot between, say Assad and one oppositional opponent it is far from clear that the oppositional candidate would get the Kurdish votes. It's likely fair to say that it would depend on the candidate and it's programme whether the Kurds would see him better or worse than Assad.

      And there starts the real problems for the opposition. A big chunk of the constituency of "the opposition" (TM) seems to reject democracy altogether, but wants instead an "ultra-conservative" sharia state like Saudi Arabia or the taliban emirate of Afghanistan. Their heroes are people like Abdullah Azzam and Osama Bin Laden. That chunk of the "opposition" believes in fighting jihad for overthrowing the "apostate" (their view) or tyrannical "regime", but these people, lot's of rural tribal people seem to be among them, will likely reject to vote for any candidate in any election.

      Another chunk of "the oppostion" wants a liberal democracy of a western type or a Turkish brotherhood democracy and - usually - be good friend with the US. That's the potential constituency of the SNC. That constituency likes islam, but it wold vote, but it seems far too small to win. It's main strongholds seems to be the refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan and along the borders. The current top SNC leader Ahmed Jarba is fairly unpopular, even with his own constituency. A more popular or charismatic leader like Moaz al-Khatib could have been one seems not to be in sight. Whoever as a candidate wants to win a presidential election would have to square the circle many times to tap into diffrent constituencies: be islamic enough to get the brotherhood votes and be liberal enough to get the liberal and kudish votes, be sympathetic to the secular revolutionary struggle and to the islamic jihad, and at the same time be realiable in the fight against terrorism so the army will back him if elected as president. Hassan Aboud plays a quite popular middle role between revolutionaries and jihadis right now, but as soon as he would take part in an election he would lose the jihadi support.

      I really can't see how any opposition candidate could square all these circles to beat any Baath candidate. The Baathists - be that Bashar Al Assad or someone else - have their huge constituency and will outreach to all other constituencies, to the Kurds, to the tribes, to the islamists, to the liberals and so on. The Baathists have - unlike the opposition - quite some experience in this squaring the circles exercise.

      So I see currently absolutely no chance for any oppositional candidate to win an election in Syria against the Baath party. If Bashar Al Assad runs, I find it not unlikely that he gets a much higher percentage as 70%. And the "opposition" knows that and therefore will boycott elections, so in the end Assad - if he runs - will get something like 95% and the Western liberals will scream foul.

    • lproyect

      One more: who backed the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria?

      Read here an article from August 2012 in the Wapo where figures close to Israel seemed to be very happy with Al Qaeda operating in Syria:

      link to

      The people close to Israel loved Al Qaeda in Syria, because they deemed them "good figthers."

      After Obama listed the Nusra Front as terror organisation in December 2012, when he had won the election against Netanyahu's candidate Romney, a WINEP propagandist on Al Jazeera even called it wrong. He said something like, that of course the Nusra Front are terrorists, but it was wrong to list them as such, because they are useful to overthrowing the Syrian government, and listing them as terrorists would weaken that effort.

      My conclusion: the Nusra Front got help from pro Israel forces, at least in terms of PR, but maybe also in other terms.

      But, of course, now that Al Qaeda is a major obstacle for regime change in Syria, the same pro Israel forces that lauded Al Qaeda a year and a half ago now try to blame the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria on Assad, saying things like Al Qaeda in Syria is a secret proxy of Assad.

    • lproyect

      My understanding is that Obama was orchestrating the “arab spring” in order to build up al-Qaeda in the Middle East.

      No, that seems not to have been the reasons. To me, the reasons for Obama ordering in August 2010 to unleash the "Arab Spring" seem to have been:

      - Shortly before, Obama's central foreign policy effort - which he laid out in his Cairo speech - collapsed. Peace talks on the 2 state solution between Israel and the PLO lead to nowhere. Up to then, Obama's idea was first solving the I/P-conflict and then, after this obstacle was resolved and the region would have become peaceful, he planned to "encourage" the Arab states to move in direction of democracy. After the I/P peace talks collapsed he decided to start the "democratization" of the Arab States before the I/P talks would succeed, likely in the hope, that democratic arab states would built up a good environment to make the I/P 2 state talks a success in the end, too.

      - In July at latest, the Obama administration learned that Wikileaks was in possession of many many secret US diplomatic cables. It was clear that soon the world would read in great detail about the machinations of the US "diplomacy," their support for arab dictators, their betraying of one doctator for the other and so on. The US feared, that this may lead to uncontrollable change in some arab states, like in Tunisia and Egypt, where people unfriedly to the US might come to power by a revolution or so, because these dictatorial regimes were really, really unpopular with their people. So, when Obama ordered to unleash the arab spring in August 2010, it may be argued, that the US just went one step in front of a development anyway seen as inevitable by the US. US-backed "color revolutions cum military coup d'etat" would have the potential for the US to keep it's influence in the region. Read this argument in the article I linked above on Presidential Study Directive 11:

      "We have a core interest in stability through political and economic change. The status quo is not stable," explains Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.

      Israel and the Israel Lobby in Washington backed the order to unleash the arab spring because it got promised the "democratisation" of Libya and Syria - in other words, gettiong rid of Gaddafi and Assad, what Israel aspired for a very long time for. And then, in 2012, were already US elections, and Obama therefore had to go along with most of what Israel and the lobby wanted, and what Obama really wanted didn't play much of a role in most of the year 2012. However, Netanyahu was very angry with Obama anyway, because he hadn't already bombed Syria, so Netanyahu backed Romney in an unsuccessful bid to oust Obama. Now Obama returns the favor: the Iran deal and the Syria CW deal really enrages Netanyahu, because it will alter the strategic landscape of the middle east in favor of Iran, but Obama proceeds with that anyway. Paybacks a bitch!

      Next logical step would be that after the failure of the current 2SS I/P talks Obama declares that it was Israel's fault, and therefore there have to be consequences against Israel.

    • Danaa

      "who did perpetrate that attack"

      I find the obvious answer quite easy: the culprit was the "chemical brigade" of "Liva Islam" headed by the extremist "FSA" commander Zahran Alloush.

      If you like - and read my comments here - after hours and hours in the moderation loop - I can give you plenty of evidence that Zahran Alloush and his gangs shoud be prime suspects for that mass murder.

    • Annie

      I don't think it's Cheney’s daughter is in charge of the war against Syria.

      I think, on the political front the US guy in charge is Robert Stephen Ford. This one:

      link to

      On the military side I think the retired US Army Major General Paul E. Vallely plays a big role in the war against Syria:

      link to

      I think I don't need to stress that he is "a good friend" of Israel. Quote Wikipedia:

      Vallely is also a supporter of the Jerusalem Summit organization and an advocate of the organization's proposal to "relocate"/"resettle" Palestine and the Palestinian people to surrounding Arab countries as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to bring about the organization's belief "that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets."

      If you, the Mondo Weiss people, would like it, I would write an article for Mondo Weiss, about some of the neocon and Israeli background of that war going on in Syria. As you see in my comments above I am aware of lot's of sources regarding Syria the MSM usually like to suppress. I won't say my view, or the Syrian government's view, the Iranian and the Hezbollah view on the facts, is the only correct view, but I think, it would be useful for readers to know at least what that view is. As I see in articles and comments in MW, the view of the Iran-led axis of resistance on that conflict seems to be widely unknown here. And yes, I think, I can express myself in a way that that view would not be totally absurd and offensive to other readers, but rather give food for reason and discussion. I find it very important to build up understanding - it's a different thing than agreement - for such a view in the Palestine solidarity community. The lack of understanding for the views of the other party costs many human lives in the case of Syria.

      If you'ld like to get an article draft of mine on the topic of war in Syria and the Zionist background I see in this bloody story, please answer me in a comment here. My email is defunct due to zionist spam flooding.

Showing comments 544 - 501