Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 440 (since 2010-04-23 03:59:57)

Just doing the internet ;-)

Showing comments 440 - 401
Page:

  • 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
      ...
      Source:
      link to pewresearch.org

      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 newstatesman.com

      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 almanar.com.lb

      And "Times of Israel" offers this one:

      link to timesofisrael.com

      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.

      Source:

      link to reuters.com

      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 tagesschau.de

      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 consortiumnews.com

      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” …..in 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 rt.com

      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 rt.com

      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 vesti.ru

      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 youtu.be

      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 hosted.ap.org

      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.

      Unbelievable.

    • "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 washingtonpost.com

      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 eng.kremlin.ru

      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 youtube.com

      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 youtu.be

      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 jta.org

      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 globaltimes.cn

      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 korrespondent.net

      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 youtu.be

      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 youtu.be

      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.

      Source:

      link to handelsblatt.com

      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.

      Bandolero

    • 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 washingtonpost.com

      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 globalresearch.ca

      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 english.farsnews.com

      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.

    • Taxi

      I urge everyone on MW to boycott responding to any more of the Omar’s and Talalas’s pro wahabi articles (if you can call them that).

      I urge everyone to counter the lies. The "4th generation warfare" or "unconventional warfare" strategy with which Syria is attacked, bases itself on silencing the pro-Syrian voices. Therefore the anti-Syrian war coalition used and still uses very tough measures to suppress the Syrian governments view:

      - "rebels" intimidate, attack, kidnap and gruesomely execute Syrian journalists
      - GCC countries and Morsis Egypt banned Syrian TV from arab satellites
      - foreign military experts help "rebels" jamming airwave Syrian TV signals
      - some very capable intel agency which pretty looks like that it can only be the NSA runs very intense DDoS attacks against all Syrian news websites
      - the zionist bosses of the major western satellite companies banned also Iranian channels from transmission

      Silence from the pro-Syrian side so that the pro-Syrian view is not known, is exactly what the Zionist masters behind this bloody and dirty unconventional war against Syria want and need to succeed.

      The lies peddled are directly responsible for bloodshed in Syria, and especially from supposedly pro-Palestinian sources they are extremely damaging, because unlike the usual western MSM hasbara pro-Palestinian have a kind of credibility within Syria, and therefore war propaganda lies of the Zionist backed factions in this context here are even more damaging than in the MSM.

      So I urge everyone not to be silent and counter the lies, especially false and unproven allegations against the Syrian government.

      Btw: has anyone noticed that the CW missiles, that Syria's army allegedly fired in Ghouta, could fly hardly more than two kilometers, so it can now be said for sure the US government claim that they were fired from within government controlled territory was nothing than a big lie?

    • Walid

      Regarding Turkey it seems to me that you're right about Erdogan was or is all into regime change in Syria due to his preference for the brothers. As Assad once remarked that seems to be why Erdogan didn't say a peep when Israel bombed Hisbollah in Lebanon in 2006 and why he went furious when Israel bombed the Hamas brothers in 2008/2009.

      However, Turkey is more than Erdogan and even the AKP is more. President Abdullah Gül seems to be closer to the Saudi regime than to the brothers.

      The Hizmets led by US-based TV preacher Fethullah Gülen, who are, or maybe today one might already say, were a powerful faction in the AKP seem to cooperate very close with the neocons and the Zionist lobby in Washington, and they almost seem to completely share most of their views, strongly hawkish on Syria and Iran, and angry about Turkish problems in relations with Israel, what makes a strong argument that the Gülenists are a proxy force of Israel and the CIA. The Turkish nationalists dream of restoring the Ottoman empire in another name, and without getting Syriaunder their control it's impossible. The only major party in Turkey which was rather strongly opposed was the Republican CHP, whose leader seems more or less to share the Syrian governments view on the conflict. But much of that party has traditionally strong ties to the EU, US and Israel, so that party was under heavy pressure to accept the desastrous Turkish policy, too.

      Today, after Turkey and it's friends lost the not-so-covert covert war against Syria, of course, much of the positions changed, and heavy bickering inside the Turkish war coalition started. In that light, the Turkish defeat in it's proxy war against Syria, I'ld see rivalries between Gül and Erdogan, and the heavy handed fighting between Gülen and Erdogan. In my view, the current infighting in Turkey is all about who will get the blame for the horrible policy that resulted in a terrible costly defeat.

    • W.Jones

      Are you aware that the "LCC activists" are paid agents of the American and British governments to further their Israel-friendly political goals in Syria?

    • Page: 4
    • Here are some links for those who are interested in understanding a bit background:

      In 2002 George W Bush started a programme for supporting civil "activists" for regime changes in the arab world. It's called MEPI:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      Civil acivists blaming the government for terrorist acts committed by terrorists are a key element inwars of aggressions using the method of "4th generation warfare":

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      After some years, the MEPI programme was deep enoungh entrenched in socities to give the attack order. Barack Obama gave the order for a serious of bloody regime changes using "4th generation warfare" commonly known as "arab spring" in his Presidential Study Directive 11 signed in August 2010:

      link to realclearpolitics.com

      For those who want to study methods to be applied, here are some illustrative examples:

      link to wikispooks.com

      link to youtube.com

      The main attack method used is quite simply: pay some terrorists to kill some people of all spheres of society, especially peaceful activists, and then use activists and the main stream media to blame the government for it. Many people will be enraged and blame the government for the crimes committed by foreign paid or inspired 4th generation warfare terrorists. If such serial false flag terrorism doesn't lead to regime change by itself it provides at least a credible pretext for direct military intervention as it was carried out in Libya when in March 2011 a NATO manoveur against a fictional "Southland" started in October 2010 went live.

      So, why should anybody not defend the Syrian government against a preplanned unconventional war of aggression run mostly by friends of it's foe, the apartheid state of Israel, that already cost the life of about a 100k people?

    • Omar writes: When the protests began in Syria over three years, there was no ISIS, or Jabhat El-Nusra, or FSA or SNC or any other form of organized opposition.

      Ahrar Al Sham, one of the most powerful of the armed anti-government groups in Syria, was founded when? Quote TIME:

      “Abu Zayd” is a 25-year-old Shari’a graduate who heads one of the founding brigades of Ahrar al-Sham, a group that adheres to the conservative Salafi interpretation of Sunni Islam. ... The Ahrar started working on forming brigades “after the Egyptian revolution,” Abu Zayd said, well before March 15, 2011, when the Syrian revolution kicked off with protests in the southern agricultural city of Dara’a.

      Omar and Mondo Weiss are peddling hasbara lies to justify terrorist acts against the Syrian government.

      Who believes Omar's Al Jazeera story, that the policemen killed at the very first day of demanstrations in Syria were killed by other policemen because they refused to fire on peaceful protesters?

  • 'Palestinian liberation incomplete without the liberation of all'--a statement on the siege of Yarmouk
    • You say that the FSA practically no longer exists. However Wikipedia said they had 45,000 fighters (1/3 of the total insurgency). This could be old data, but what happened? Did most of them get killed and the rest joined the fundamentalists (2/3 of the fighters according to Wikipedia)?

      While the Wikipedia numbers are bogus the decline of the FSA begs for an explanation.

      From what I see from my sources coming out of Syria, the answer is:

      Some were killed, some were badly wounded, some imprisoned, some switched - alone or with whole brigades - to other forces like to Al Qaeda, to the Syrian government's side, to neighborhood protection units cooperating with the government or to Kurdish YPG forces, but the very most of them went just to noncombattant status: they were simply fed up fighting, silently laying down their weapons, staying at home or fleeing somewhere to find safety and become refugees.

      Only die hard fanatics still fight the Syrian government forces - under various flags.

    • W.Jones

      Wikipedia is peddling lot's of hasbara nonsense. The Wikipedia claim that FSA has 40-50k fighters is totally bogus. Even the source cited in Wikipedia to base this claim on doesn't mention any remaining FSA strength.

      But let's assume for a moment the Jamal Marouf's SRF guys, which are loyal to the SNC and Idriss, are kind of a rebranded FSA. As I said above, they got control over some villages in Idlib province and some influence in East Aleppo and Aleppo countryside. Their numbers is likely somewhere in the single digit thousands, though any numbers of fighters are all taken with a very big shovel of salt, as there is lot's of big manipulations going on there. All groups tend to present themselves much bigger as they really are to get more money from sponsors.

      The question, whether these forces are moderate or nonreligious misses the important point: how do these forces behave in reality? Essentially, these forces are death squads, as one of their strongest supporters I quoted in my postie above, proudly admits: their method is "no survivors, no mercy!" And indeed, where they appeared and won, none of their ISIS adversaries seems to have survived where they could get them - not even women or children. In Aleppo, these forces are known as robbers, thiefs and simply criminals. The SOHR - who supports them generally - said, one these "moderate forces" aligned with the SRF even raped the mother of an ISIS commander to put pressure on him.

      These guys were running East Aleppo for some months after the invasion in summer 2012. At the beginning of 2013 the population supported Al Qaeda in efforts to get rid of these moderates because the people saw the Al Qaeda forces as the lesser evil - compared to these moderates. Back then, Al Qaeda took over, executed some of the "moderate" ganster FSA rebel bosses, chopped some of their heads off, and most of the rest of the nihilist criminals called "moderate FSA" went on the run.

      I hope that gives you an idea of what's really going on.

    • For whom is interested:

      It looks like Dan Rivers of ITV just broadcasted some pictures from inside the Yarmouk camp. ITV doesn't say it's inside the Yarmouk camp, but my friends told me the "rebels" shown in the video look like the Yarmouk camp, or, if not, the area close to it, maybe Hajjar Aswad.

      For those who don't have a imagination how things look like in that area I think the video is well worth watching:

      link to itv.com

      The text is made like a home story what I don't find very useful, but the pictures speak for themselves how it looks like over there.

    • W.Jones

      Cloudflare prevented me from answering you here, so I put my answer for you in a pastie:

      link to justpaste.it

    • Walid

      "What’s happening in Syria and especially with the dispersion of Palestinian refugees is another step closer towards capitulation to Israel."

      Very well said. It's kind of a bloody fitna in camp pro-Palestine. Israel sees it as a boon when arabs, muslims and especially Palestianians fight and kill eash other in Syria and other ME countries, the Brotherhood against the Syrian Arab Army, Hamas against Hisbollah, PFLP & Liwa'a Abu Fadl al-Abbas, Al Qaeda against the Houthis, the Taliban against IRGC and so on: it's just a dream for Israel.

      "We therefore stand in solidarity not only with the Palestinians of Yarmouk, but also with the people of Syria, fighting for freedom and a better future for their children."

      It could have come directly from the hasbara ministry. It sounds like: Palestinians, please go all fighting against the Syrian government and it's allies in Syria, and thereby make sure Syria's next government will be one controlled by Riyad, Paris and Washington.

      Israel will help this therefore with some discrete hasbara lies to get such fighting going as much as possible, make sure it won't stop and create a deep rift in the Palestine Solidarity movement.

    • "The grass part is probably true..."

      Just call the grass "parsley" and you got probably part of the answer what is shown what "grass" people eat there in their soups.

    • Taxi

      I find OK that different sides hold different views. However, what I find important is that both sides in a conflict get a voice. What I miss here is voices like this one:

      Archbishop Hanna: Terrorists and their supporters are responsible for situation in Yarmouk Camp

      Occupied Jerusalem, (SANA) – Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Sebastia Atallah Hanna held the armed terrorist groups and those who support and fund them responsible for the disastrous humanitarian condition in Yarmouk Camp.

      In a speech during a sit-in held on Friday evening at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in occupied Jerusalem to show solidarity with Yarmouk Camp, Archbishop Hanna voiced surprise over the media misdirection regarding what is happening in the Camp, as it is clear that those who fund the terrorists which use the Camp's occupants as human shields are the very same ones who mislead public opinion by claiming that the Syrian government is besieging the camp.

      "Those who are hijacking Yarmouk Camp are the same people who are conspiring against the Syrian state, and they shed crocodile tears over Palestinian refugees in Yarmouk," he said, describing what is happening there is a disgrace to humanity and saying that it's a shame that Arab money is used for destroying the Arab nation.

      Source

      I'ld expect that people in the Palestine Solidarity movement have an idea of the power of misleading mass media, as we all know what hasbara is.

    • I would set the marker different:

      ...fighting for freedom...

      Besides the Kurdish YPG, which behave quite responsible in interacting with the Syrian Army, there are currently three major groups of anti-government fighters active in Syria:

      - Islamic Front
      - Nusra Front
      - Islamic State in Iraq and Sham

      Now, the one million Dollar question: which of these groups fight for freedom?

      Not, that I find fighting for an Islamic caliphate unworthy, and I acknowledge that - for example - many things in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan were better than they are today under Karzai, but under a fight for "freedom" I understand something different.

  • While you were neutral about Yarmouk
    • Djinn

      That the Syrian government disagrees with UNRWAs estimation that the northern entrance would allow a more secure entering of aid as the southern entrance doesn't change the fact that armed anti-government groups prevented UNRWA delivering aid into the camp with heavy gunfire. I call armed anti-government people - who commit such acts - "terrorists." And that's exactly the problem in the Yarmouk camp: terrorists who behave themselves completely irresponsible have a strong presence there.

      And, look at the part of the UNRWA quote you cited, to get a hint of what's the situation in the wider area: "... armed conflict, in which numerous armed opposition groups, including some of the most extreme jihadist groups, have a strong and active presence ..." So, that - "the strong and active presence" of "the most extreme jihadist groups" - is the reason that the Syrian government takes so extensive security measures. Had the government opened the northern entrance and these "most extreme jihadist groups" had killed some of the UNRWA "infidels" delivering food aid into the camp that wouldn't have made the situation any better.

      However, the PFLP-GC has managed today - with the help of the government - to get some tons of food and aid into the camp - not on trucks, but carrying it on their shoulders under jihadi gunfire through small backyard paths from the northern entrance:

      Damascus, (SANA)- Spokesman of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, Anwar Raja, announced Saturday that the first batch of food supplies have entered al-Yarmouk Camp in Damascus in implementation of a peaceful popular initiative to alleviate the suffering of the people trapped in the camp.

      In a statement to SANA, Raja pointed out that delivering the humanitarian aid was carried out through primitive and complicated ways as the efforts of the Palestinian popular committees and families of the camp united to deliver the aid.

      He added that the Syrian government offered all logistic and security facilitations to deliver this batch of humanitarian aid.

      A week ago, the armed terrorist groups targeted an UNRWA aid convoy and prevented the delivery of aid into the camp.

      Palestinian Minister of Labor, Ahmad Majdalani, stressed during a previous meeting with Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Dr. Fayssal Mikdad, in Damascus that the entry of gunmen into the Palestinian camps is the cause of the camps' suffering.

      Source:

      link to 213.178.225.235

      It's sourced from a mirror because SANA.sy itself is not available due to ongoing heavy information warfare efforts (DDoS) by anti-government forces - or, more likely, foreign intelligence agencies or cyber warfare military units backing them - against information from the Syrian government.

    • Annie,

      I'm sorry for my wrong suspicions regarding "moderation policy" here, please take my apology.

      I just saw that many other "pro-insurgency" comments written later were published, while mine, which is much closer to the Syrian government's narrative on what's happening, was hanging in the loop for many hours, so I prematurely concluded it was MW policy and had something to do with my pro-government opinion.

      Bandolero

    • Austin

      My point is that there is no siege imposed by the Syrian government imposed on the Yarmouk camp. Instead, what's happening in the Yarmouk camp I would describe as a hostage situation. Armed groups inside the camp hold civilians in camp areas under their control hostage. It is armed groups inside the camp that try to prevent food and aid deliveries into the camp. The same armed groups that cause the starvation use it for propaganda against the government and the pro-government Palestinian factions.

      Btw: the popular committees and the PFLP-GC just manged today to get about 6 tons of food into the camp via the Rahma street entrance. Armed groups in the camp fired on them while they brought them into the camp, but the PFLP-GC with the help of the Syrian army managed the aid to get inside anyway. Also, the PLFP-GC - together with the Syrian army - managed to help some people flee the camp today.

      And yes, I call the armed groups who open fire on civilian and neutral people delivering humanitarian aid to needy people and who prevent civilians from fleeing a warzone "terrorists."

    • "No one disputes that Yarmouk is under a siege..."

      Well, besides the comment with the UNRWA spocks quote I added another comment here where I do dispute and express disagreement with the whole "siege" and "bad regime" narrative. However, that comment is still "awaiting moderation." So the reason for that "no one disputes" that here has to do with the moderation policies applied here at Mondo Weiss, not that "no one disputes". So maybe at least this comment passes moderation so that you know at least that there exist other opinions.

    • It's not difficult to find out what really happens there.

      First, it's terrorists inside the camp who prevent that aid comes into the camp and shoot on neutral people trying to bring aid in. Terrorists preventing aid entering the camp cause food shortages, but as you see in the video the people there don't look starved. The "cooked cat" video is from Douma a dozen kilometers away from the Yarmouk camp, where well-fed terrorists had fun killing a cat and cooking it with rotten vegetables for propaganda purposes which was planned by the local Duma sheikh with a fatwa that in need it's allowed to eat cats.

      Second, there must be many terrorists in the camp. If there were only some dozen "fighters" in the camp as claimed in this propaganda piece above it would be easy to overwhelm these terrorists, who shoot at people trying to deliver food and medical aid.

      Third, the "barrel bomb" story is a complete lie. The hugh destruction shown on the videos is incompatible with barrel bombs. The Syrian Army doesn't use barrel bombs at all for much more than a year now, because they are highly ineffective and inprecise, and the Syria army gets a lot more precise standard ammo from Russia how much it wants. What is shown looks more like a terrorist run IED factory in the house exploded.

      Fourth, terrorists try to prevent civilians from leaving the camp. Videos show terrorists from the camp shooting at people who try to flee the camp. The terrorists do so because the terrorists in the camp need civilians as human shields.

      Fifth, what is happening in Yarmouk is not a siege by the government. The government let's food and medical aid in, but heavily armed terrorists inside the camp try to prevent aid going in and people fleeing. What is happening in the camp is a failed armed uprising that became a mass hostage taking by heavily armed and brutal terrorists, similar to the hostage situations in Deir Attiyah, Adra, Beit Sahem and other places in Syria.

      To sum it up: Ruthless terrorist propagandists systematically spread lies to lift the image of terrorists backed by NATO and GCC states, who are Israeli allies or even proxies. Their propagandists spin the hostage takings by terrorists as an unmoral government sieges, terrorist caused explosions as "barrel bombings" or "SCUDs" and terrorists shooting unarmed civilians as if the government was the cuplrit of this. Zionist controlled mass media are happy to spread such propaganda lies against the Syrian government as if they were true, because Israel hates the Syrian government and it's allies Iran and Hezbollah for their strong opposition against zionism. Israel wants regime change in Syria to get some Israeli, Saudi or US stooges in power in Syria who will legalize Israel's annexation of Syria's golan heights. A part of the Palestinians and the international solidarity movement happily joins the zionists in their proxy fight against the Syrian government.

    • This Mondo Weiss article is a bold propaganda lie against the Syrian government. Read what Chris Gunness, spokesperson for UNRWA, has to say what is really going on:

      The relief convoy which tried to get in to Yarmouk was an UNRWA convoy led by UNRWA staff and carrying humanitarian supplies loaded from UNRWA’s central warehouse in Damascus – six small trucks with food for 6,000 people along with 10,000 doses of polio vaccine and some medical supplies.

      Syrian authorities provided us with a security escort enabling us to reach a last government-controlled checkpoint at the southern entrance of Yarmouk.

      The convoy was cleared to proceed beyond the checkpoint and the Syrian authorities provided a bulldozer to go ahead to clear the road of debris, earth mounds and other obstructions.

      The bulldozer was fired upon, hit by direct gunfire and forced to withdraw, though with no casualties. Thereafter, bursts of gunfire, including machine-gun fire, erupted close to the trucks and UNRWA vehicles, suggesting a firefight.

      Also, one mortar exploded very close to the convoy. The convoy withdrew at this point following the advice of the security escort and returned safely to Damascus. ...

      link to electronicintifada.net

      Videos I have seen from the incident show that the account given by Chris Gunness is truthful.

  • Israel's endless enemies -- the dangerous myth in Ari Shavit's book
    • In general I find the account of history in thsi article well done and useful. However, I found one point where this article - I find - still puts a sugarcoated hasbara spin on the nature of Zionism and Israel. Here:

      ... the unsparing condemnation of the Jewish settlements, of the occupation, and of Israel’s “systematic and determined use of oppressive force” in crushing Palestinian uprisings and resistance; and the growing threats to Israeli democracy and liberal values, including racism, xenophobia, and even “semi-fascism.”

      As all of these things have been widely discussed and justly praised in the reviews and commentaries on MPL ...

      That makes it look like as if the account that Zioism and Israel are based on "democracy and liberal values" and now these inherent democratic and liberal nature of Israel is threatened by some fringe streams of racism, xenophobia, and even “semi-fascism” coming up in the Zionist state.

      In reality however, I think there is ample evidence to the contrary. The nature and character of the zionist movement were already more than a hundered years ago mainly based on racism, xenophobia, and “semi-fascism.” Zionism was one of the brainchilds of the European zeitgeist in the 2nd half of the 19th century, which considered racism as valuable science, xenophobia as healthy and later, powerful people considered fascism as good modern answer to the challenges of the time, eg communism. Zionism never changed really much in that regard, just it put itself over a PR sugarcoat of liberal values as racism became unmodern in Europe and in the US in the 2nd half of the 20th century, and now that sugarcoat becomes rifts, and the blatant racism inherent in Zionism is visible in plain view again.

  • Sydney Pollack, gunrunner
  • United States takes a 'new path' forward in the Middle East!
    • Over the coming months, look for Israel to attack (temper tantrum-like) either Gaza or Lebanon (or possibly both)! That’s the way Israel operates.

      I disagree. That won't help Bibi to turn the tides in the US.

      I do expect now in Israel plans are made for:

      - a huge false flag terror attack in the US conveniently blamed on Iran, Syria and Palestine
      - the murder of Obama, which, of course, Bibi would then blame on Iran

      If successful that might help Bibi to turn the tide.

      "I heard that Kerry dared to disagree with the Israeli prime minister," Olmert said. "Poor guy. I hope he'll come out of this alright."

      Well, Kerry could be Obama. How can he dare to disagree with the Israeli prime minister? It's just like daring to disagree with the mafia. Poor guy. I hope he'll come out of this alright.

  • The wisdom of Ari Shavit
    • I think Jeremy missed an important point: Ari Shavit obviously wants the policy to be "regime change" in Iran. Read:

      ... allow Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the economic oxygen needed to sustain his autocratic regime ...

      Many of Ari Shavit's statements in this editorial are only a bit plausible, when the whole editorial is read against the goal of regime change using the nuclear issue as a mere pretext for that.

      But when Ari Shavit's implicit goal is regime change, then his criticism of US policies vis a vis Iran in past decades reveals total hypocricy, because regime change was exactly the US policy goal against Iran.

      To prepare regime change in Iran, Bush first put US troops north of Iran into Afghanistan, then he put US troops south of Iran into Iraq, and then, that was the plan according to Wesley Clark (7 countries in five years), the US would attack Iran from all sides. The only problem with that plan was and is, that Iran fought back in Iraq, and therefore the US needed so many troops and money occupying Iraq as a springboard to attack Iran, that the US now lacks the troops and the money to do regime change in Iran. Obama then, together with Mossad, tried regime change in Iran on the cheap, with a staged color revolution, but he failed.

      So, the US has exactly followed the aggressive war policies against Iran Ari Shavit wants, but the US just didn't win the war. And that's now what Ari Shavit seems to lament when he writes a deal would be "an American defeat."

  • Did the U.S. undermine democracy in the Maldives because it wants to set up military bases there?
    • George Smith

      I love that partisan propaganda movie, too. In fact almost all the zionist propaganda outfits in the US love that movie, too. Look:

      link to theislandpresident.com

      And even the foreign minister of the zionist government over Canada supports it's cause. It's all about a beautifully engineered color revolution in a far away Muslim country, and almost all zionists back it. So, what can be wrong with it?

      Strangely, the people of that country now voted against that zionist engineered color revolution government, and in favour of the Indian backed old one. I really can't understand that. Do the people of the Maledives really dislike democracy and freedom as the zionists ruling the US bring it all over the world - for the solely purpose to please the lord and help the people?

  • Another AIPAC man joins State Dep't negotiating team
    • I wait for the day when the current round of negations is over and Israel blames the "totally one-sided pro-Palestinian" US negotiating team consisting of Martin Indyk and David Makovsky for the failure of the negotiations.

      I think the next day after this day might become very interesting.

    • To get such an influential person like David Makovsky on it's side will probably give "team Bibi" a big boost in negotiations with Palestine.

      In contrast to that "team Palestine" is doing far worse. Except some promising efforts by Metropolitan Hilarion and Mr Putin to get Pope Francis on board for team Palestine, and some efforts by Mr Lavrov and Mr Shoigu to curb team Bibi's QME a bit with some hi-tec weapon deals to Egypt and possibly also to Jordan, team Palestine has hardly achieved anything to change the equations of the region for getting into a better negotiation position against team Bibi.

  • Making Boulder a sister city to Nablus would be 'anti-Semitic,' says local Republican
    • I don't think it's neccessary to highlight that the local representative of the Israel lobby, who made such outragous comments, is Republican. I think, it would be better to highlight that that zionist racist in disguise represents the Israeli lobby.

  • 'Obama is no JFK,' neocons say-- likening Iran to Cuba
    • I think the main difference between Obama and JFK is that Israel didn't manage to kill him yet though he tries boxing in the zionist military enterprise as did JFK.

  • Ari Shavit has a selective memory for war crimes, Khalidi says
    • @Ari Shavit
      Your analogies miss some important points, which makes you turn justice from it's feet onto it's head.

      AT THAT TIME these were the norms of conducting wars and dealing with nationals of defeated nations. Israel followed the “norms” set by the big guys.

      Another point – there are no demands now to allow the return of the expelled Germans. Not even compensation. In fact such demands are considered “revanschism” by progressive Europeans.

      Germans eastern neighbors never intended to ethnically clean and colonialize their and German territories from Germans. It was the Germans who used a racial pretect of protecting ethnical Germans and gaining "Lebensraum" in the east to start wars.

      As the Germans lost the wars they started, the Germans serving as stepping stones and pretext for the German wars had to go. That may be considered fair or unfair, but however, Germany has accepted now that changing borders and gaining Lebensraum by military action brings only great sufferings onto people.

      In Palestine the situation is different. It was the zionists who were bend to colonialize the land and gain "Lebensraum" in the east by aggression as the Germans did in WWII. It is the zionists that are colonializing "Lebensraum" in the east that does not belong to them. That the "big guys" - all friends of racist zionism - don't intervene to stop that injustice, does not nullify that injustice committed by zionists.

      All in all close to 1 mln Arab Jews were expelled.

      It's well known that it was the Mossad who organized the emigration of jews from arab countries with false flag attacks and propaganda lies. You may well read this under keywords like "Operation Susannah" or in books like " Ben Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews." So, instead of bragging for saving jews, Israel should pay compensation for that covert campaign to stir up racist violence and apologize to the arab jews they tricked them into Israel then.

      Sum of it all: Israel is entirely based on falsehoods, racism and occupation and should be held accountible as racist Germany was hold accountable for it's crimes. When the Israeli perpetretors are ready to acknowledge the crimes the commit, time is ripe for peace. Before that, people will strive for truth and justice.

      Many crimes the zionists did commit are understandable, as the zionists saw that racism was rampant and successful violence trumped everything, however crimes are still crimes. There is no justification for Europeans to colonialize Asian land on the terms that Europeans can't live with each other because Europeans are too racist for that.

  • Liberal Zionism ends with a pinch
    • W.Jones

      The nationalists had the numbers, means, and strong desire to achieve a singular statehood, and they did.

      Yes, I do think that happened. A couple of European nationalists wanted to achieve a singular statehood in Western Asia, and they did. Surprisingly, some people of Western Asia have some ressentiments against that racist European colonial project in Western Asia.

    • I think "liberal zionism" is an oxymoron, just as "liberal fascism".

  • Netanyahu's greatest fear: Linkage
  • Klug targeted by McCarthyite 'dossier'-- because he will speak on anti-Semitism in Berlin on Kristallnacht anniversary
    • LeaNder

      Yes, I'm aware of the Nazi history of the BKA, the BND, most of the German court system, much of the CDU, the 131er, the German mass media and so on and so forth. I'm also aware that it was the US that put these old Nazis in charge of the FRG after the war. The reason for this is the same as why the US helped the Nazis gain power in Germany before the war: the US saw them as good bullwark against communism. I don't think it is coincidence that - just as much of the money the Nazis needed to rise to power - much of the Nazi ideology came from the US. I guess you are aware of that? If not, here is a good start for reading more about it: Hermann Ploppa (in German):

      link to linkezeitung.de

      Of course I know "re-education" was a scam. What else could it have been? Remember, when the US won WWII, racsim was still en vogue in the US, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which started to change that, happened only ten years after the war ended. And so, US "re-education" in Germany was much more about switching loyalities (obey the US and be nice to Israel) than it was about discharging Nazi persons and values like racism, warmongering etc. But that changes now, slowly, but steadily, and my impression is, that the main driver for that change is that the business relations of Germany with China are now stronger and more profitable than those with the US.

      And, yes, I'm also familiar with the Eichmann case. My impression is, that he was not prosecuted because he played a major role in the genocide. If that was the case many more mormer Nazis - and then post war top German officials - would have been prosecuted. However, even after GDR Politburo member Albert Norden published the Baunbuch, that didn't happen. My impression is that Eichmann was executed by Israel because he was too talkative regarding secrets and his old zionist friends in Israel feared he could pose a danger for Israels ambition to become a nuclear power. I guesss the ulterior motivation for the Eichmann process was to sent a message to former Nazis in charge of the FRG, that they should close their lips regarding secrets, that they should support giving money to Israel and that they should not dare to challenge Israel in any way. Are you familiar with the researches of Gaby Weber?

      The coordinator of the Holocaust felt resentful in Argentina and he gave interviews. It was only a question of time until a journalist would ring at his door. Adolf Eichmann had become a danger, for his former employer, Standard Oil, for Israel, for others.

      Source: link to gabyweber.com

      And, yes, of course I'm aware in the intelligence dealings in the beginning of the leftwing uprising in Germany, the role of Nordens Braunbuch, sting operations by Germany's intelligence services and intelligence services of others, like that of the US and Israel, that of the GDR and so on. And, yes, of course, I know about Peter Urbach, Mogadishu and the Israeli selection and so on.

    • I think it would be fine if the EU report which is the basis for that Spiegel article would be discussed in length at Mondo Weiss:

      link to fra.europa.eu

      For an official EU report, I find your quote a very interesting conclusion. I doubt any official report in the US would dare to say such things - just switch the word "German" against "US" in the quote above to understand that stark official EU finding:

      The study’s results seem to suggest that US Jews are viewed as proxies of the state of Israel and its policies. Indeed, it found that 81 percent of them have felt accused of or blamed for something the Israeli government had done. Moreover, it noted a close coincidence between when trouble flares up in the Middle East and when Jews in the US perceive rising hostility.

      In other words: Israels policies are a major reason for rising hatred against jews in the western world who are widely seen as Israeli proxies.

      Would any US official report dare to say this, even if it was true?

    • Walid

      You are right in that the German guilt of genocide against the jews of Europe will never go away. And rightly so. But the lessons can change, and that's what's currently happening in Germany, slowly, but nevertheless it's happening. While after WWII the main lessons of US-led "re-education" were never again to Nazism and be nice to the jews who are represented by "Israel", the lesson is now gradually shifting more to "never again to war" and "never again to no form of racism." That change is reflected for example in the fact that Brian Klug was invited at all, and the German government didn't back down on Zionist pressure regarding this invitation. That change is also reflected by Germany's refusal to take part in aggression on Libya and Syria, and refusal to give Saudi Arabia Leo II tanks, though Israel lobbied heavily to the opposite. There are a host of factors behind this slow and gradual German change like that those directly guilty in the genocide against the jews all died, like China and Russia became more important trade partners to Germany as the US, the reputation of the US in germany fell recently due to GWB and Snowden and therefore the grip of the US is loosing on Germany and the US is split on Israel due to differences between Obama and Netanyahu.

      Background: The German mass media is largely controlled by the heirs of old Nazis, see Springer, Bertelsmann, DuMont, Holtzbrinck and so on. Those Nazis and their heirs were put in their influental places after WWII by the Psychological warefare units of the allied (US, Brits, French) armies, and the content of the German mass media (and the content of the allegdly "independent" leftist media, too) was later for decades made or prescibed largely by the CIA. It was the US who forced the German Nazis, which it had put in place to run the Federal Republic of Germany after WWII, to be nice to Israel, written down in the Luxembourg agreement in 1953.

      That grip is loosening now, gradually. The heirs of the Nazis running Germany's mass media - and large chunks of the politics and the economy, too - are today less influenced by US and Israeli pressure - and blackmail - to be nice to Israel, but more driven by considarations of a public German opinion seeing Israel as ugly fascism and threat to peace and business opportunities with China. Also, the heirs of the Nazis gradually become with time a bit less influental in today's economy of Germany, because newcomers not connected to the old Nazi networks get more and more power.

      I hope it helps to explain that a bit. And there is one more point: Israel reportedly recently tried to blackmail Germany for more subs for their nukes, but Germany didn't give in to their demands. The change in Germany is still gradual so far, but there is change.

    • Walid

      The guilt trip like the eternal flame will go on forever. The Zionists remain vigilant to re-igniting it whenever it starts waning.

      No. Their power is waning in Germany. What's new is that not a single German mainstream paper participated in this zionist smear campaign.

      I just checked it: Besides the Autrian "Die Presse" - which translated an article of British ex-labor MP Denis MacShane, now Policy Council of Labour Friends of Israel - only the decidedly jewish paper "Jüdische Allgemeine" seems to have reported in Germany at all on this smear campaign, and even that report was more critical about the smear campaign than about the invitation for Klug. The German Mainstream Media completely ignored this zionist attempt to start a smear campaign against the invitation of Klug.

      Compare that with the times when basically the very same zionist smear specialists were able to run a powerful smear campaign against Alfred Grosser speaking in Frankfurt threee years ago:

      link to google.com

      This year they completely lost their ability to successfully run a smear campaign. Times are changing, slowly, but they change, even in Germany.

    • Benjamin Weinthal, Shimon Samuels, Clemens Heni?

      In Germany, it's almost always some of the same narrow circle of well-published people, when it comes to expressing "public outrage" for critical views regarding the zionist apartheid regime. There are probably 20 or 30 more of these guys. These persons are well published by the usual mass media, but their circle is so narrow, that I wait for the time when the German people remark it and become bored of it.

      Will the smear be successful this time? I don't know. Sometimes they succeed in Germany, sometimes not.

  • What comes next: Why secularism fooled me into thinking the two-state solution was likely
    • Yes, that's it. Add to nationalism the racism and colonialism inherent in nationalist ideology of zionism, and it describes almost perfectly what happened during the last 100+ years. Zionism swallowed judaism, and that almost completely.

  • 'Weak and retreating' US policy on Iran is 'bad for the Jews' -- Foxman
    • Was that a late laudatio for Walt & Mearsheimer's book on the Israel lobby?

      Back then, when it appeared, the ADL claimed that book was an "Anti-Jewish Screed" and reasoned the following:

      Again, on the Bush Administration’s entry into Iraq there obviously is much room for criticism, including criticism of the neoconservatives. What is unacceptable in this paper is the charge that the neocons encouraged the war totally or primarily to serve Israel’s interests, not America’s. Neoconservatives going back to the Cold War days always had a very particular view of American interests in the world, which they argued strenuously. Whether one agreed with that view or not, there is no basis ever for suggesting then, or now, that Israel’s interests superseded those of the U.S. in their thinking.

      Source: link to archive.adl.org

      And now, Abe Foxman claims that the US military has to be used to fight wars in the muslim world to serve "the jews" - meaning Israel. I think, Walt & Mearsheimer should update their book for the next edition and take this speech as a recommendation of the correct analysis laid down in their book.

  • Israel is a 'corpse' -- Hedges on Blumenthal's 'Goliath'
    • Strike at the myth and you unleash a savage vitriol, which in its fury exposes the self-adulation and latent racism that lie at the core of modern Zionism.

      I disagree with the idea that that's a superb summation. I can't see anything "latent" in zionist racism and I can't neither see that it was not the core of ancient zionism, as opposed to "modern Zionism."

      Take that away and the description would become realistic:

      Strike at the myth and you unleash a savage vitriol, which in its fury exposes the self-adulation and racism that lie at the core of zionism.

      Ah, and I would write zionism without a capital at the beginning.

    • A "popular Egyptian paper"? Some excerpts from Wikipedia on Al Wafd:

      Circulation 9,000 - 10,000 (2009)

      Al-Wafd (Arabic: الوفد‎) is the daily newspaper published by the Wafd ('Delegation') party in Giza, Egypt. As the house organ of the liberal-democratic neo-Wafd party, the paper is considered an opposition paper, although both party and paper have oscillated between support and opposition for the regime. ... On 4 September 2013, the paper portrayed the US President Barack Obama as Satan due to his support for opposition forces in Syria. The paper also argued that Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

      Source: link to en.wikipedia.org

      Barack Obama is Satan and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? Al Wafd could really be just one more zionist hasbara smear paper.

      link to patdollard.com

  • Infographic: How the Syrian crisis created a disaster for Palestinian refugee children
    • Walid

      There is a fundamental difference between Assad, Gaddafi, and the rest of the pack, especially the GCC dictators. The GCC dictators own nothing, they are litarally lackeys of the US/British empire and have never been anything else. These puppets just sit there to take orders from Washington, follow them and give an "arab" face for covering up the blatant colonisalism. And of course, we all know who it is who in the US makes the policies for the region: Israel and it's lobby. So, in the end, the pack of US puppet dictators in the region are just lackeys of "Israel."

      That's the difference between these puppets and Gaddafi and Assad: they were not and are not puppets of Israel and it's lobby. And that's the exact reason why the US directed by the Israel lobby spent decades trying to overturn the political systems in Libya and Syria (and in Iran). The personified dictatorship in Syria and Libya is/was last not least a countermeasure to prevent an overthrow by the US acting of behalf of Israel. Democracy brings risks of becoming a puppet state by the means of foreign money. Syria has got it fair share of US sponsored coup attempts against democracy already since the founding of the modern Syrian republic. To overthrow a military dictatorship is much harder than a democracy, Syria and Libya were even resilient after the collapse of their main Soviet protector 1990.

    • Walid

      Arab countries that have been bankrolling the arms for the rebellion in Syria (reportedly about 5 or 6 billions) are not moving to help cover the cost of these Syrian refugees.

      I don't understand how you could imagine they would do so.

      Why should they, those people, you call the arab countries, but who are really only some ridiculous lackeys ruling over arab lands in the service of Israel, do that? Israel ordered her lackeys to run a proxy war on Syria disguised as a "revolution", so Israel can continue ethnic cleansing of Palestine largely undisturbed by world public opinion, but of course Israel didn't order them to help in any way fellow arabs and muslims, so they don't do it.

  • Max Blumenthal responds to latest critique of his book, in the 'Forward'
    • “Most of those people arriving here are Muslims, who think the country doesn’t belong to us, the white man.”

      I'ld like to see Obama's face if he decides to visit Israel and Eli Yishai would answer this to Obama.

  • Natalie Portman and Woody Allen see anti-Semitism as pervasive
    • Ecru

      ... define holocaust denial instead of using a blanket “all its forms” that could include anything...

      As reported in The Jewish Press yesterday:

      The International Alliance for Holocaust remembrance (IHRA), comprised of 31 member states, the UN and UNESCO have accepted a universal definition of holocaust denial. According to Gideon Bachar, the head of the Israeli Foreign Ministry department for the fight against antisemitism, who represented Israel in the discussions, the newly accepted definition of a holocaust denier is ... anyone who includes the 1939-1945 holocaust among other great tragedies in human history.

      Source:

      link to jewishpress.com

      From Wikipedia:

      The year 2000 saw a major development in the IHRA... Yehuda Bauer was invited to head the academic committee, while Nobel Prize laureate Professor Elie Wiesel was asked to become the Honorary Chairman of the forum. A joint declaration was unanimously adopted.

      Source:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      So, now we have a universal definition of holocaust denial and no questions are left open.

  • Obama meets with 'small coterie' of Jewish leaders, after Kerry appears to criticize Netanyahu for 'fear tactics'
    • Abe Foxman made a good point. An employee of a company should not critisize the boss of the company in public.

      Foxman told Haaretz: “Those remarks were inappropriate. They were not conducive to the relationship between the two countries. If Kerry had any criticism of Israeli positions, he should have made them privately”

      Of course, Abe Foxman would never critisize Netanyahu for publicly criticizing Obama. As the boss, it's his right to critisize an employee, and if he feels so, he may even humiliate his employee in public. It shows who runs the company and reflects power.

      And Obama and Kerry seem to accept that. Instead of rebuking Foxman and Netanyahu their reaction is to kowtow in front of them.

  • Lou Reed was on our side, Israel supporters say
  • AIPAC's 'unlimited' funds are greatest obstacle to peace, former British foreign sec'y says
    • Thanks Shmuel.

      I find that sounds completely different from what Einat Wilf reported.

    • Maybe it would be a good idea to try to get know what Jack Straw really said instead of taking the account of Einat Wilf for granted. She uses indirect language to describe what he said, so his actual words could have been quite different. And, as to my experience, it would not be the first time that zionists report criticism of the ideology of zionism or of the Israel lobby as anti-semitic slurs against judaism.

      Haaretz has a headline in that regard, but I have no login:

      Ex-U.K. FM denies anti-Semitic remarks on 'Jewish money'

      link to haaretz.com

      Sounds to me as an indicator that Einat Wilf perhaps may have misrepresented what Jack Straw really said.

  • 'Our relationship to Israel causes dead Americans and enormous expense in fighting Muslims' -- Scheuer to Congress
    • They are understating the true costs. Add to the 6 trillion USD another some trillion USD of the defense and security spending spree in the GWB years, and add another some trillion USD for that they squandered the peace dividend the US was entitled to after the ending of the cold war. And then add some more trillion of USD to the bill that were caused by the fatal financial policies of cheap money and outsourcing the economy, that were taken to hide the real cost of these wars from the public.

      In total, that may sum up easily to more then 10 trillion Dollars, what the wars costed, that the US waged against the muslim world in the interest of Israel. The purely reputational damage from US led judeo-christian crusade on the muslim world for the sake of Israel's security due to things like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is not even included in this bill calculation.

      What did the judeo-christian forces accomplished for this pricetag of more than 10 trillion Dollars? Jerusalem is already almost an Israeli town and hundreds of thousands of settlers are making clear that Judea and Samaria is Israeli, too. So, I think, Netanyahu and his friends will evaluate that the more than ten trillion US Dollar in US-led wars for Israel were a good investment.

      "'America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction.They won’t get in our way'" Benjamin Netanyahu

  • Meet the pro-Israel donors who boosted Cory Booker's Senate run
  • Adelson says Obama should fire 'atomic weapon' at Iran, not negotiate
    • I know that discussing the historical truth surrounding the history of the zionist movement is taboo. And I think the reason for this taboo is that when truth will emerge and the zionist movement loses it's ability to controll the narrative by the way of creating myths and taboos it will have grave consequences for Israel. I think when the zionist movement loses control on the narrative and truth emerges it would most likely leading to the transformation of the zionist apartheid state into a multi-cultural democratic state - something I believe that the zionist movement wants to avoid at all cost.

      But I would find that a good solution to the conflict in Palestine, serving all of mankind including the jewish people living in "Israel", and therefore I dare to break the zionist taboos, to dismantle the zionist myths and to spread alternative narratives. Important truths about the history of the zionist movement are already out in the internet, and I'm convinced, when the alternative narratives seep into more peoples' minds, the conflict can be solved by reason in a peaceful way.

    • Sheldon Adelson behaves pretty much as a godfather of the mafia. Considering that Netanyahu seems to me being of of his capos, I see now a situation where the mafia got hold on a vast array of nuclear weapons and the godfather of the mafia is openly advocating to use nukes in acts of nuclear terrorism.

    • Walid

      Adelson is selectively remembering historic facts. He says FDR should have pressured Britain to allow jews flee to Palestine. Could FDR do it? Maybe. But what he does by this statement is turning a blind eye to the question why other places to flee for jews from the holocaust were not possible.

      Here is the catch: the zionist movements first aim was not to save jews from the Holocaust, but to build the state of Israel in Palestine. And therefore the Zionist movement tried to block efforts to save jews from the Holocaust by letting the flee to other places than Palestine, because they wanted the fleeing jews go to Palestine to strengthen the prospect of creating the state of Israel there in this way.

      Rabbi Weissmandl's 10 questions are very explicit in this regard:

      7. IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.

      8. IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation "Only to Palestine!"

      link to nkusa.org

      While I agree with Adelson that other people like FDR could and should have done more to save the jews from the holocaust, the zionist movement, to say the least, is certainly another one of the actors that could and should have done more in this regard, too, and I find it deeply hypocritical that the zionist Adelson doesn't mention this.

  • MJ Rosenberg owes Ali Abunimah an apology for false accusations of anti-Semitism
    • jimby

      So true.

      Though I don't agree with all details of what Norman Finkelstein and MJ Rosenberg think, I salute them for the courage of taking a moral stance and speaking out.

      For both, Norman Finkelstein and MJ Rosenberg, I feel deep respect therefore, moral examples I wished more people would follow in their courage to speak out.

      But still, that doesn't mean that I find advocating a one state solution stupid or that I agree that Ali Abunimah is an anti-semite.

  • What Comes Next: If the goal is to change U.S. policy, American Jewish opinion can't be ignored
    • During the day I couldn't get this headline out of my head

      If the goal is to change U.S. policy, American Jewish opinion can’t be ignored

      More and more, I think, Norman Finkelstein had here laid out arguments for a total different conclusion, namely:

      If the goal is to change U.S. policy, American Jewish opinion should be ignored

      Norman Finkelstein lays out here in great detail and with Pew polls that almost all jews in America are emotional very attached to the US policy regarding Israel.

      I find it is an argument that almost all jews have deep conflicts of interest regarding Israel, and therefore the advice of jews regarding the US policies regarding Israel should be disregarded as biased.

      Though I find "jews" is an imprecise - and racist - term here, when swapping the term jews for the Israel lobby and it's popular constituency, which is definetely not identical with "jews" but - as Finkelstein lays out - overlapping a lot, the argument becomes quite powerful.

      There is good precedent. Nixon's China opening is considered a quite successful move now, but at that time it was quite controversial. Taiwan's ambassador called Nixon a sell-out and the powerful Taiwan lobby, or China lobby, representing many Chinese "freedom lovers" living in the US, was really upset. But Nixon and Kissinger disregarded the advise of the Taiwan lobby, the policy was successful, and the citizens of Taiwan were not harmed in any way by this to the present day. The opposite is true: the once very tense conflict across the Taiwan straight is quite cool now and Taiwan has almost better relations to the PRChina today as it has relations to the US. If conflict breaks out involving Taiwan today, it's even more likely to be shooting over some South China sea rocky islands with Taiwan and the PRC on one side and the Philippines on the other side than a cross straight conflict.

      There is also bad precedent. When George W. Bush heeded the advice of exiled Iraqis like Chalabi to liberate Iraq, it didn't end well for nobody, except maybe Mr Chalabi personally, whose newly found Iranian friendship enables him to live a fine life now. Ignoring the policy advice of exiled Iraqis like Chalabi would have obviously been a better choice for the US.

      So, my conclusion from Finkelstein's argument that jews are very attached to Israel is: To get a successful US policy in place regarding Israel - and that region - the advice of the Israel lobby and it's popular constituency should be ignored. The advice of that constituency is biased and has a conflict of interest problem.

    • rensanceman

      I think the inherent fatal flaw of Zionism is that the demand to have a "Jewish state" is nothing else than racism. To exchange the word "race" for "ethnicity" in that ideology doesn't mitigate the fatal flaw, it just serves propaganda to whitewash the racism.

      Almost from the beginning, Zionism was nothing else than a very aggresive racist, colonial and darwinistic ideology, a jewish painted copy of the extreme rightwing ideologies which were trendy in Europe - and in America - at the end of the colonial 19th century.

      What I find interesting is that many German rabbis, liberals and orthodox alike, as well as jewish intellectuals, saw this very clearly when zionism emerged more than a century ago, but now it seems to have been somehow forgotten.

    • Pabelmont

      I think, your VERY liberal Israeli acquaintance inadvertedly made just a very good point for advocating a one state solution:

      And if pressed, Israelis WOULD give up the West Bank. Israelis would NOT give up the Jewish Majority and the Jewish State.

      As soon as Israel and the occupied territories are regarded as one state then there is no "Jewish Majority" anymore, but just one apartheid state run by a minority of zionist racists. Hence, pressuring Israel to admit that it has successfully conquered all the occupied territories including Gaza and to end the apartheid may lead to Israeli withdrawing from the occupied territories to preserve the "Jewish Majority" - and alas - territories occupied by zionists will become liberated and a two state solution will be more plausible.

    • I disagree.

      While I agree that "no credible case has been made demonstrating the impossibility of two states" I do not think that point is very important. What's missing there is that having two states would not mean the solution of the conflict and the end of the struggle. Two states would just mean that the struggle enters a new phase.

      Then, what's the struggle all about? In my opinion it's about defeating the racist colonial and ruthless ideology of zionism. The struggle against it will not stop before all the land is governed by non-racist principles, it will not end before the zionist aim of "transfering" people to establish a "jewish" majority is abolished, and it will certainly not end before the zionists ability to ignite wars in the muslim world by means like monopolized media manipulation, black propaganda and false flag terror as a cover to deflect public world opinion of continuing racist zionist policies is broken.

      So, in my view, there is absolutely no contradiction in struggling for a Palestian state in what is currently non-state land and at the same time struggling for the abolishment of all racist policies. In the end, only pressure on the racist regime of Tel Aviv will change it's happy Chutzpah calculations and it's criminal behaviour, and all and any pressure targeting the racist and illegal behaviour of the Tel Aviv regime is helpful in that end.

  • Christian Science Monitor asks, 'Why do Israeli settlements expand during peace talks?'
    • I would say it this way: Cast Lead was Zionist terrorist rocket fire on civilians in Gaza which caused about 1400 people their lifes.

      This "operation" was tragic, but the support it had in "Israel" was successful in revealing that "Israel" is run by state terrorists.

    • I count the minutes until ADL is releasing a statement denouncing the stark "anti-semitism" by CSM shown here, effectively denying "The Jewish People" it's "legitimate and undeniable righ"t on the land of "Eretz Israel" and falsely portraying "the jews" as greedy land-grabbers.

      And then, when ADL made it clear to everyone, that even in America there is a huge new wave of "anti-semitism" on the way, I wait for Netanyahu to release a statement that only Israel can protect "the jews" from this existial threat and he, Netanyahu, therefore - in anticipation for the jews coming to seek refugee in Israel due to the new wave of anti-semitism in the world - gave out an order to speed up contruction of homes for jews "returning home" in Judea and Samaria.

      An even quicker reaction denouncing the "anti-semitism" of CSM and the gross "injustice" done to "the Jewish people" by CSM with this ugly propaganda piece I expect to see from under cover hasbara agents in social networks paid by Israel.

  • Liberal senators Markey and Murray join AIPAC in fighting White House opening to Iran
    • While I do think that the US congress is more or less fully owned by powerful lobby groups - in the first place AIPAC I don't think that the US congress has the power to actually spoil a US-Iranian deal if the US president wants it.

      I think the international sanctions regime will break down as soon as a substantial deal is reached, and I think, it's likely that a deal will be reached because many western big businesses are angry with the sanctions regime, because the sanctions regime means more and more they just lose all their hard earned market shares to companies from China, and Iran stays afloat anyway with the help of China. Sanctioning China for doing so is not an option because China is too strong for that, it may heavily retaliate. Just imageine AIPAC gets congress and Obama to sign the bill that China will be cut off from the US financial system if it continues dealing with Iran while at the same time Secretary of the Treasury calls China to give the US more credit by buying more bonds. I think that's the reason why Obama is now in a hurry to end Iran sanctions.

      When the international sanction regime against Iran is broken, the question for congress will be different: do you want General Motors to sell cars in Iran or would you prefer the Iranians to drive exclusively French and Chinese cars? Shall Chinese companies get all the Iranian gas and oil contracts or do you want to give US companies a chance, too?

      I could imagine that a company like GM is also able to do a bit of lobbying in the US congress to get what it wants:

      link to lefigaro.fr

      Then we may see, how powerful AIPAC is and whether it has the clout to sideline GM and US oil and gas companies.

  • Israel refuses to recognize its own nationality: Israeli Supreme Court says 'Israeli' nationality could endanger idea of Jewish state
    • @Mike Konrad

      You may not only compare it to Saudi Arabia, but you may even compare it to Germany.

      For example, in the famous "Reichsbürgergesetz" of Germany there exists a distinction between "Staatsangehörige" und "Reichsbürger." Full rights are in that law only for "Reichsbürger." "Reichsbürger" are specified in that law specified as "Staatsangehörige" of "German or related blood" others, like jews and gypsys, "simple Staatsangehörige" or people of an "ethnicity alien to the race." And of course, there are also the "Verordnungen" to the "Reichsbürgergesetz" which define, for example, who is a "Jew" or a "jewish crossbreed" and what rights such people have or not have.

      You can read all that in Wikipedia under the term "Nuremberg Laws" and much more in the German version of Wikipedia on the Nuremberg laws. See, Israel is not alone with it's ethnic definition of "nationality," Saudi Arabia is with Israel and Germany, too. Of course, the "Reichsbürgergesetz" was a bit criticised, so Germany abolished it in the year 1945, but Israel is really not alone in making ethnic differences of it's definition of it's "Volk."

      The German press reports, that Uzzi Ornan criticies the Israeli practice of defining it's people saying that how Israel defines who is a jew is the way the Nazis defined who is a jew. See, Israel is not alone in the world.

  • 'The world doesn't get it' -- Highlights of Netanyahu's alienation tour
  • ICC is called on to investigate 'territorial black hole' that Palestinians have been locked in for decades
    • MahaneYehude1

      After your summary, is it correct to say that, actually, Erdoğan used the Palestinians and sent ... flotilla ...?

      Yes, that's what I think Erdogan actually did.

      ... only when it is good for Turkey interests

      Well, what's the motivation, it's not so easy. I don't think it actually was in Turkey's interests to do that, more in the interest of humanity as a whole.

      I think, Erdogan has proven with his action in regard to Syria that he doesn't care much about Turkey's interest, but his identity is a complated mix of a pan-nationalist ottoman Sunni jihadi nature. So I believe, that Erdogan really is up to help Hamas, but not to help Palestinians, but as cover to advance his jihadi interests while at the same time collaborating with Israel. At the same time I do really think Erdogan was surprised by the murderous behaviour of the Israeli IDF thugs in regard to the flotilla.

      Annie:

      I think the flotilla was organized by IHH, which is closely linked to the AKP, and AKP was the main driver behind the flotilla.

    • Erdogan never stopped doing business with Israel, even his own family himself did business all the time when allegedly relations where bad:

      link to en.alalam.ir

      I think, the whole story of Turkey having lowered relations with Israel after flotilla was just a scam to make Syria (and AKP voters) feel comfortable while Erdogan together with Israel prepared to attack Syria with this irregulare warfare we have seen in the past two and a half years.

      But it may change, now that Erdogan has seen that teaming up with Israel to wage war against Syria doesn't bring the desired fruits Erdogan may be really angry and leave that relationship together with NATO and it's EU bid. Just a couple of days ago Turkey is said to have chosen a Chinese company for a 4bn Dollar air defense system contract.

    • @Ludwig
      Based on that ngo-monitor figures the term "well paid advocacy groups" sound like a bad zionist joke, their combined budget being just about USD 2m per year.

      That's - combined - just about 3% of one of ADL's or AIPAC's 60m+ budget.

  • Peace Now reveals Israeli plans for 'devastating' new settlement in Hebron
    • I think you missed a very important news item. I think it goes to the very heart of institionalized Israeli racism.

      Here it's in Israel Hayom:

      Is there such a thing as an 'Israeli' people? Supreme Court says no

      "Israeli" describes citizenship, not nationality in an ethnic sense, court rules • Petitioners seek "Israeli" ethnicity to be listed in government registry, but court claims there is insufficient evidence to suggest such a group exists.

      link to israelhayom.com

      Here from LA Times:

      No such thing as 'Israeli nationhood,' country's Supreme Court says

      There is no such thing as "Israeli nationhood," Israel's Supreme Court has ruled, putting to an end a 40-year legal battle but leaving fundamental questions about national identity and the character of the country very much open.

      The court on Wednesday rejected a petition by a group of Israelis to change the ethnic registration on their identity cards from "Jewish" to "Israeli." Some Arab citizens joined the petition, also asking to be listed as "Israeli."

      Israel's population ledger lists all citizens as Israeli. But under the section of leom -- a Hebrew term for nationhood or ethnicity -- state authorities automatically register Arabs as "Arab" and Jews as "Jewish." ...

      Official recognition of Israeli "nationhood" could have far-reaching implications for the country's legal definition as a Jewish state, for its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens and for Jews around the world wanting to emigrate to Israel under the country's Law of Return.

      It could also have implications for peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, which Israel insists must recognize it as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

      link to latimes.com

      More explicit was the German Spiegel (In German):

      Gerichtsentscheid in Jerusalem: Bewohner Israels dürfen sich nicht "Israelis" nennen

      ... Das Argument der Aktivisten: Nur ein Begriff, der nicht erkennen lasse, ob es sich bei der Person um einen Juden, einen Araber oder ein Mitglied einer anderen Minderheit in Israel handele, garantiere die Gleichbehandlung aller Bürger, so die Organisation "Ich bin Israeli".

      ... Ornan vertritt die Meinung, dass Israeli ist, wer in Israel geboren wird. Die Ableitung der Nationalität über die Religionszugehörigkeit der Mutter lehnt er ab. Er verweist darauf, dass auch die Nazis so definiert hätten, wer Jude ist und wer nicht.

      Die Richter folgten dieser Argumentation in ihrer Urteilsbegründung nicht. Allerdings räumten sie ein, dass es sich bei dem Antrag nicht nur um ein rechtliches, sondern auch um ein philosophisches und politisches Problem handele. Die Anerkennung einer gemeinsamen, nicht auf der Religionszugehörigkeit basierenden Nationalität könnte den Staat Israel in seinen Grundfesten erschüttern, so das Gericht. ...

      link to spiegel.de

      I think that this Israeli Supreme court decision should be a big topic for discussion at Mondo Weiss.

  • Blumenthal talks 'Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel' on Democracy Now!
    • @piotr

      I feel like I heard that argument already a couple of years before, but then it was pronounced a bit more forceful:

      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.

      Source: Schriften zur Aufklärung über den Zionismus, N° 2 „Der Zionismus, seine Theorien, Aussichten und Wirkungen“, Herausgegeben vom Antizionistischen Komitee Berlin 1913, a booklet which had no author named, but was written by Felix Goldmann, a prominent liberal German rabbi and fighter against racism and anti-Semitism. (Translation from German my own)

  • In Pew poll on American Jewish identity, 'caring about Israel' is way behind 'working for justice'
    • Research has revealed that in several communities entire refugee families of five or six persons have been included in the statistics even if only one member – say, the husband/father – is halachically Jewish.

      From my knowledge even that is an understatement. I personally know that there exist quite a lot of allegedly jewish families in Berlin, where nobody is jewish.

      The reason behind it is that "jewishness" was a golden entry ticket with refugee status into Germany after the Soviet Union broke up. And like so many things in the Sowjet Union at that time, papers making someone "jewish" were on sale there on what seems to have been a relatively large scale scam.

      Nobody from the official Germany has any interest in poking into that because the jewish lobby is very strong in Germany. As jewish refugees from the former Soviet Union by far outnumbered the standing jewish communities, representatives of the refugees took over power in most communities, and, during the hight of that kind of immigration the German CDU government also was happy, because many of the Soviet Union refugees seemed to vote for CDU.

      In 2004, after some 200.000 jewish refugees came to Germany from the former Soviet Union, the then SPD government of Germany quietly stopped accepting refugees from the former Soviet Union based on their real or alleged jewishness.

      German Wikipedia has a very "careful" article on the jewish "Kontingentflüchtlinge" from the former Soviet Union, where some basic legal facts are mentioned, but - of course not - not the scam behind that due to curruption in the former Soviet Union or the motivations of the CDU government:

      link to de.wikipedia.org

  • Israel’s apartheid isn’t just political, it's ideology wrapped in history and religion
    • The famous German rabbi Felix Goldmann brought the contradiction of seeing judaism as a nation in his booklet "Der Zionismus, seine Theorien, Aussichten und Wirkungen" to the top, and called for the creation of an "association of jewish citizens of non-jewish faith" as soon as a jewish state Israel would be created.

      For those able to read German, I recommend to read that booklet, published by the "Antizionistisches Komitee Berlin" in 1913. I found it very eye-opening that much of today's discussions about Israel were foreseen already a hundred years ago.

  • State Dept: No US aid to Israel until budget deal is reached
    • So, the Tea Party is responsible for cutting the US subsidies for the Zionist apartheid regime.

      Is there any way to donate to the Tea Party to support them in continuing their commendable efforts?

  • Netanyahu's tale of Iranian deception debunked by British diplomat
    • Donald

      I thank you for your critisism against the Zionist warmongering.

      However, I would like to inform you that your statement, that "the funny thing is that in a saner world everyone would recognize why Iran might want nuclear weapons–as a deterrent" is not based in reality.

      In Iran the very most of the people, and certainly the elite, believe in Ali Khamenei to be the marja of our time, and therefore his behaviour and opinions are the ones the people of Iran try to imitate. Ali Khamenei ten years ago ruled in a no uncertain way that WMDs are haram - forbidden in any way for all those who follow him as the marja.

      If you'ld know a bit more on Shia culture you would understand the utter nonsense of saying that Iran might be persuing to get a nuclear bomb when the marja has forbidden it. If you'ld know that you could easily see that these zionist accussations are nothing than a scam.

      Of course, if you would only know, the Shia culture is a culture of resistance, as it was in 680 when Ali stood in Kerbala against the forces of oppression, you would understand tat the Shia culture will never give in to submission. Therefore Iran counters the fabricated threats on it's nuclear programm - as Imam Ali did it - with resistance against the oppressors. Not to submit to tyranny is the reason Iran is advancing it's nuclear programm, that's all.

  • In battle for American hearts and minds, Iran says Obama did 'macho... flipflop' for Israel
    • Toivos

      "Every time the US uses the term “all options are on the table” it makes me flinch."

      I think it's quite normal. The mafia rules the US and whenever the mafia finds someone not accepting under mafia terms it threatens them with nuclear annihilation.

  • Netanyahu delivers predictable speech fear-mongering on Iran
    • What I found most interesting in Netanyahu's speech was that while Rouhani said the time of the tribal feuds is over, Netanyahu presented himself as the leader of the tribe of the Maccabees in a tribal bloodfeud of biblical proportions with the tribe of the Persians:

      “What a disgrace, what a disgrace. The descendants of the Macabees lie in the mud powerless to defend themselves.” ... Together we’ve transformed a bludgeoned Jewish people, left for dead, into a vibrant, thriving nation, a defending itself with the courage of modern Maccabees, developing limitless possibilities for the future. In our time the Biblical prophecies are being realized.

      I'm not sure how the feeling of others is, but my view is that fighting tribal bloodfeuds in the 21. century doesn't sound statesman-like, to me, it sounds more like archaic and medieval madness.

  • Cooper Union's bizarre 'Jewish values' panel: Accused war criminal and pro-occupation billionaires speak about the 'strong protecting the weak'
    • MRW

      I highly value Sharmine Narwani and Al Akhbar. And I agree with her that the chemical attack was a false flag. However, I don't think that article was her best day.

      Her main argument in that article - in Moadamiyah was not found Sarin, while in Zamalka there was found plenty - was out in Germany already a couple of days earlier:

      link to nocheinparteibuch.wordpress.com

      The chemical expert Sharmine Narwani cited for other arguments like blood sample problems is now trying to shoot down her article.

      What she misses is reporting is prior rebel knowledge of the attack:

      link to consortiumnews.com

      And that prior knowledge of the Alloush gang is backed up by public statements from the Alloush gang before it happened:

      Link: link to facebook.com

      Copy: link to urs1798.wordpress.com

      Screenshot: link to urs1798.files.wordpress.com

      There are a lot more pieces of evidence that point to Zahran Alloush as the prime suspect of the CW false flag. His Islam brigade has a chemical unit and there were other "chemical incidents" - looking like tests or accidents - before in the eastern Ghouta region where he rules and his guys were the one moving the UN inspectors around.

      I loath to say, but so far I'm off the opinion that Yossef Bodansky had a clearer understanding on the chemical false flag and the circumstances as Sharmine Narwani has it:

      link to worldtribune.com

    • miriam

      An addendum. I prefer to call the criminal Clinton gang zionist extremists instead of calling them jews, because I think there exist many honest jews in the world.

      And I think there is a big difference between zionist extremists and jews.

      I think Rabbi Chaim Lefkowitz, for eaxample, explained the difference between zionist extremists and jews in this speech very well:

    • Miriam

      I don't care if a criminal gang is jewish or not. And for sure, I think that the Clinton gang "500.000 dead children - the price is worth it" was deeply criminal.

      However the question was asked whether Kagame is jewish. And that's probably because he was a star at this decidedly jewish event. So, what I pointed out is that Kagame is not jewish, but that this mass murderer has a deep connection to a US administration portrayed by some as very jewish. I'm not sure if these guys who said so were anti-semites, who really have ‘Jews on the brain.’

      Judge yourself:

      Never before in American history have Jewish Americans had such a role in a presidential administration. Five Jews – Robert E. *Rubin, Lawrence H. *Summers, Daniel R. *Glickman, Mickey *Kantor, and Robert B. *Reich – were part of the Clinton cabinet. Moreover, both of his Supreme Court nominees (Stephen *Breyer and Ruth Bader *Ginsburg), and many other cabinet-level officials (such as UN Ambassador Richard *Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Samuel R. *Berger, Trade Representative Charlene *Barshevsky, and OMB Director Jack *Lew) were Jewish.

      Source:

      link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

    • Now way Kagame is jewish.

      But when he conquered Rwanda and he thereby caused the genocide in Rwanda he was backed in doing so by the Clinton administration, which some describe as the most jewish administration ever ruling the US.

  • Israel's real fear: shift in balance of power with a normalized Iran
    • I, too, doubt, that China will use it's economic might as foolish as the US does it. However there is no question that China does use it already for political ends.

      As Hillary Clinton in 2012 explicitely called on all nations to bring up pressure on all members of the Syrian support axis Iran-Russia-China, China suspects that Japan is making "island trouble" as part of a US strategy to punish China for it's cooperation with Iran and Syria.

      And read here how China put Japan back in the box:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      That is how China is using it's economic might in the form of market access, today, and very real.

    • James

      I know the argument which was - as Wikileaks shows us - promoted by Saudi ruler Abdullah since the end of 2005.

      However, I beg to disagree. The US spent trillions of Dollars trying to install a US-aligned puppet regime in Iraq, but the US failed, and that's not because the US has given Iraq to Iran on a golden platter, but because of the resilience of the resistance. Kicking the US military out of Iraq was the goal and the key to the success. With US military bases still in Iraq, Iraq wouldn't have become free to defy US pressure and align itself with Iran and the resistance.

    • Citizen

      The U.S. National Intelligence Council released a report last year that offers a series of prognostications about how the world might change in coming decades. One of its attention-grabbing assertions: China’s economy will surpass that of the U.S. by 2030.

      Nobody can exactly predict when it will be that China's economy will surpass that of the U.S. because there are lot's of unknown variables going into this. But the time may be much earlier than 2030, maybe already 2018. If so, in 2030 China's economy may already well be more than the doubled size than that of the U.S. and a lot larger than the combined economies of the G7.

      While it's unclear what the consequences of this change will be for Israel, it is pretty clear that the whole table of the current international order based on the Washington consensus will be turned around then. Interesting could be the tool of so-called secondary sanctions. I think, China is smarter than the U.S. but just imagine, in 2030 China-led BRICS controlling some 70% of the global economy impose sanctions on everyone dealing with Israel, just like the U.S. currently use secondary sanctions to target Iran today.

    • I disagree.

      The US didn't hand Iraq to Iran on a platter.

      Getting the US empire out of Iraq was very hard work of people of the resistance, who had many martyrs.

    • kma

      ... Israel’s interest is the rate of ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

      I totally agree with you on this.

      I think: The whole "Iran threat" talking point of the Israel and the lobby is mainly a deception, whether it is in the form of "Iran nuclear threat," "Iran power balance shift threat" or whatever "Iran threat." The real interest of the Israeli regime is to grab as much land as possible before it is forced to peace and any deception to cover up this reality is welcome. The time frame for Israel to grab more land will end when China is the leading power in the world thereby overpowering the Israel lobby in the US and Europe. But as long as the Israel lobby rules, Israel is going to take whatever land it can get, using for whatever cover it can get to do this.

  • In euphoria over Iran breakthrough, Wash Post poll says 85% of Americans approve
    • just

      "Why should Iran offer anything in exchange? What has Iran done to us?"

      Iran can offer the US a honest exit from Afghanistan, one that looks better than the US exit from Saigon. As Afghanistan is a persian-speaking country neighboring Iran, it's very natural that it's big neighbor Iran has lot's of influence in Afghanistan.

  • Netanyahu returns to the U.N. -- now guess the drawing!
  • Netanyahu says Rouhani denies the Holocaust. But he doesn't
    • American

      If’ you were in some situtation where you only had two life jackets to throw to the drowning–who would you throw them to, your own wife and child, or let them drown and throw them to someone else?

      That's my point. In the various stages of history there are many decisions to be taken, it's not a simple either or as in the two life jackets example. And, of course, in hindsight, it's always possible to say "it could have been done more." For example, in hindsight one may ask if it was neccessary for the allies to totally occupy Germany to defeat Hitler. Maybe it would have been possible to strike a truce deal in 1944 and thereby save the life of millions of people of all nations, among them many allied soldiers and scores of jews. I won't say something like this would have been a good and moral decision, but I would leave questions like these to a debate of historians.

      And I believe of course it would have been possible for almost everyone to try harder to save more jews from the German crime. Oftenly it was a question of priorities. And one of those entities who may have been able to try harder to save more jews where some major zionist organisations which at the time of the holocaust were very busy creating the state of Israel.

      See for example the 8th question of Rabbi Weismandel I mentioned above: 'IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation "Only to Palestine!"' to get deeper into failed historic chances to save more jews if you are interested.

    • I'ld think Paul Eisen didn't plomk the article and comments, but rather archived them, so that if - god forbid - something bad with the website "Mondo Weiss" happens, there are available for future generations.

      And, ah yes, I understand, why people, who, like Paul Eisen, call themselves a "holocaust denier" don't like Mondo Weiss. I think a "debate" is an answer which deniers don't like at all.

    • Miriam

      I see the differences, and I see them mainly as differences in identity.

      There exist lot's of differences in identities:

      - National identities
      - Religious identities
      - Ethnic identities
      - Class identities
      - Cultural identities
      - Many more

      Oftenly, identities are overlapping. I think, the holocaust victim identity is an important one. The mossad chief, for example, has holocaust on his desk, and I think it's a true, legitimate and moral identity. But I also think there are many more true, legitimate and moral identities. And, what I think, the big topic for future generations of humanity is to overcome the violent tensions caused by different identities.

      I would like you to take notice of the brilliant (my opinion) speeches of Hassan Rouhani on that topic. See him in the Wapo:

      We must also pay attention to the issue of identity as a key driver of tension in, and beyond, the Middle East. ... Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved.

      And read his UN speech:

      Our world today is replete with fear and hope; fear of war and hostile regional and global relations; fear of deadly confrontation of religious, ethnic and national identities; fear of institutionalization of violence and extremism; fear of poverty and destructive discrimination; fear of decay and destruction of life-sustaining resources; fear of disregard for human dignity and rights; and fear of neglect of morality.

      So, what I would like you and everyone to think about is how to overcome the desastrous effects of identity and turn identity into something more positive as it is today.

      I hope you understand what I'm talking about. Be assured that I'm not hostile to you.

    • American

      Contrary to what the Holocaust Industry claims, No Allies, No Countries, No One involved in WWII had any OBLIGATION to put the Jews above saving their own people and their own countries.

      I beg to differ. In my opinion the whole world had a moral obligation to help to minimize the human desaster of the war and the holocaust. So, when it is claimed that other countries had an obligation and did nothing to save the jews than I feel that moral argument is largely true.

      However, there exists another problem with this narrative of the Holocaust Industry. When the Zionist movement makes this claim, there exists a point of that pointing with one finger on another person mean three finger point to yourself.

      If you don't understand what I'm talking about, read, for example, some of the words from Sefer Min Hametzar by Rabbi Michael Ber Weismandel to understand the point of one of the contradictions in this Zionist narrative:

      After I accustomed myself to the peculiar writing, I trembled when I realized the import of RAK B'DAM TIHJE LANU HAAREZ. But many weeks passed, and I was still confounded by the meaning of ATEM TAJLU. Until one day, it struck me. ATEM TAJIU meant "You escape", for the word "tiyul" (walking trip) was used by them as a euphemistic code for "escape". They meant to say - you fifteen or twenty "party members", escape from Czechoslovakia and save your hides. The price of Eretz Yisroel is the blood of the men and women, hoary sages, and babes in arms, - but not YOUR blood! Let us not spoil this plan by giving the Axis powers money to save Jewish lives. But for you, comrades, I have enclosed carfare for your escape. What a nightmare! The Zionist agent "diplomat" comes to Czechoslovakia and says 'Now is a very critical time. But comparatively speaking, it is not at all critical for you trapped Jews. For there is an emergency of far greater proportions; namely, BINYAN HA-ARETZ (the prize of Modinat Yisrael). Shed your blood cheerfully, for your blood is cheap. But for your blood, the Land (of Israel) will be ours! ( Source with a bit more context)

      Also, up to this day, I found no convincing answers by the the Holocaust Industry of the Zionist movement to the famous ten questions from Rabbi Weismandel:

      link to nkusa.org

      So, after reading Rabbi Weismandel, I find the Zionist narrative that they need Israel to protect jews from another holocaust becuase nobody helped the jews in the time of the holocaust a bit of hypocritical, to say the least.

      That's not the only problem in the zionist narrative on the holocaust. Though I'm not a historian to evaluate them, as far as I see it, I think, the anti-zionist orthodox jewish organizations have a lot more interesting documents punching big holes in the zionist narrative on topics like Zionist behaviour in the era of the Nazis and the holocaust.

    • "He declined to comment about the scope"

      He did comment on that. He labeled the crime genocide. Labeling a crime genocide is a clear "comment about the scope."

    • Annie

      With Iran's position regarding the Nazi genocide against jews I mean the position of the Iranian government, ie the presidency. 99% of the western world based their discourse on Iran's position regarding the holocaust under Ahmadinejad on media distortions and inaccurate quotes. Of course, there was no sensible dialogue or discussion possible in the Western world when the position of the other side - Iran - is not accurately reported.

      Now, with Rouhani, I sense a great openness in the western world on Iran, but I find it pitiful, that discussions over Iran's position regarding the Nazi genocide against jews is still not accurately reported, but instead based on distorted quotes. I sense a danger that when the discussion is based on distorted quotes it may derail again.

      And, yes, I would find a honest discussion about the zionist Holocaust narrative important. I'm off the opinion that the single dominant Holocaust narrative is a major tool of the zionist power configuration. And I think that a discussion of Iran'S position may lead to the conclusion that their exist some other narratives not to be dismissed up-front.

      See, for example, the Iranian-born scholar Hamid Dabashi telling such a different narrative about the Holocaust:

      It was Aimé Césaire who in his Discourse sur le colonialisme/Discourse on Colonialism (1955) argued that the Jewish Holocaust was not an aberration in European history. Rather, Europeans actually perpetrated similar crimes against humanity on the colonised world at large. With German atrocities during the Holocaust, Europeans tasted a concentrated dose of the structural violence they had perpetrated upon the world at large. Colonialism and the Holocaust were thus the two sides of the same coin: the aggressive transmutation of defenceless human beings into instruments of power - into disposable "things". Long before the Jewish Holocaust, the world Europeans had conquered and colonised was the testing ground of that barbaric violence they had termed the "civilising mission of the white man".

      I think, if there was a honest discussion about the Nazi genocide against jews instead of a quasi-religional Holocaust culture controlled by the zionist movement and their world order, people would be able to encounter lot's of different narratives.

    • Annie

      What's the bigger news?

      a) Iran changes it's official position regarding the Nazi genocide against jews
      or
      b) ADL & Co continue their usual hatemongering and Nakba denial?

      Rouhani walks a very fine line in changing Iran's position regarding the Nazi genocide against jews but from the CNN fabrication it's not possible to see and understand it.

      Notice:

      CNN said Rouhani said "Whatever criminality they committed against the Jews, we condemn..." - which would mean, he simply followed the Ahmadinejad unspecified "whatever" line. But in fact Rouhani did not say "whatever criminality" but naming the Nazi deeds a crime and genocide thereby really altering Iran's official position.

      And CNN said Rouhani called the Nazi genocide against jews "Holocaust" but Rouhani did not say that. So it means Iran does want to call the Nazi deeds against jews - and non-jews - a crime and genocide, but Iran does not want to label the Nazi deeds against jews "Holocaust."

      And what CNN said on Rouhani comparing the Nazi genocide against jews with the occupation of Palestine - a typical Ahmadinejad point and the basis for ADLs comdemnation of Rouhani's comments - is a complete fabrication of CNN. Rouhani spoke much more diplomatically.

      As I see it Rouhani with his comments walked a very fine line, and he opens ample space for a good discussion, for example on the topics of:

      - the singularity of this European crime
      - of giving the topic of this crime into a debate between historians (instead of making politics and forming identities with a specific interpretation of this crime)

    • Phil and Annie

      Rouhani did not deny the holocaust, but he did not say what you quoted from CNN. CNN fabricated parts of what you quoted. Fars News Agency reports what Rouhani really said was:

      "I have said before that I am not a historian and historians should specify, state and explain the aspects of historical events, but generally we fully condemn any kind of crime committed against humanity throughout the history, including the crime committed by the Nazis both against the Jews and non-Jews, the same way that if today any crime is committed against any nation or any religion or any people or any belief, we condemn that crime and genocide. Therefore, what the Nazis did is condemned, (but) the aspects that you talk about, clarification of these aspects is a duty of the historians and researchers, I am not a history scholar."

      Source:

      link to english.farsnews.com

      I think the discussion about what Rouhani said will be better when it is based on what he actually said and not based on fabrications from CNN.

  • Netanyahu calls Iran's opening a 'smokescreen' 'on its path to the bomb'
    • Yes, of course, Rouhani did not deny the crime and he also condemned it. But other than CNN claimed Rouhani did not name the crime "Holocaust" and he did not give this crime some kind of singularity.

      It's very much in line with a third world view that Europeans committed many crimes, from starting horrific wars including WWI and WWII, practicing slavery and colonialisation, committing genocides in Africa, genocide against native cultures in America to christianize them, burning people alive and feeding them to dogs and many more, some of them - like the ethnic cleansing of Palestine - lasting to the present time. So the conclusion is the European or "western" culture is just very violent and it's history full of many ugly crimes.

      From that point of view the Nazi crime against the jews is just one more crime committed by Europeans. A crime committed by Europeans against Europeans, in the frame of a war started by Europeans, a world war under which many people in the world suffered, including the Iranians.

      So Rouhani didn't assign the Nazi crime against the jews "singularity" and thereby he infuriates the zionists who try to build a kind of "holocaust religion" from the Nazi crime against the jews.

    • CNN is not a serious news organization. They regularly fabricate news instead of reporting news. Anyone remembering Avaaz Syria Danny on CNN?

      link to youtube.com

      And, as CNN has the habbit of fabricating news, CNN also fabricated the Rouhani's words. Fars News reports what Rouhani really said:

      link to english.farsnews.com

      WSJ already acknowledged that CNN fabricated what Rouhani said:

      link to stream.wsj.com

  • Rouhani has 'American blood on his hands,' Emergency Committee for Israel says
    • If I'ld be Rouhani I'ld put another question to Amanpour:

      Do you believe that the US helped us - the Islamic movement - to get rid of the Shah and make Khomeini the leader of Iran?

      I'ld be interested in her answer, cause Amanpour is not only married to Zionism, but also a relative of the Shah, and I think, she is a great supporter of the Shah, and that's where her hatred for the Islamtic Republic comes from. And the Shah said he believed the US and the Brits was behind his ouster.

    • Let's see how Rouhani's message contrasts with that of the Israel lobby.

      The New York Times reports:

      Iran’s New President Preaches Tolerance in First U.N. Appearance

    • And, who may expect that the alleged quote was a misquote?

      As far as I understand, the Mehr News article in question is this one:

      link to mehrnews.com

      And, as far as I understand what Rouhani said, a good translation of what he said may be:

      "It is easy to say death to America but what's important is to thwart the American conspiracies."

      That sounds to me completely different than what the Israel lobby claims as what he said.

Showing comments 440 - 401
Page:

Comments are closed.