Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Israel’


He’s a world class thug. He represents the worst of rogue state leadership. He exceeds Sharonian evil. Why Israelis put up with him they’ll have to explain.

He’s militantly racist. He deplores peace. He thrives on violence and instability. He blames Palestinians for Israeli crimes.

He calls sham peace talks legitimate ones. They’ve been stillborn decades. They remain so now.

Netanyahu wants Palestinians denied all rights. He wants them cowed into submission. He wants his rules enforced.

Palestinians have no legitimate peace partner. They never did. For sure not now. They’re on their own like always. Israel spurns equity and justice. Occupation harshness persists.

On Wednesday, Netanyahu ordered government officials to stop cooperating with PA ones. It’s in response to Abbas’ “grave violation of (his) commitments to the framework of the peace talks,” he claimed.

He lied saying so. Israel bears full responsibility. He stressed eliminating meetings between Israeli ministers and their Palestinian counterparts.

He did so in response to Abbas applying to join 15 UN bodies and treaties. He wants Palestinians denied their legal rights.

Cabinet secretary Avichai Mendelblit informed Israeli minsters by telephone. Only low-level cooperation is permitted.

Israeli Defense Ministry/PA contacts continue. Maintaining them relates to security. Abbas serves as Israel’s enforcer. Peace talks aren’t affected.

Fatah official Mohammed al-Madani said he’s unaware of details on what happened. “If true, this decision is mistaken,” he said.

“It’s impossible to sever the ties between Israelis and Palestinians. We must continue to have normal relations in order to reach a just and lasting peace.”

Opposition Labor chairman Isaac Herzog reacted. He accused Netanyahu of aggravating sensitive conditions.

“The prime minister is handing petrol and flammable materials to the last of Israel’s haters,” said Herzog.

“It’s not clear what good will come of this superfluous move of cutting off relations with the Palestinian Authority,” he added. “In fact, it’s quite clear what damage will come of this step.”

“It will harm the interests of the state of Israel and its economic sector. The prime minister has begun a process of disengagement between Israel the world.”

“This is the result of frustration and helplessness, and the prime minister of Israel’s lack of ability to operate within a plan and reached any sort of achievement in that realm. Frustration and helplessness are not diplomatic policy.”

Meretz party MK Nitzan Horowitz said:

“Netanyahu is confirming that he killed the diplomatic process after making the talks explode, when he didn’t give them a real chance in the first place. He’s destroying what’s left.”

He’s hurting Israel most, he added. His action is “irresponsible” and “dangerous.”

Environmental Protection minister called his decision “useless.” It “deserv(ed) prior discussion,” he added.

“I intend to ask the prime minister to hold an in-depth discussion on the significance and implications of this decision,” he said.

Finance Committee chairman Nissan Slomiansky supports the move. Palestinians need contacts more than Israel, he said.

“It’s a serious mistake to think that we need to pay a price just so people will talk to us,” he added.

“I commend the prime minister for his decision to respond with determination to the Palestinian Authority’s provocations.”

Hardline Economy Minister Naftali Bennett called settlement construction Israel’s divine right.

“Some people describe the construction as a boom in settlement activities, and I am telling them we will continue to build in the capital of our Jewish homeland,” he said.

“Some tried to prevent us from living in our capital, but Zionism will continue to build, nobody will ever be able to stop us.”

PA spokesman Ehab Bseiso said Israel undermined efforts “to revive the negotiations, to proceed with a constructive solution to the challenges facing the peace process.”

Former US peace negotiator Aaron David Miller claimed:

“A collapse of the (talks) add(s) to the perception that we really don’t know what we’re doing.”

Gulf Research Center senior advisor Mustafa Anali said Arab expectations of Washington are about as low as they can get.

“That’s because Arabs never trusted this administration as a peacemaker.”

Obama deplores peace. He’s a warrior. He waged multiple direct and proxy wars. He’s done so throughout his tenure. He’s targeting Russia. He’s playing with fire.

He wants all independent governments removed. He wants pro-US vassal states replacing them. He one-sidedly supports Israel. He says one thing. He does another.

Netanyahu goes way out of his way to incite conflict. He bears full responsibility for failed talks. Washington shares it. Kerry tried disingenuously to deflect blame.

Hours before Netanyahu’s order, he blamed Israel for impasse peace talks conditions. He did so during Senate Foreign Affairs Committee testimony.

He said Abbas applying for UN body memberships followed Israel disrupting so-called peace talks.

“Both sides, whether advertently or inadvertently, wound up in positions where things happened that were unhelpful,” he said.

“Clearly, going to these treaties is not helpful, and we have made that crystal-clear,” he added.

“Unfortunately, prisoners were not released on the Saturday they were supposed to be released. And so day one went by, day two went by, day three went by.”

“And then in the afternoon, when they were about to maybe get there, 700 settlement units were announced in Jerusalem and, poof, that was sort of the moment. We find ourselves where we are”  now.

Damage control followed Kerry’s testimony. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said he was misunderstood. He didn’t place blame primarily on either party, she claimed.

“Secretary Kerry has been consistently crystal clear that both sides have taken unhelpful steps, and at no point has he engaged in a blame game,” she said.

“The fact is, it is up to the parties and their leaders to determine whether they are going to make the tough choices needed, and that has always been the case.”

Kerry’s above quoted comments need no further explanation. He blamed both sides. He criticized Israel most. It deserves it entirely.

Abbas should have joined all world bodies years ago. He should have done much more. He abstained instead of acting responsibly.

Throughout his tenure, he’s been a reliable Israeli collaborator. Betrayal defines his policy. Joining world bodies doesn’t matter without willingness to use them.

Most important is holding Israel responsible for high crimes too grave to ignore. Abbas never did so before. Expect nothing this different time.

Failure renders his action meaningless. Kerry and Netanyahu made mountains out of mole hills. Criticizing legal Palestinian rights reveals their true agenda.

They want them entirely denied. They want Israel alone afforded them. They want Palestinians ruthlessly exploited. They want war, not peace.

Israel reacted sharply to Kerry’s remarks. An unnamed Israeli official was “deeply disappointed.” He referred to what he called his “poof speech.”

He countered holding Palestinians responsible for Israel’s intransigence. Kerry’s remarks “both hurt the negotiations and harden Palestinian positions,” he claimed.

Kerry “knows that it was the Palestinians who said ‘no’ to continued direct talks with Israel in November; who said ‘no’ to his proposed framework for final status talks; who said ‘no’ to even discussing recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; who said ‘no’ to a meeting with Kerry himself; and who said ‘no’ to an extension of the talks,” he said.

“At the same time, in the understandings reached prior to the talks, Israel did not commit to any limitation on construction.”

“Therefore, the Palestinian claim that building in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, was a violation of the understandings is contrary to the facts.”

“Both the American negotiating team and the Palestinians know full well that Israel made no such commitment.”

An unnamed PA official holds Israel entirely responsible. It’s “undermining the American role in the peace process,” he said.

Palestinian negotiators “never raised any issue that is not already an Israeli obligation.”

Settlement construction is illegal, he stressed. Israel is obligated to halt it entirely. Failure to release prisoners agreed on threw fuel on the fire.

Months of talks reveal failure. Israel “clearly show(s) no interest” in viable Palestinian statehood.

It demands Abbas rescind his world body applications. Palestinian officials said they stand as submitted. They won’t be reversed.

An unnamed Israeli official said “Israel wants to see the negotiations continue and will persist in its efforts to resolve the current crisis.”

At the same time, he warned: “In response to unilateral Palestinian steps, Israel will take unilateral steps of its own.”

It began doing so. It widens the gap between both sides. It makes conflict resolution less likely.

Given Israel’s longstanding hardline position, it’s virtually impossible. With Netanyahu in charge, it’s zero.

Giving peace a chance is no option. Conflict resolution is more distant than ever.

Days earlier, Netanyahu imposed other punitive measures. He said more would follow. He suggested tax revenues due Palestine would be frozen.

Israel collects them and customs duties. It’s obligated to return them to PA officials. They provide operating revenues.

They amount to about $100 million monthly. They’re on goods imported into Palestine. Israel froze them earlier. It was during times of heightened security and diplomatic tensions.

Twenty-six political prisoners scheduled for release remain incarcerated. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and General Yoav Mordechai were told “to prepare a list of all possible measures.”

One suspends Palestine’s Wataniya wireless provider. It operates in the West Bank. Permission to do so in Gaza will be denied.

Implementing 3G cellular technology in PA-assigned areas is frozen. So are Area C promotion master plans.

On Tuesday, Abbas arrived in Cairo. He came for an emergency Arab League foreign ministers meeting. It convened at his request.

Failed peace talks were discussed. He asked for economic help. He wants $100 million monthly in case Israel withholds tax revenues.

Arab League foreign ministers want talks continued. Why they’ll have to explain. They’re futile. They reflect decades of failure. Nothing is different this time.

London-based Asharq Al-Awsat quoted unnamed Palestinian sources saying PA “leadership is open to the idea of extending negotiations but not at any price.”

In response to Netanyahu ordering government officials to stop cooperating with PA ones, Hamas called for ending PA security coordination with Israel.

It urged greater resistance against occupation harshness. It said Palestinians should “give full rein” to doing so.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoun said Abbas should act based on Netanyahu’s decision. He should let resistance “deter the Israeli occupation and defend our people, our land, and our holy sites.”

He should end negotiations. He should recruit regional and international opposition. He should challenge Israeli lawlessness. If not now, when?

Failed peace talks show Hamas was right. Negotiating with Israel assures failure. Doing so negatively impacts Palestinians. They’re much worse off than ever.

Earlier talks did more harm than good. Sham ones work this way. They accomplish nothing. They give Israel free rein to benefit at Palestinians’ expense.

They suffer horrifically under Israel’s boot. Nothing suggests improvement going forward.

Challenging Israeli repression responsibly matters most. The alternative is slow-motion suffocation.

original link, Rense.com

Read Full Post »


Israel has once again carried out fresh airstrikes against the besieged Gaza Strip, less than two days after the regime’s aerial attacks on the coastal enclave.

Palestinian medical and security sources said Israeli jets on Saturday night pounded five sites in northern and southern parts of the strip.
The sources said the attacks caused no casualties.

In a statement, the Israeli army claimed that the attacks were in retaliation for a rocket fired from the coastal sliver.

Recently, Israel has intensified its attacks on Gaza.

In a pre-dawn operation on Friday, Israeli fighter jets carried out seven air raids and fired nearly 18 rockets at different parts of the blockaded territory.

On March 26, Israeli forces fired at the boats near the city of Rafah, situated 30 kilometers (19 miles) south of Gaza City, injuring four fishermen.

Gaza has been blockaded over the past seven years, a situation that has caused a decline in the standard of living, unprecedented levels of unemployment, and unrelenting poverty.

The apartheid regime of Israel denies about 1.7 million people in Gaza their basic rights such as freedom of movement, jobs that pay proper wages, and adequate healthcare and education.

Tel Aviv continues its raids on the Gaza Strip despite signing a ceasefire following its eight-day-war on the Palestinian enclave in 2012.

original link

 

Read Full Post »


Here’s a good example of the dysfunctional elite in their sense of timing with Mr. Apocalypse. The stunning, lying hypocrisy of the government in The Land of The Me and the Home of the Slave, is the stuff of Grand Guignol, Arguably they know they are lying, morally bankrupt, sacks of shit but they can’t help themselves. They’re a lot like someone who wants to entertain so badly that they don’t mind that their general audience (the ones who appreciate them) have an IQ south of 70 or resemble the residents of a Florida geriatric complex that has forgotten their own names and doesn’t know yours (until they get wired up with the necessary tech).

It doesn’t matter. It’s all about the smell of the grease paint and the roar of the crowd and irrespective of your performance being not unlike that of a south of the border dog and pony porno flick, you’re unmoved by the obvious comparison. You’re in show business, proud as all get out to follow the elephant in the circus parade.

Since we are looking at either an upcoming Cannibal Apocalypse or a tabla rasa, it’s probably important for you to learn a few survival skills in the short term, as the long term always seems to take care of itself and also depend heavily on the short term anyway, That’s just one of the things you might profit from knowing and if it interests you, then… there’s a whole bunch more. I give this out by way of exampling the point that there are all kinds of things we could know and even some that we should know. As always though, it all depends on where you look.

This world, being a world of misdirection, is devoted to detours, also called umleitung in certain locations. Because of conditioning, people are unaware that they are being routed to one form of perdition or another and also convinced that what’s truly good for them is frightening and dangerous, as well as destructive to their social standing. You see forms of this every day, like that Austrian study that says vegetarians are more likely to catch cancer and have heart disease than meat eaters. In case you didn’t see it, here it is. Given the connection between colon cancer and meat eating, this is complete disinfo. I could go into detail about how very, very wrong this is but… why bother? Only certifiable morons would believe something like that. Yeah, if you believe that, I’ve got an insertable, vibrating iPhone5 that works as a Kundalini activator and also records messages and then transmits them to your inner ear. You too can hear voices. You’re living the dream, baby.

In the world of scriptural incidentals there are a whole lot of different creeds and convictions. Within all of the major manifestations of the teaching of one or the other simple, though illuminated souls, there are many schisms and each one of them is certain they have the right idea, which came birthed out of an imagined integrity to recapture the original duplication of something that has happened over and over many times before and most of which are unremembered and, indeed, of which no record even exists. Their imagined integrity was driven by an awareness of corruption in the original duplication and didn’t last all that long before it developed corruptions of its own. Sometimes it came out of a corruption within, where the founder discovered that all that was required was to rehash the teachings of the original duplicate and they would have their own money machine. They would have their own money machine AND be swathed in personal mystery that was guaranteed to provide them with bodies of whatever sexual persuasion they were inclined to express themselves upon, as a verification of their authentic rewriting of one or the other original duplication.

It’s impacted on every so called spiritual path that there is, whether that be Sunni, Wahhabi or Shiite, Mahayana or Hinayana, or any of the subvariables; including all of the myriad Christian sects. Truth is neither dual nor non dual. Using terms is not the same as understanding them and carrying a heavy attitude about ones level of insight is proof positive one possesses none. Even singular new age constructs have their offshoots and ingrown toenails of convoluted doctrine. Satanism isn’t what it used to be either, since most of it is just a reverse moralized cover for psychopathic antics, having only incidental connection to any actual worship of anything besides the evil in one’s self… hardly a satisfactory facsimile of the Prince of Darkness.

The truth of the matter, insofar as I have discovered and which only applies in that regard; leaving you free to believe whatever you please is… all this dual and non dual and having a head full of dogmatic cant and the fruits of metaphysical speculation birthed from the ruminations of a tiny separated mind add up to, well, squat actually. Sure… there is truth to be discovered in both dual and non dual thought but, it is not discovered, it is revealed and unless you’ve impressed the dispenser of all things real, you don’t have much except for your pretensions and whatever sophistication you’ve managed to engineer into whatever front you present to the world. Anyone can have the ear of the world for a moment or two and anyone can attain to levels of relative importance in the relative world but not everyone has the friendship of the ineffable or his agents and without that, you got nothing.

Of course, anyone and everyone is free to dispute this and to insist that there is some other way, or that one can damn well accomplish whatever they want, as a product of their own industry. But… whatever it is that you think you have acquired or come into the possession of will only sustain itself up unto the gates of death. Following that little incidental, one finds themselves engaged in a dialogue with a particular entity, to whom one must give an account of their words, actions and accomplishments (or lack of) here.

I will allow for there being the possibility that any number of loopholes and metaphysical wormholes may exist but I’m not keen to pursue any of those possibilities. I am utterly and completely convinced that you can’t get from here to there without a bonafide guide. I’m convinced you can’t get there without the grace of a master, or luminous entity with juice in the higher realms. I am convinced that we are all among the condemned, unless we have a friend of the court; an amicus curiae to plead our case… someone to say, “Hey, he’s with me” and that would be one who has already passed through the checkpoints you MUST PASS THROUGH in order to arrive in the worlds of light. Far greater souls than myself have attested to this and I have also heard it from the one who decides these things in one form or, seen and unseen.

Another thing that Bawa said, this time about me, when a friend went to him during the period I was in deep shit and facing a life sentence was, “Oh, he’s be alright, he’s just taken a different path.” I’m quite certain he wasn’t just talking about that particular condition. It’s because of this and similar statements and events that have come and gone and also permanently branded themselves upon my soul that I awaken with such a perpetuating optimism. It’s all those things hidden in the wide unknown, in the zones I am unaware of but which radiate with invisible force through every day and night.

If what you have discovered is real, it will not only endure, it will intensify, as ones connection to it strengthens through trial, test and experience. Eventually everything but this departs and these other things make their exits in the course of your “Voyage of Life.” When the parts that make all these distractions possible are gone from within you, they are simultaneously gone from without.

One can only understand anything from the level one occupies. The meaning given to anything and ones ability to use or apply anything, is totally dependent on what the level permits. Once the level shifts, it is altogether possible that both the meaning and function of most anything can radically alter from what it seemed to be. This is one more reason why, “I don’t know” is a most potent mantra. Conscious, “I don’t know”, coupled with humility and a sincere core of genuine aspiration, will engineer contact with the one who does know. Nothing is more important than making contact; in my view, from my perspective, in my opinion. Absolutely nothing I can imagine is more important than making a personal connection with the ineffable. Following that, everything takes care of itself as if by magic; seen in comparison with anything that went on before.

original link

Read Full Post »


Read Full Post »



The international campaign calling for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, as a peaceful means of persuading that state to abandon its systematic violations of international law and its policies of apartheid dispossession, colonization, and blockade in the occupied Palestinian territories, has recently enjoyed a burgeoning number of successes.1

In early February 2014, The Economist noted that BDS “is turning mainstream,”2 and former Israeli Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg wrote in Haaretz that the “BDS movement is gaining momentum and is approaching the turning point [.... at which] sanctions against Israel will become a fait accompli.”3

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a point of indicating that he and his allies would respond vigorously to this trend. Some of the reports about a cabinet meeting where these tactics were discussed revealed more about internecine divisions than about the substance of the meeting: “Netanyahu convenes strategy meeting to fight boycotts”—but he deliberately excluded some senior ministers: “Left Ministers Kept Out of Secret Cabinet BDS Session.”4 Yet although Israeli media indicated “that ‘the discussion was held in secret’, with an imposed ‘media blackout’,” one source that reported this fact was able to give a fairly precise sense of what went on behind closed doors:

 Ideas apparently discussed by senior ministers included lawsuits “in European and North American courts against [pro-BDS] organizations” and “legal action against financial institutions that boycott settlements … [and complicit] Israeli companies”. There is also the possibility of “encouraging anti-boycott legislation in friendly capitals around the world, such as Washington, Ottawa and Canberra”, and “activat[ing] the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.” for such a purpose.5

This kind of “lawfare,” as it is sometimes called, is nothing new (nor, one can add, is the notion, also discussed at this meeting, of bolstering surveillance of pro-BDS organizations by military intelligence, the Shin Bet Security Service, and the Mossad). It’s also evident that the pro-Israel lobby has been active in mobilizing politicians in the “friendly capitals” of Washington, Ottawa, and Canberra for many years.

Recent fruits of that labour have included, in Canberra, threats made in June 2013 by Julie Bishop, a senior member of Julia Gillard’s incoming Australian government, that “supporters of an academic boycott of Israel” would have their “access to public research funds summarily cut off.”6 In Washington, a bipartisan “Protect Academic Freedom Act” that would deny federal funding “to colleges and universities that participate in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars”7 has been brought before Congress.

 But what of Canada, whose Prime Minister is Mr. Netanyahu’s most faithful friend?8

This essay will argue that revisions to the Canadian Criminal Code proposed by the Harper government contain wording that is designed to enable lawfare prosecutions of human rights activists in precisely the manner desired by Mr. Netanyahu and his associates.

1. Bill C-13 and its deceptions

Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, received first reading in the House of Commons in November 2013. In a web page devoted to “Myths and Facts” about this bill, the Department of Justice rejects the “myth” that “Bill C-13 is an omnibus crime bill that deals with more than cyberbullying.”

 Bill C-13 is not an omnibus crime bill. It combines a proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to address cyberbullying with judicially-authorized tools to help police and prosecutors investigate not only the proposed new offence, but other existing offences that are committed via the Internet or that involve electronic evidence. [....] The Bill does not contain the former Bill C-30′s controversial amendments relating to warrantless access to subscriber information and telecommunication infrastructure modification.9

 However, Dr. Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, has observed that Bill C-13 does indeed retain provisions that permit an increased warrantless access to personal information, far beyond what is envisioned by the current Criminal Code.10 Criminal lawyer Michael Spratt has denounced the bill as a “digital Trojan horse for the surveillance state”:

most of C-13 has little to do with protecting victims [of cyber-bullying]. This bill would recklessly expand the surveillance powers of the state. It sacrifices personal privacy. It limits or eliminates judicial oversight. It is inconsistent with recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. It’s a dangerous bill.11

The Department of Justice’s claim that “Bill C-13 is not an omnibus crime bill” is transparently false. As another critic, Terry Wilson, has remarked, despite being promoted “as legislation to prevent online bullying, the bill actually has very little to do with bullies and has sections ranging from stealing cable, hacking, surveillance, to terrorism (cyberbullying accounts for 2 out of the 50 pages in the bill) [...]. The bill even includes ‘hate legislation’….”12

In this latter respect Bill C-13 incorporates, once again, a Trojan horse. The bill adds wording to the Hate Propaganda sections of the Criminal Code that seems, on the face of it, to do no more than to bring these sections into conformity with other parallel texts—with several important documents of international law, and with a sentencing provision later in the Criminal Code where the same wording already appears. But a second intention is also arguably at work in this part of Bill C-13, for there is good reason to believe that the new wording is intended, while deceptively avoiding any public debate over the matter, to make it possible to prosecute human rights discourse and advocacy relating to the oppressive treatment of Palestinians by the state of Israel as hate speech or incitement of hatred.

This view of the intention underlying Bill C-13 is supported by Prime Minister Harper’s speech to the Israeli Knesset on January 20, 2014 (which will be discussed below). It can draw support as well from the fact that an identical change to the wording of the French penal code made in 2003 by the so-called Lellouche Law has permitted the conviction of some twenty French human rights activists for incitement of racial hatred.13

The results in France have been paradoxical. France is, like Canada, a High Contracting Party of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949—whose first article states that “The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.”14 The people convicted for incitement of racial hatred under the Lellouche Law are participants in a movement that has been consistent in its firm rejection of antisemitism and all other forms of racism.15 This movement advocates a peaceful exertion of economic pressure with the aim of persuading the Israeli state to end its multiple and systematic violations of international law, including in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel has been repeatedly been condemned for flouting by UN committees and reports, as well as by independent agencies such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The facts of the matter are thus unambiguous: in enforcing the Lellouche Law, and redefining human rights activists as people guilty of hate crimes, the French state has simultaneously been violating its prior solemn commitment “to respect and to ensure respect for” the Fourth Geneva Convention “in all circumstances.”

One of the aims of Bill C-13 appears to be to place Canada in a similar situation of openly violating one of the central instruments of international law.

 2. Alterations to the meaning of Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code

Section 12 of Bill C-13 proposes several small additions within that part of the Criminal Code (Sections 318-321.1) that carries the subtitle “Hate Propaganda.” Section 12 reads as follows:

12. Subsection 318.(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental and physical disability.16

(The underlining here indicates the wording being added to the current Criminal Code by Bill B-13.)

These proposed additions within Section 318 of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the crime of “Advocating genocide,” also have an impact on the meaning and application of Section 319, which is concerned with the crimes of “Public incitement of hatred” and “Wilful promotion of hatred,” and in which—as Subsection 319.(7) states—“’identifiable group’ has the same meaning as in section 318”. The relevant clauses in Section 319 read as follows:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

 (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

 (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

 (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

 (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

 (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.17

 The most noteworthy addition to the concept of “identifiable group” is that of the category of national origin, which has no evident connection to the ostensible purpose of Bill C-13, but may be understood as linked to another agenda that was forcefully enunciated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in his January 20, 2014 speech to the Israeli Knesset—namely, that of re-defining criticism of the policies and behaviour of the nation-state of Israel in relation to its Palestinian citizens and to the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territories as hate propaganda.

 As a February 2014 report in the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz indicated, the hate-crime convictions in France several months previously of twelve human rights activists, supporters of the international campaign advocating boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, were secured under the Lellouche Law, which “extended the definition of discrimination beyond the expected parameters of race, religion and sexual orientation to include members of national groups.”18

 3. The Lellouche Law: another Trojan horse?

 Whether intentionally or not, the Lellouche Law has functioned as a kind of Trojan horse. Dr. Jean-Yves Camus has remarked that this law, “passed on 3 February 2003, in the wake of an unprecedented wave of anti-Semitic violence, allows judges to impose harsher sanctions upon perpetrators of racist violence, than those they would normally receive in the case of a similar act of violence not motivated by racism.”19 As the Haaretz report on the criminalization of BDS activism in France indicates, the law’s ostensible purpose, at a time when the openly antisemitic, anti-immigrant and neofascist Front National of Jean-Marie LePen had been attracting increased support, in southern France especially, was “to strengthen French republican values and counter sectarian tendencies”:

The law was passed in 2003, shortly after unprecedented gains by the far right National Front party in the presidential election.

 The measure was designed to respond to a social climate of not only mounting anti-Semitism, but also anti-Arab discrimination and xenophobia.20

 The “Outline of motives” that prefaced the Lellouche Law when it was presented to the Assemblée Nationale in November 2002 was explicit in its repeated statements that the additions to the Penal Code proposed by this law were primarily intended to target openly racist violence: “violences ouvertement racistes,” “actes de violence intentionellement racistes,” “violences à caractère raciste,” “agressions à caractère raciste.”21 Although this text specified that racist violence could be “moral” as well as physical,22 the two recent examples it offered to the deputies of the Assemblée Nationale were the “openly racist murder” of a young Frenchman of Moroccan origin in northern France in October 2002, and racist aggression directed against young students of a private Jewish school in the 13th arrondissement of Paris in early November.23 Noting that existing French laws already targeted racial discrimination, the incitement of hatred or violence, and Holocaust revisionism, the prefatory outline defined the purpose of this law as being to significantly enhance the penalties imposed in cases where attacks on people or property are racist in character—as when racism is involved in acts of torture and barbarism, violence resulting unintentionally in death, and acts leading to mutilation or permanent disability, as well as acts involving damage to or the destruction of property.24

Despite this explicit statement of intention, the Lellouche Law has been applied in another manner altogether—on the pretext that in eight of its nine articles it includes the category of “nation” in the definition of groups that can be understood as victimized. As the Haaretz report indicates, this law “has been invoked repeatedly against anti-Israel activists. France has seen 10 trials against BDS supporters based on Lellouche.”25

Pascal Markowitz, head of the BDS legal task force of the Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF), is frank in his assessment of the Lellouche Law’s instrumental value. He is quoted by Haaretz as saying that “the law is ‘the most effective legislation on BDS today.’ ‘We had only one acquittal, so the statistics are looking good,’ he said.”26 But other political figures in France have taken a different view of the matter:

“These convictions are unconscionable,” Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, a French member of the European Parliament, said at a special session on the case in Strasbourg in 2011. “Governments are doing nothing to end Israel’s illegal occupation [of the Palestinian territories] and the French court is wrongfully denying citizens from acting through BDS.”27

 It’s important to understand what is meant, in the present context, by a “Trojan horse.” In every version of the ancient story, from Homer to Virgil,28 the essential point is the same. The hollow wooden horse was a duplicitous stratagem used by the Greek army that had for ten years been besieging Troy; it succeeded because the horse was deceptively dual-purpose in nature. Pretending to abandon their siege, the Greeks left this huge artefact behind: its plausible overt function was as an offering to the gods, which the Trojans were persuaded to drag into their city in celebration of their supposed victory. But it also had a second concealed function—as a treacherous means of getting a body of armed Greeks inside the walls of Troy, so that they could open the city gates at night when the rest of their army returned.

 The Lellouche Law has served as a Trojan horse because when it was passed it seemed an appropriate and plausible means of dealing with an increase in racially motivated violence in France that coincided with an upsurge in support for a frankly racist far-right political party. But the law has since been used for a quite different purpose: that of criminalizing the discourse of human rights activists who speak out in support of respecting and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law.

 4. The insertion of “national” into Sections 318 and 319: just “housecleaning”?

 According to a report by Paul McLeod of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, the addition of the word “national” to Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code is explained by the Department of Justice as being “designed to match the wording of a protocol from the Council of Europe, a human rights organization.”29 The reference is to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, adopted in Strasbourg in January 2003. In Chapter I, Article 2.1 of this text the word “national” occurs in a definition of the groups understood to be victimized by “racist and xenophobic material.”30

 McLeod indicates that some legal experts have proposed that the change is “likely a mere housecleaning amendment to bring the Criminal Code in line with the wording of other statutes.”31 The word “national” does indeed occur in similar contexts in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20, and in Article 2 of the UN Convention on Genocide. Moreover, Bill C-13 brings Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code into conformity with the sentencing provision in Section 718, which already includes all the groups (national origin, age, sex, and mental and physical disability) that were not included in Section 318.(4) but have now been added.

A “housecleaning” explanation of the changes is thus entirely plausible.

 However, the housecleaning has not actually been very thorough. In its current form, Section 318 of the Criminal Code, which defines the appropriate punishment for the crime of advocating or promoting genocide, is a somewhat peculiar text—for its subsection 2, while clearly derived from Article 2 of the UN Convention on Genocide, omits clauses (b), (d), and (e) of that article’s definition.32

 David MacDonald and Graham Hudson have remarked that when Parliament ratified the Convention on Genocide in 1952, it excluded some of the clauses of Article 2 from Canada’s Criminal Code, on the grounds that matters such as the forcible removal of children are not relevant to this country. (Given the existence of Canada’s system of church-run residential schools, into whose custody native children were forcibly transferred, it seems obvious that the last clause of the Convention’s Article 2 was excluded in bad faith.) MacDonald and Hudson note as well that when in 2000 Parliament adopted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, it thereby made the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (which includes the Convention on Genocide’s full definition of genocide) a part of Canadian statutory law.33 Section 318 of the Criminal Code is thus anomalous in its current form, in that its definition of the crime of genocide excludes clauses which are nonetheless part of Canadian statutory law because of their incorporation into the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

 In a thorough housecleaning of this part of the Criminal Code, the inclusion of the three omitted clauses from Article 2 of the Convention on Genocide would have been an obvious step to take.

I mention this not because it tells with any force against a “housecleaning” explanation of Bill C-13′s insertion of the word “national” into Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code: as noted above, that explanation remains wholly plausible. But what this example does suggest is that the framers of Bill C-13 may not have been single-mindedly focused on housecleaning.

 Prime Minister Harper’s January 20, 2014 address to the Israeli Knesset leads us toward a second explanation of the purpose of Bill C-13′s insertion of the word “national” into the definition of groups that can be victimized by hate propaganda. In suggesting that this speech reveals with some clarity the thinking that underlies this addition to the text of the Criminal Code, I do not mean to imply that the primary and overt explanation of the change as a “housecleaning” matter is displaced by this second underlying intention—for that is not how Trojan horses work.

 A Trojan horse is by its nature duplicitous, but that duplicity can only be successful to the degree that the horse’s overt and primary purpose remains plausible.

5. Prime Minister Harper’s January 20, 2014 address to the Israeli Knesset

In this speech the Prime Minister asked, rhetorically, what it is today that threatens societies that, like Israel, embrace “the ideals of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.” His answer was sweeping:

Those who scorn modernity, who loathe the liberty of others, and who hold the differences of peoples and cultures in contempt. Those who, often begin by hating the Jews, but, history shows us, end up hating anyone who is not them. Those forces, which have threatened the state of Israel every single day of its existence, and which, today, as 9/11 graphically showed us, threaten us all.34

This might seem imprecise. But as Prime Minister Harper went on to explain, “we live in a world where [...] moral relativism runs rampant.”

And in the garden of such moral relativism, the seeds of much more sinister notions can easily be planted.

And so we have witnessed, in recent years, the mutation of the old disease of anti-Semitism and the emergence of a new strain.

We all know about the old anti-Semitism.

It was crude and ignorant, and it led to the horrors of the death camps.

Of course, in many dark corners, it is still with us.

But, in much of the Western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language for use in polite society.

People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for their own failings or the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state for the problems of the Middle East.

As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel.

On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students.

Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state.35

In the Prime Minister’s view, any profound criticism of Israeli policies and governance can only be a product of antisemitic hatred, spewed forth by people who are simply looking for further ways of victimizing Jews. By this account it is, very precisely, as members of a national group—as potential or actual citizens of Israel—that Jews are being victimized by these devious, sophisticated new antisemites. Canadian Jews could be counted among those victimized in this manner, for those who do not actually hold Israeli citizenship are all potentially Israeli nationals, under Israel’s Law of Return.

This claim that criticisms of Israel are motivated by a “new strain” of antisemitism, and can therefore legitimately be categorized and stigmatized as a form of hate propaganda, is not an invention of the Prime Minister. As the historian Norman G. Finkelstein wrote in 2005, “the allegation of a new anti-Semitism is neither new nor about anti-Semitism”: it is, rather, an ideology formulated in the early 1970s for the explicit purpose of deflecting pressures on the state of Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank that had been captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Days War.36

The following sections will show that the ideology and rhetoric of the “new antisemitism” have been decisively rejected by many contemporary Jewish scholars and public intellectuals, a significant number of whom have come to recognize in the moral debate within the Jewish community over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians a reason for adding their support to the growing international support for the movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. This division within the Jewish community provides further grounds for recognizing the Prime Minister’s claims as misleading and untrue. It will be shown as well that the judgment that Israel has become an apartheid state (which Mr. Harper regards as the ‘most disgraceful of all’) has in fact been endorsed by prominent scholars and public figures both in Israel and internationally—including in South Africa, a country whose legal experts and public figures could surely claim with some cause to know better than Mr. Harper what apartheid is.

6. Refuting the so-called “new antisemitism”

The “new antisemitism” can be briefly defined as a rhetorical gambit which consists in claiming that the tropes of antisemitism, one of whose traditional functions has been (and continues to be) to justify the exclusion of Jews from the full rights of citizenship in whatever country they inhabit, are now being turned against the “collective Jew,” as embodied in the state of Israel—with the purpose this time of excluding Jews as a national collective from enjoying their full rights of participation in the family of nations. The aim of this rhetorical turn is to defend Israeli policies and actions by proposing that their critics are only pretending to be acting on the basis of universal principles of justice and equity; these people are instead antisemites who in a “sophisticated” manner have redirected their hatred against the Jewish nation-state.

We can sample the workings of this gambit in three recent instances involving attributions of a re-deployment of some of the most vicious traditional tropes of antisemitism: the ‘Jew’ as embodiment of abjection, filth and excrement; the ‘Jew’ as a contaminating presence or poisoner (most especially of communal water sources); and the ‘Jew’ as child-murderer.37 Over the centuries, antisemites have used all of these foul accusations, especially the third (known as the “blood libel”), to arouse mob violence and state persecutions of Jewish communities.

 The first of these tropes was turned against English journalist Johann Hari when he wrote in 2008 that he could not join the celebrations of the sixtieth year since Israel’s founding because of Israel’s well-documented mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, which has included the flushing of untreated sewage from illegal hilltop settlements onto Palestinian farmland, and an embargo on equipment needed to repair Gaza’s sewage system, resulting in potentially catastrophic health hazards. Britain’s Community Security Trust (parallel in some respects to B’nai Brith Canada) accused Hari of “us[ing] the themes of Israeli ‘raw untreated sewage’ and ‘shit’ to help explain why he could not bring himself to celebrate 60 years since Israel’s creation”—thus leaving readers to suppose, since no mention was made of Hari’s on-site reporting and references to reports on the subject, that he had engaged in a literally filthy piece of antisemitism aimed at the Jewish collectivity of Israel.38

 The second trope was activated by former Canadian Minister of Justice Irwin Cotler in a paper on “Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness,” published in the Jerusalem Post in 2004, in the course of which he declared that “in a world in which human rights has emerged as the new secular religion of our time, the [UN] portrayal of Israel as the metaphor for a human rights violator is an indictment of Israel as the ‘new anti-Christ’—as the ‘poisoner of the international wells’….”39 It is noteworthy that Cotler provides no indication of these antisemitic tropes being used by anyone in the UN committees he attacks—and one can only regret that a legal expert who earned an international reputation as an advocate of human rights has turned against that discourse to the point of caricaturing it as a pseudo-religion suffused with antisemitism.

The third trope was used on March 22, 2009 by Jonathan Kay, when he complained in the National Post that “From the opening days of the Gaza campaign [i.e. Operation Cast Lead], the blood-libels of ‘massacre’ and ‘genocide’ have flown thick and fast”; on the same day Melanie Phillips, writing in the Spectator, accused the Israeli newspaper Haaretz of a blood libel for having reported the testimony of Israeli soldiers that they had witnessed and participated in war crimes against Gaza civilians.40

 Common to all three cases is a deliberate avoidance of the material evidence relating to allegations of Israeli wrong-doing: any such evidence is conveniently made to vanish by a rhetorical inversion which turns the state of Israel from the victimizer of Palestinians into the victim of its antisemitic accusers, and turns the human rights activist or journalist who has gathered or reported on evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity into someone who must instead answer to charges of being an antisemitic disseminator of hatred.

 The rhetorical strategy of this ideology of the “new antisemitism,” in short, is to move expeditiously away from material evidence and into the domain of rhetorical inversions and slander. In 2009, Yuli Edelstein, Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, explained at the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism in Jerusalem how to go about it. The capital letters are his:

 We must repeat again and again these basic facts—TO BE ‘anti-Israel’ IS TO BE ANTI-SEMITIC. TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL, ISRAELI PROFESSORS and ISRAELI business, these are not political acts, these are acts of hate, acts of anti-Semitism! Anti-Israel hysteria is anti-Semitic hysteria. They are one and the same.41

 Leading Jewish intellectuals have been dismissive of the ideology out of which this rhetoric of a “new antisemitism” arises. Of the many who could be mentioned, I will cite just two.42 University of Oxford philosopher Brian Klug wrote in an essay on “The Myth of the New Antisemitism” that “when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing—the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance.”43 And American philosopher and literary theorist Judith Butler, while insisting that one must “refuse to brand as anti-Semitic the critical impulse or to accept anti-Semitic discourse as an acceptable substitute for critique,” has analyzed with characteristic lucidity the manner in which a false charge of antisemitism “works to immunize Israeli violence against critique by refusing to countenance the integrity of the claims made against that violence.” She has called for “a certain collective courage” to enable the public to “speak out, critically, in the face of obvious and illegitimate violence….”44

 An attempt to re-activate this already-refuted ideology of the “new antisemitism” was undertaken in Canada between 2009 and 2011 by a group of MPs, led by Irwin Cotler and by Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney, who formed themselves into a Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA). This attempt failed. Evidence given by senior police officers and university administrators to the inquiry held by the CPCCA refuted its claims that Canada is experiencing a surge of antisemitic incidents, and that Jews (especially those supportive of Israel) are routinely persecuted and harassed on Canadian campuses. The CPCCA, which had initially had all-party representation, lost its Bloc Québécois members, who resigned over the CPCCA’s refusal to give space in its hearings to human rights groups whose views differed from those of its principal organizers. The CPCCA’s final report was delayed for many months due to dissension prompted in part by the Conservative Party’s disgraceful attempts (for which Jason Kenney refused any apology) to undermine Irwin Cotler in his own riding with robocalls and a whispering campaign that charged him, ironically, with being insufficiently supportive of Israel. And although the CPCCA took pains not to accept any submission to its inquiry that was critical of its own announced presuppositions, eighteen of those submissions were published in a book that appeared many months before the CPCCA’s own belated report, and that was recommended in the Globe and Mail as late-summer reading “for Tories willing to learn.”45

7. The debate among Jews over the morality of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians

As mentioned above, many Jewish scholars and public intellectuals, both in Israel and internationally, have placed themselves firmly in opposition to Israel’s policies of apartheid treatment of the Palestinians and of ongoing colonization of the occupied territories. The mere fact that this is so, and that in Canada and elsewhere they are joined in this by many Jewish citizen activists, amounts to a living refutation of Prime Minister Harper’s repetition of the rhetoric of the “new antisemitism.”

 As one might expect, Israeli opinions as to the value of Harper’s speech were not unanimous. In confident anticipation of Harper’s declarations, Benjamin Netanyahu called him “a friend who always stands by us.”46 Other Israelis, though they are certainly in a minority, think differently. Uri Avnery, a former member of the Knesset, a founding figure in Israel’s (sadly faltering) peace movement, and an internationally respected journalist, dismissed Harper’s speech as “ridiculous.”47

 A fortnight after that speech was delivered, one of Israel’s leading sociologists, Professor Eva Illouz of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, published a long essay in Haaretz that explored the depth and significance of the division in Jewish opinion over the moral issue of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. The title of that essay, “47 years a slave: a new perspective on the occupation,” is striking enough;48 Illouz’s analysis is more so.

Illouz begins by remarking that on any given day, half or three-quarters of the news items in Haaretz “will invariably revolve around the same two topics: people struggling to protect the good name of Israel, and people struggling against its violence and injustices.” She points to two surprising features of this struggle: first, that while it involves copious mudslinging, “this mud is being thrown by Jews at Jews”; and secondly, that “the valiant combatants for the good name of Israel miss an important point: the critiques of Israel in the United States are increasingly waged by Jews, not anti-Semites.”49

Claiming that “If Israel is indeed singled out among the many nations that have a bad record in human rights, it is because of the personal sense of shame and embarrassment that a large number of Jews in the western world feel toward a state that, by its policies and ethos, does not represent them anymore,” Illouz cites the observation of Peter Beinart that “the Jewish people seems to have split into two distinct factions….”50

Unlike most communal divisions in history, this one, she says, has occurred over a moral issue, that of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Both sides claim to be impelled by moral imperatives. What she calls the “security as morality” group feel that “because Jews were the super victim of history and because of Israel’s inherently vulnerable state amidst a sea of enemies,” Israel “is twice morally beyond reproach.” The second group

derives its positions from universal standards of justice, and from the observation that Israel is fast moving away from the pluralistic, multiethnic, pacific democracies of the world. Israel stopped being a valid source of identification for these Jews not because they are self-hating, but because many of them have been actively involved, in deed or thought, in the liberalization of their respective societies—that is, in the extension of human, economic and social rights to a wider variety of groups.51

Illouz then argues, at length, that the best historical analogy for understanding this communal division is the nineteenth-century debate in the United States over slavery.

Two factors make this analogy persuasive. The first follows from the view of Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson, “a specialist in the history and sociology of slavery,” that the central fact about slavery is not that people are bought and sold as property, but rather that they are forced to endure a condition of “permanent, violent and personal domination” and of being “natally alienated and generally dishonored.”52 Illouz observes that “what started as a national and military conflict” between Israelis and Palestinians  has morphed into a form of domination of Palestinians that now increasingly borders on conditions of slavery. If we understand slavery as a condition of existence and not as ownership and trade of human bodies, the domination that Israel has exercised over Palestinians turns out to have created the matrix of domination that I call “a condition of slavery.”53

As she explains in detail, this matrix of domination includes subjection to arbitrary arrest, incarceration, and torture; the imposition of a Kafkaesque legal system quite unlike the one under which Jewish Israelis live; military attacks (which have included using Palestinians as “human shields”), as well as violence and property destruction inflicted with impunity by settlers; severe restrictions on movement and an accompanying economic strangulation; restrictions on marriage, and a systematic undermining of property ownership; and the imposition of “a permanent sense of dishonor” on people who “conduct their lives without predictability and continuity, live in fear of Jewish terror and of the violence of the Israeli military power, and are afraid to have no work, shelter or family.”54

The second factor is the shocking degree to which an ideology of inherent Jewish superiority to Arabs—fully analogous to the biblically-supported doctrines of white supremacy preached by pro-slavery advocates in nineteenth-century America—has been adopted in Israel to legitimize the subjugation of Palestinians, in a now-mainstream settlers’ discourse. “Like the whites in the American south,” Illouz writes, Israeli Jews “view themselves as obviously more moral, superior, civilized, technologically and economically far more accomplished than the inferior Arabs”; and “exactly like their southern 19th-century counterparts the settlers have abundantly sanctified the land through Bible narratives and see themselves, like the proslavery owners, as executing God’s will.”55

As a responsible scholar, Illouz explains very precisely both the limitations of this analogy and also—through extended analysis and citation that unfold full details of the conditions of slavery endured by Palestinians and the discourse of domination that has become implanted in Israel—its explanatory power.

Her conclusions are indeed forceful. Israel, although it is “the most security-conscious state on the planet,”  has failed to make its conflict with the Palestinians into a military one. Instead, it has been dragged into a humanitarian disaster that has provoked a moral war and unbridgeable rift within the Jewish people. The public relations strategies of the state will not silence this moral war.

This also implies an increasing international isolation:

Israel is dangerously sailing away from the moral vocabulary of most countries of the civilized world. The fact that many readers will think that my sources are unreliable because they come from organizations that defend human rights proves this point. Israel no longer speaks the ordinary moral language of enlightened nations. But in refusing to speak that language, it is de facto dooming itself to isolation.56

It should be obvious how strongly Professor Illouz’s essay tells against the false pieties of Stephen Harper’s Knesset speech. On the most basic level of fact, Mr. Harper’s claim that critics of Israel’s policies and governance are by definition antisemites is exposed as wretchedly untrue—and one might hope that the analogy Professor Illouz develops at such length and with such precision would make even someone of his moral obliquity to squirm.

 8. Most disgracefully of all … an apartheid state

In the concluding section of her essay, Eva Illouz remarks that Israelis fail to understand the nature of their colonization and occupation “because language has itself been colonized.” Most Israelis interpret the occupation in terms of “terrorists and enemies, and the world sees weak, dispossessed and persecuted people. The world reacts with moral outrage at Israel’s continued domination of Palestinians, and Israel ridicules such moral outrage as an expression of double standards….” Because of this “colonization” of discourse, “the debate dividing the Jewish people is more difficult than the debate about slavery, because there is no agreement even on how to properly name the vast enterprise of domination that has been created in the territories.”57

There is in fact quite widespread agreement—at least on the “universal standards of justice” side of the divide analyzed by Professor Illouz—as to an appropriate name.58

The term “apartheid” was applied with clinical accuracy by Marwan Bishara in 2001 to describe what Israel has done in the occupied territories from the early 1990s onward, “physically and demographically divid[ing] up the West Bank and Gaza into islands of poverty, or bantustans, while maintaining economic domination and direct control over Palestinian land and natural resources.”59 It was re-used by former US President Jimmy Carter in 2006—a usage validated in 2007 by Israel Prize laureate and former Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni.60 And in January 2010, Henry Siegman, the former Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress and current President of the US/Middle East Project of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote that Israel’s “relentless” construction of new settlements “seems finally to have succeeded in locking in the irreversibility of its colonial project. As a result of that ‘achievement,’ one that successive Israeli governments have long sought in order to preclude the possibility of a two-state solution, Israel has crossed the threshold from ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ to the only apartheid regime in the Western world.”61

As Dr. Jason Kunin has remarked, there is a pungent irony to the fact that while Canadian university administrators—not to mention politicians—denounce as unacceptable any application of the term “apartheid” to the structures of land theft, cantonment, and racialized subjugation, separation, and oppression of a subject-population that characterize Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, “South African legal scholars, who might be expected to have a more immediate understanding of the nature of apartheid, have not hesitated to describe the state of Israel’s behaviour in the occupied Palestinian territories as ‘a colonial system that implements a system of apartheid.’”62 (His reference is to a report by South African scholars and jurists published by the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa in May, 2009: Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A reassessment of Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law.)63

A finding that the state of Israel has implemented a system of apartheid has consequences under international law—in which apartheid is defined as a crime against humanity. It is scarcely surprising, then, that as Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu has observed, “Some people are enraged by comparison between the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and what happened in South Africa….” But as Tutu went on to insist, “For those of us who lived through the dehumanizing horrors of the apartheid era, the comparison seems not only apt, it is also necessary [...] if we are to persevere in our hope that things can change.”64

This comparison does not involve any claim that the Israeli system of apartheid is identical to the one that existed in South Africa. In the words of Naomi Klein,  the question is not “Is Israel the same as South Africa?”, it is “do Israel’s actions meet the international definition of what apartheid is?” And if you look at those conditions which include the transfer of people, which include multiple tiers of law, official state segregation, then you see that, yes, it does meet that definition—which is different than saying it is South Africa.65

But supporters of Israeli policies would be mistaken to think that they can draw consolation or encouragement from the differences between the Israeli and the South African systems. In the words of Ronnie Kasrils, who was one of the many South African Jews who struggled honourably against apartheid, and who subsequently served as a minister in Nelson Mandela’s government:

 [W]ithout a doubt, we South Africans who fought apartheid have been unanimous in finding Israel’s methods of repression and collective punishment far, far worse than anything we saw during our long and difficult liberation struggle. Israel’s indiscriminate, widespread bombing and shelling of populated areas, with scant regard for the civilian victims, was absent in South Africa, because the apartheid system relied on cheap black labor. Israel rejects outright an entire people, and seeks to eliminate the Palestinian presence entirely, whether by voluntary or enforced “transfer.” It is clearly this that accounts for Israel’s greater degree of sustained brutality in comparison to apartheid South Africa.66

Perhaps, in view of Eva Illouz’s analysis, we should supplement the term “apartheid” by speaking as well of “conditions of slavery.” But whether or not we accept this intensification of the term, we should remember something else that is underlined in a recent article by Professor Jake Lynch, Director of the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. As he notes, the South African Human Sciences Research Council report that found Israel to be in breach of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid also declared that such a finding obliges governments to “co-operate to end the violation; not to recognise the illegal situation arising from it; and not to render aid or assistance to the State committing it.”67

There seems no need to comment on Prime Minister Harper’s view that it is disgraceful to apply the term “apartheid” to what Israel is doing. Uri Avnery may be right in thinking that the best response to such vapourings is ridicule.

9. Conclusion

But something more than ridicule is required to deal with an evident threat to the right of citizens to engage in nonviolent protests, boycotts, and the like when they find it necessary to draw public attention to the failure of our government (and many others) to fulfil their formal obligations under international law.

Two actions seem appropriate in response to what I have argued is a Trojan horse in Bill C-13′s revisions to Sections 318 and 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code. The first should be uncontroversial, and can be undertaken at once. Section 12 of Bill C-13 (the section that contains these revisions) can simply be amended to include the statement that “Nothing in this Section shall be interpreted as conflicting with Canada’s responsibility, in accordance with Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, ‘to respect and ensure respect for’ that Convention ‘in all circumstances’; nor shall anything in this section be interpreted as conflicting with Canada’s responsibilities under other instruments of international humanitarian law of which Canada is a signatory.”

The second action I would recommend is for Canadians to replace the government that engages in Trojan-horse lawfare of this kind with a better one.

Michael Keefer is Professor Emeritus in the School of English and Theatre Studies of the University of Guelph. A graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, the University of Toronto, and Sussex University, he is a former president of the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English, a member of the Seriously Free Speech Committee, and an associate member of Independent Jewish Voices Canada.

original link

Read Full Post »


I would like to go a bit beyond the comments that both of my colleagues have made and suggest not only that Israel is no ally, but also that it is not actually a friend, because it does actual damage to the United States through using its considerable access to Congress and the media to promote policies that are neither good for the United States nor for Israel.  I’m sure you’ve all heard the expression that a friend does not let a friend drive drunk.  Well, the United States has been driving drunk for quite some time, and that dangerous behavior has to some extent been caused by Israel and its many supporters in Washington.

Israel might or might not have been an actual enabler of the disastrous American invasion of Iraq but it is undeniably true that the American officials extremely close to the Israeli government were behind the rush to war and the forgery of phony intelligence that fed the process.  If the Washington goes to war with Iran in the near future it will not be because Tehran actually threatens America, it will be because Israel and its powerful lobby in the U.S. have succeeded in creating an essentially false casus belli to mandate such action.

Israeli Aggression against Iran (Flags)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who once commented that 9/11 was good for Israel, has repeatedly sought to commit our government to draw red lines that would narrow options for the White House and de facto require it to take action with the military against Iran. Congress is meanwhile advancing legislation that would commit the United States to intervene militarily in support of a unilateral Israeli attack, meaning that Israel could easily be empowered to make the decision on whether or not the US goes to war.

Janet Mcmahon WRMEA  National Summit Reassessing US-Israel Relations

Janet McMahon – The Israel lobby network and coordinated PACs that finance U.S. elections.

Nothing relating to Israel is quite like the US interaction with other countries. Delinda and Janet have outlined the dollar costs and special financing arrangements that go to support Israel, measures that are not in place for any other nation.  Congress also approved on Wednesday as part of the United States Israel Strategic Partnership Act by a vote of 410-1 an Israeli exemption from the reciprocity mandated by the so-called visa waiver program. Israelis will be able to travel freely to the United States while their government will be allowed to refuse entry to American citizens.This is a privilege that is granted to no other country. One congressman has recently even introduced a bill to cut off federal funding for any academic organization that engages in boycotting Israel. Boycotting other countries is okay.

AIPAC TAKES THE HILL LARGE

Israel interferes in American elections, most recently on behalf of Mitt Romney, it has corrupted our congress, its head of government publicly rebukes our own head of state, [its] government ministers insult and ridicule John Kerry, and its intelligence officers actually provide alarmist and inaccurate private briefings for American Senators on Capitol Hill. I also would not doubt, that accustomed to behaving with impunity toward its alleged friend and patron in Washington, might manufacture a pretext to draw the U.S. into a new conflict.  Something reminiscent of the Lavon Affair in Alexandria Egypt in 1954 or the false flag attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. Israel currently strongly supports using force to intervene in Syria, a proposition that is opposed overwhelmingly by the American public. In short, Israel has no reluctance to use its enormous political and media clout in the US to pressure successive administrations to conform to its own foreign and security policy views.

One other very good reason why Israel should not receive billions of dollars in military assistance annually is its persistent espionage against the United States. Grant Smith has described how friends of Israel stole enriched uranium from a Pennsylvania refinery to create a nuclear arsenal. More recently we have learned how Arnon Milchan, a Hollywood producer born in Israel, arranged for the illegal purchase of 800 nuclear triggers. Milchan picked an Oscar last Sunday without any interference from the FBI.

Israeli Espionage against the United States (Flag)

The existence of a large scale Israeli spying effort at the time of 9/11 has been widely reported, incorporating Israeli companies in New Jersey and Florida as well as hundreds of “art students” nationwide. Five Israelis from one of the companies were observed celebrating against the backdrop of the twin towers going down.

While it is often observed that everyone spies on everyone else, particularly true when one is referring to our own NSA, espionage is a high-risk business that most countries are extremely careful when spying on friends for fear of blowback. Israel, which relies on Washington for billions of dollars in aid and also for political cover in international fora like the United Nations, does not spy discreetly, largely because it knows that few in Washington will seek to hold it to account. There were, for example, no consequences for the Israelis when Israeli Mossad intelligence officers using [US] passports and pretending to be Americans recruited terrorists to carry out attacks inside Iran, as noted by Mark Perry this morning. Israelis using US passports in that fashion put every American traveler at risk.

Israeli Spy Milchan at the Oscars

Admitted Israeli Spy Milchan does not hide; Instead he ‘Shows Up for Oscars’ and Wins.

Israel, where government and business work hand in hand, has obtained significant advantage by systematically stealing American technology with both military and civilian applications. The US developed technology is then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports. Sometimes, when the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of an adversary, the consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that are believed to incorporate technology developed by American companies, including the Python-3 air-to-air missile and the Delilah cruise missile. There is evidence that Israel has also stolen Patriot missile avionics to incorporate into its own Arrow system and that it used US technology obtained in its Lavi fighter development program, which was funded by the US taxpayers to help the Chinese develop their own J-10 [fighter].

The reality of Israeli spying is indisputable. I might cite the names of Jonathan Pollard, Ben-Ami Kadish, Stuart Nozette and Larry Franklin as spies for Israel who have been caught, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Israel always features prominently in the annual FBI report called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage.” The 2005 report states “Israel has an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel’s sizable armaments industry.” It adds that Israel recruits spies, uses electronic methods, and carries out computer intrusion to gain the information.

A 1996 Defense Investigative Service report noted that Israel has great success stealing technology by exploiting the numerous co-production projects that it has with the Pentagon. It says “Placing Israeli nationals in key industries …is a technique utilized with great success.” A General Accounting Office (GAO) examination of espionage directed against American defense and security industries described how Israeli citizens residing in the US had stolen sensitive technology to manufacture artillery gun tubes, obtained classified plans for reconnaissance systems, and passed sensitive aerospace designs to unauthorized users.

The GAO has concluded that Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally.” In June 2006, a Pentagon administrative judge overruled an appeal by an Israeli who had been denied a security clearance—if you can imagine that, an Israeli with a security clearance at the Pentagon, but any way, they overruled it what he appealed it —and said

“The Israeli government is actively engaged in military and industrial espionage in the United States. An Israeli citizen working in the US who has access to proprietary information is likely to be a target of such espionage.”

More recently, FBI counter intelligence officer John Cole has reported how many cases of Israeli espionage are dropped under orders from the Justice Department. He provides a “conservative estimate” of 125 viable investigations into Israeli espionage involving both American citizens and Israelis that were stopped due to political pressure.

So the answer to the question of “is Israel an ally of the United States” is most definitely no. Is it even a friend? Well, I suppose there are all kinds of friends in the world, but if you judge Israel by its record on how it interacts with the American government and people I think the answer would also have to be no.

Philip Giraldi is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Giraldi is a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues. He is a regular contributor to Antiwar.com in a column titled “Smoke and Mirrors” and is a Contributing Editor who writes a column called “Deep Background” on terrorism, intelligence, and security issues for The American Conservative magazine. He has written op-ed pieces for the Hearst Newspaper chain, has appeared on Good Morning AmericaMSNBCNational Public Radio, and local affiliates of ABC television. He has been a keynote speaker at the Petroleum Industry Security Council annual meeting, has spoken twice at the American Conservative Union’s annual CPAC convention in Washington, and has addressed several World Affairs Council affiliates. He has been interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the British Broadcasting Corporation, Britain’s Independent Television NetworkFOX NewsPolish National TelevisionCroatian National Televisional-Jazeeraal-Arabiya, 60 Minutes, and Court TV. He prepares and edits a nationally syndicated subscription service newsletter on September 11th issues for corporate clients.

Giraldi is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a group that advocates for more even handed policies by the U.S. government in the Middle East.

 ORIGINAL LINK


PT: SAVE UP TO 75% on OEM Replacement Auto Parts

Read Full Post »


US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, left, meets Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, who arrived at the Pentagon via V-22 Osprey during a June visit to Washington. A proposed new US aid agreement would make funds available to Israel to begin buying V-22s.

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, left, meets Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who arrived at the Pentagon via V-22 Osprey during a June visit to Washington. A proposed new US aid agreement would make funds available to Israel to begin buying V-22s. (Ariel Hermoni / Israel Ministry of Defense)

TEL AVIV — Despite misgivings over US President Barack Obama’s Mideast agenda and deep-rooted doubts about his ability to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, the Israeli government is taking the US president at his word that it can expect another decade of military aid.

In fact, it’s banking on it.

After many months of internal debate and bureaucratic resistance from the Israeli Treasury, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon has government approval to take on more than $2 billion in commercial debt for near-term buys of V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft and other Pentagon-approved weaponry.

Under a US-approved deferred payment plan (DPP), Israel would pay only interest and fees over the course of the current agreement set to expire in September 2018. Principal will be covered by the new Obama-pledged package that would extend annual foreign military financing (FMF) aid through 2028, US and Israeli sources say.

During his visit here last March, Obama committed to talks aimed at extending US military assistance beyond the current 10-year, $30 billion agreement signed in 2007 under the administration of President George W. Bush.

In a joint news conference in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama said at the time that a follow-on aid agreement was “part of our long-term commitment to Israel’s security.”

Under the existing agreement, annual FMF grant aid to Israel grew from $2.4 billion to $3.1 billion, minus subsequent recissions of some $155 million due to the US government-mandated sequester.

Bilateral talks on extended aid are still preliminary, US and Israeli sources stress, and a finalized deal is unlikely by the time Obama leaves the White House in January 2017.

But given Obama’s backing and overwhelming congressional support for its “principal strategic partner” in the region, Israel can count on follow-on funding, said Danny Ayalon, a former Israeli ambassador to the US.

While US economic conditions and a host of other factors will ultimately determine actual amounts of aid to come, Ayalon said it is reasonable to expect the follow-on agreement to preserve or possibly exceed current levels, with incremental boosts in the out-years.

Prospective DPP financing was not Israel’s first choice, officials and experts here say, but a compromise after Washington rejected earlier requests for US government-guaranteed bridge loans until the follow-on aid deal kicked in.

US sources explained that regulations proscribe government-guaranteed loans based on future FMF agreements that are not yet in place. The DPP plan approved for Israel, said one Washington source, comes as close as procedurally possible to accommodating the Israeli request.

“According to our lawyers, this is not a government-guaranteed loan. The contractor is due payment by the US government through the [Pentagon-administered] Foreign Military Sales [FMS] program … and we are doing our best to facilitate deferred payment arrangements,” the Washington source said.

He acknowledged that the arrangement required “a leap of faith” by all parties — not only the Israeli government — that a future bilateral 10-year military aid pact will materialize.

That “leap of faith” sparked extensive internal debate in Israel among financial officials, oversight authorities and political skeptics. The high risk inherent in shouldering deferred debt to be repaid from a prospective, yet amorphous, future agreement continues to concern many here, sources here say.

However, after Washington agreed to provide a letter of intent to support DPP purchases with prospective future FMF funding, Israel’s Ministry of Defense prevailed in pushing the plan through the Israeli government.

Full Faith

A straight-talking former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, Ya’alon is a prominent yet pragmatic hawk in Netanyahu’s coalition government. His repeated criticism of the US-led drive toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal and the perceived waning of US influence in regional and world affairs has sparked friction with Washington.

He was widely quoted as blasting US Secretary of State John Kerry for his “inexplicably obsessed” pursuit of a deal unworthy of “the paper it was printed on.”

This month, he was forced to apologize for comments delivered in a closed lecture here suggesting that Israel could not depend on Obama’s pledged use of all options in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.

Ya’alon sought to clarify his remarks in a March 20 telephone conversation with US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who “expressed deep concern about the minister’s comments on US policy toward Iran,” according to Rear Adm. John Kirby, Pentagon press secretary.

Ya’alon’s office declined to discuss fallout from his latest remarks or DPP details.

But a senior aide insisted the minister has full faith in White House and congressional commitments to continued funding support.

“Relations between the US and Israel are intimate and deep, based on common values and interests, … Bilateral cooperation at all levels is a cornerstone of Israel’s national security,” Ya’alon said in a March 26 statement.

Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security is “unquestionable,” Ya’alon said. He added that he fully expects continuation of the “successful cooperation between defense industries and defense establishments.”

Translating Offer into Firm Orders

The DPP formula, officials and experts say, will free up FMF funds to initiate procurement of V-22s, an anchor part of a package offered by Hagel during his visit here last April.

At that time, Hagel announced that Washington “would make available to Israel a set of advanced new military capabilities” to augment Israel’s qualitative military edge.

But with most of Israel’s FMF funding through 2018 earmarked for F-35 fighter jets, airlifters, heavy troop carriers and other equipment, Hagel’s April 2013 announcement was criticized here as premature and lacking in substance.

Since then, the two sides have engaged in intensive coordination with defense companies, military services and multiple departments at the Pentagon, US State Department and MoD.

Assuming the DPP plan is finalized in coming months, sources from both countries said Israel could become the first export customer for the V-22, with a signed FMS contract by September.

While the two sides are still working on price, delivery and specific capabilities to be included in the package, the procurement could mean more than $1 billion for prime contractors Bell-Boeing and a host of other US companies.

Moreover, a US industry source here said it could catalyze future sales to Japan, Italy and the United Arab Emirates.

In a Jan. 4 notification to Congress, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency estimated the prospective package at $1.13 billion, which includes six V-22 Block C tilt-rotor aircraft, associated equipment, spare parts, training and logistics support.

Depending on how the DPP is scheduled, it also may free up funds for other elements of Hagel‘s proposed package. They include the retrofit of active electronically scanned array radars into F-15I fighters and a variety of air-to-ground weapons, including small diameter bombs and the AGM-88E advanced anti-radiation guided missile.

Mutual Benefit

Aside from the cardinal distinction that a prospective DPP deal presumes a still-nonexistent follow-on aid package, US and Israeli sources note that similar schemes have been used in the past to mutual benefit. With active involvement by Lockheed Martin, Israel used this method to fund Pentagon-administered FMS purchases of the company’s F-16I and F-35I fighters.

When employed — usually in combination with an arcane Pentagon process called cash flow financing that allows Israel to tap into future-year FMF funding — it facilitates high-value export orders for US defense contractors and expedited responses to urgent Israeli requirements.

In those earlier cases, Lockheed helped MoD secure $1 billion in deferred commercial debt under favorable terms to supplement F-16I-earmarked funding to come from Israel’s Pentagon-managed FMF account. With permission from Washington and Lockheed, the debt was extended by another few years to secure Lockheed’s first F-35 export contract managed under FMS.

Principal on the extended loan should be fully paid by the end of the year, US and Israeli sources said.

Lockheed is expected to play a pivotal role in the new DPP scheme, which government and industry sources here say will facilitate follow-on procurement of Israel’s second squadron of F-35Is. Details of Lockheed’s involvement were unclear as of March 28.

Larisa Cioaca, a media relations manager at Lockheed’s corporate headquarters in Bethesda, Md., declined comment.

original link

Read Full Post »


Israel has been revealed for what they have always been: The death-worshipping blood-enemy of the entire planet—this time with a lot of help from their friend, the international-criminal George Soros.

Every nation must take full possession of the currently closed Israeli embassies and consulates worldwide. Those offices were to be used to cover-up a new international-crime, one that would make 911 pale by comparison: Designed by Soros & the Zionists to plunge the planet into a final global war that would end this world as we know it.

This is a global-opportunity that no nation can afford to waste.

The lives of millions, if not billions of innocent people will depend on what each nation does or does not do about this gift-from-the-universe to reverse the current causes for Israel’s global war upon the world.

Here are the reasons why this has suddenly become necessary!

“BANGKOK – It is by no mere coincidence, when telltale evidence of a Mossad role in the MH370 hijack was starting to snowball, that Israel’s embassies and consulates were suddenly shut down due to a “strike by diplomatic staff”. This fork-tongued alibi was obviously meant to prevent law enforcement agencies across Asia and the Western world from questioning Israeli intelligence agents and military attaches about the whereabouts and fate of the hundreds of passengers.

The Jewish state’s diplomatic corps has retreated further into a tortoise shell, perhaps because of the hammer blow from investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn, who previously exposed Israel’s hand behind the 911 attacks. Based on eyewitness reports from a network of plane watchers in Europe and in Israel, Bollyn reports that an identical production model of the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 is being kept out of regular service inside a hangar at Tel Aviv Airport.”

kirwan: Israel made the first move to cover-up their part in this global crime. The world must now react to their attempt to hide from the truth by making the shutdown of all Israel Embassies and consulates permanent!

“Seattle-based Boeing assembles aircraft in pairs as its standard practice, but the question is how one jet was leased by Malaysia’s national carrier while the matching plane was secretly turned over to the Israeli government without a purchase order from state-run El Al airlines.

Bollyn uncovered the fact that the two jets were delivered to a third-party company, whose top manager has a longtime connection with the George Soros. From the timeline of events, it is obvious that the plane transfers and subsequent electronic hijacking were part of a larger strategy, which was aimed at: first, a planned false-flag attack involving mass murder of American citizens to be blamed on the two Iranians aboard MH370, in order to prompt the White House to order air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and air defenses; and

second, the blatant theft of key technology related to Freehold Semiconductor’s Kinesis microchip, the world’s tiniest microcontroller, for use in miniature weapons systems that will ensure Israeli military supremacy for decades to come.”

kirwan: This was obviously in the planning stages for at least as long as it took Boeing to build this particular pair of Boeing 777’s, This became an even more necessary step, once the truth behind all the false-flags attacks around the planet (A great many of which were guided by George Soros), became common knowledge.

There’s also a timeline on Soros who’s dying: Soros wants to leave the world his very own gift of WWIII before he exists the global-stage.

George Soros should be arrested immediately, before he dies,

So that the record of his crimes can be officially given to the world to show him for what he has always been, to history and to anyone who survives, what he wanted more than anything else to achieve…

Bait and Switch

“Why do the Israeli false flaggers need to hijack the Malaysian sister-plane, when just one plane will suffice for the ruse? The mint-condition jet in Tel Aviv would be refitted with Stealth cloaking, state-of-air avionics (aviation electronics, DU-tipped munitions and high-temperature explosives, but fake evidence of Malaysian origins are needed to complete the ruse. Therefore, identifying metal tags and other identifying parts have to be removed from MH370, along with seat covers, crew uniforms and the bodies of the two Iranians, to be frozen in a morgue. The deception would, be complete with the transfer of the stripped Malaysian jet to El Al.

The cover story for TIME and the New York Times would fly as easily as a captured jetliner, running something like “The Iranian hijackers overcame the crew and flew the jet into a military airfield in Iran. Then the Revolutionary Guards loaded the plane with gasoline drums for a suicide mission against innocent civilians and our congressmen in Washington DC. We mourn the loss of the Capitol and the White House in the intense blaze that destroyed half of our beloved capital, but we face the future with courage and will deliver justice against that terrorist state. The last of the Axis of Evil will share the fate of its erstwhile partners. Now, from the Superdome, let’s hear Lady Gaga sing the Star-Spangled Banner.” Those are fighting words that can snap average Americans out of their antiwar malaise. Yes, propaganda is made for consumption by fools.”

There is a great deal more to Christopher Bollyn’s “hammer-blow” against Israel and George Soros as reported here by Yoichi Shimatsu, in his exclusive to Rense.com. Why not read it all – (1)

This is a chance for the public to demand the closure of all Israeli Embassies and Consulates, as a first step in prosecuting both George Soros and Israel, for this crime that was well on the way to being carried out before Bollyn outed them all!

Of course Israel had a lot of help from the Real Evil Empire.

“None in human history compare to America. It’s by far the most lawless. It’s the world’s most egregious civil and human rights abuser.

It’s done more harm to more people for longer than any combination of other nations. None match its ruthlessness.

It’s genocidal legacy is longstanding. It began in pre-colonial days. Expanding America from sea to shining sea claimed tens of millions of lives. Mass extermination became policy. Centuries of slaughter reduced America’s indigenous population to a tiny fraction of its original numbers.

Ward Churchill’s chilling quote bears repeating. He minced no words, saying:

Millions were “hacked apart with axes and swords, burned alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meat hooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases.”

Five centuries of slavery were horrific. Black Africans were captured, branded, chained, force-marched, beaten, encaged, and stripped of their humanity. Around 100 million were sold like cattle. Millions perished during the Middle Passage.

Imagine packing human beings like cargo. Imagine them under deplorable conditions. Imagine them in coffin-sized spaces. Imagine practically one atop others in extreme discomfort. Imagine poor ventilation, dysentery, smallpox, ophthalmia, and other epidemic-level diseases.

Imagine dark, filthy, slimy, bloody, vomity conditions below deck. Imagine it filled with human excrement. Imagine women beaten and raped. Imagine claustrophobia driving some victims insane.

Imagine floggings and clubbings to death. Imagine anyone thought diseased dumped overboard like garbage. Imagine 50 million or more lost lives. Imagine slave traders calling it a cost of doing business.

Genocidal US policy continues in new forms. Mass murder proceeds efficiently. Technological advances facilitate it. America’s killing machine knows no limits. One genocide follows others. Countries are ravaged and destroyed. Neither world war should have been waged. Tens of millions died needlessly.

Making the world safe for democracy is a convenient illusion. America tolerates it nowhere.” (2)

AIPAC is already under attack for its own corruptions and is losing ground every day now; as are the rest of the fake Israeli agencies, that have all been sucking-up the public’s money in America, to feed the Israeli-lust for innocent-blood and power, since well before 1948.

‘Seize the Day America’ especially in this pivotal moment!

Because there may never be another time

To do what everyone knows

Must be done!

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

original link

Read Full Post »


SD Bullion - Lead BullionWhy would Israel have a plane identical to the missing Malaysia Airlines plane in storage in Tel Aviv? The plane in this photo is Boeing 777 2H6(ER) – 28416/155, an identical twin of the missing plane, which has been in Israel since November 2013. What are the Israelis doing with this plane in a hanger in Tel Aviv? Could it be part of a false-flag terror plot in the making? Where is this plane today?

Source: http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/777/28416,N105GT-GA-Telesis-php
See more at: http://www.bollyn.com/home/#article_11686

Update – According to reports from plane-spotters, Israel has an identical Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 in storage in Tel Aviv since November 2013. The only visible difference between the missing plane and the one in Tel Aviv would be its serial number. What do the Israelis have planned with the twin Malaysia Airlines plane?

By using the twin aircraft they have in storage, the terror masterminds may have a sinister plan for the missing plane to seemingly reappear in a false-flag atrocity. Public awareness of the twin plane in Tel Aviv, therefore, could prevent the evil plot from going ahead.

For more on the identical Malaysia plane in Tel Aviv see the latest entry, dated March 26, 2014, on my Q&A and Comment page.

Note: The Malaysia Air 777 with Boeing serial number 28416 and registered as 9M-MRI was sold to GA Telesis, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on October 21, 2013, and is now registered as N105GT. The aircraft was stored at Tarbes Lourdes Pyrenees on October 4, 2013, and then on November 4, 2013, it was re-registered as N105GT and stored at Tel Aviv.

See: http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/777/28416,N105GT-GA-Telesis-php

Abdol Moabery serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of GA Telesis, LLC. Previously, Mr. Moabery served as Executive Vice President of Aviation Systems International, Inc., and as Director of Marketing and Sales at C-S Aviation Services, Inc. Both of Moabery’s former companies were owned by George Soros. Therefore it is not unlikely that Soros owns a good part of GA Telesis, too.

C-S Aviation Services:

https://www.mail-archive.com/osint@yahoogroups.com/msg64520.html

Aviation Systems International, Inc.

http://business.fau.edu/news-events/event-details/index.aspx?eid=2826#.UzFK2CO3PJs

This information is very important because it fits neatly into the terror scenario presented by Israeli El Al “security expert” Issac Yeffet shortly after the Malaysian plane went missing. Yeffet suggested the missing plane had been hijacked to Iran and was being prepared for a terror attack. For the Israelis to have an identical plane in a hanger in Tel Aviv reveals why Yeffet presented such a scenario. He appears to have been setting the stage for a false-flag attack like 9-11, perhaps in Israel. If such an attack were to occur in Israel all the evidence would be in the hands of Israeli intelligence giving them complete control of the interpretation or narrative of the terror event.

“I BELIEVE IRAN WAS INVOLVED”

“What happened to this aircraft, nobody knows. My guess is based upon the stolen passports, and I believe Iran was involved. They hijacked the aircraft and they landed it in a place that nobody can see or find it.”
- Issac Yeffet, former El Al security expert to Times of Israel, March 17, 2014

World seems transfixed by 777 disappearance. Maybe no crash but stolen, effectively hidden, perhaps in Northern Pakistan, like Bin Laden.
- Rupert Murdoch on Twitter, March 15, 2014
It is not Iranians, but Israeli agents and Zionist propagandists like Rupert Murdoch who are the real authors of false-flag terror plots involving airliners being flown into hi-rise towers. Arnon Milchan, for example, the Israeli Mossad operative-cum-film producer, made the Medusa Touch film in 1978, in which a 9-11 type attack is the climax of the film. Is there a nefarious plot in the works to use the missing Malaysian plane for such an attack?
The making of Milchan’s Medusa Touch involved constructing models to simulate an aircraft striking a skyscraper.

With no trace of Beijing-bound flight MH370 after nine days, one of several theories that has emerged is that the plane was hijacked to Iran, where it could be turned into a massive and devastating weapon. Two Iranian passengers are known to have been aboard, travelling on false passports. While Israeli officials did not confirm any suspicions regarding Iran, experts said it is not a stretch to point the finger at Israel’s Middle East nemesis.

“My guess is based upon the stolen passports, and I believe Iran was involved [in the disappearance of the plane],” Issac Yeffet, formerly a global security expert for Israel’s national airline El Al told today’s Times of Israel. “They hijacked the aircraft and they landed it in a place that nobody can see or find it.”
- “Missing jet, Iranian threats, prompt Israel to tighten air security” by Paul Alster, March 17, 2014
- See more at: http://www.bollyn.com/are-the-israelis-planning-another-9-11-using-the-missing-777/#sthash.ps23VLqO.dpuf

Read Full Post »


An Israeli F-15 I fighter jet (AFP Photo / Jack Guez)

An Israeli F-15 I fighter jet (AFP Photo / Jack Guez)

Israel’s 2014 military budget includes at least 10 billion shekels devoted to preparations for war with Iran, Haaretz newspaper reports. Top Jerusalem officials recently said that Israel may strike Tehran’s nuclear sites even without US help.

The Tel Aviv daily cited three parliamentarians who had been present at joint committee meetings at the Knesset earlier this year, where figures of 10 to 12 billion shekels (US$2.89 billion to $3.47 billion) were touted by senior Israel Defense Forces officials. The sum is being spent on preparing for an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, even if it does not take place. It constitutes about one-fifth of the total military budget – about the same amount that was spent last year.

The parliamentarians said they questioned the decision to maintain funding in view of Tehran’s softening relations with the West, only to be told by army commanders that Israel’s political leaders ordered them to continue regardless.

While the world’s leading powers have eased sanctions on Iran in exchange for its curtailing of its nuclear enrichment program – and have been negotiating in Vienna this week – Israel has remained steadfast in its belief that Tehran is attempting to develop its own nuclear weapons, and is using the talks to buy themselves time and economic relief.

On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon criticized the US for wishful thinking during its attempts to find a diplomatic solution.

“Weakness certainly does not pay in the world,” Yaalon told students at Tel Aviv University.

“No one can replace the US as the world’s policeman. I hope the US will come to its senses.”

Yaalon, who represents Prime Minister Netanyahu’s center-right Likud party, further reiterated his superior’s claims that Israel needed to act preemptively.

If we wished others would do the work for us, it wouldn’t be done soon, and therefore in this matter, we have to behave as if we can only rely on ourselves,” said Yaalon.

A general view of the heavy water facility at Arak (AFP Photo / Hamid Foroutan)

A general view of the heavy water facility at Arak (AFP Photo / Hamid Foroutan)

Netanyahu has also persisted with the line he held during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s abrasive presidency, despite the tentative ‘charm offensive’ that Iran has undertaken since the relatively moderate Hassan Rouhani replaced Ahmadinejad less than a year ago.

“Letting the worst terrorist regime on the planet get atomic bombs would endanger everyone, and it certainly would endanger Israel since Iran openly calls for our destruction,” Netanyahu said in a speech this month.

Tehran insists that it has no plans to manufacture nuclear arms, and even Israel’s own intelligence agency now believes that there has been a “strategic change” in Iran’s nuclear stance since last year, according to an earlier Haaretz report.

Nonetheless, the latest talks in Vienna – where Iran has faced the US, China, Russia, Great Britain, France, and Germany – have not produced a concrete outcome.

Adding to the long-established issues of access to existing facilities and the extent of Iran’s enrichment and stockpiling of plutonium – a key ingredient in nuclear devices – is a yet-to-be-finished nuclear reactor at Arak.

Western negotiators say the facility in its current form could be used for plutonium enrichment and should be modified, while Tehran insists its uses will be chiefly medical.

The two sides have set themselves a July 20 deadline, by which a definitive agreement has to be produced on the country’s nuclear program. But for Israel’s leaders, each month without concrete action is one month closer to Tehran possessing its own nuclear weapons – meaning that vast expenditures to ready for a strike are as necessary as ever.

original link

Read Full Post »


Collaborative project urging pension giant TIAA-CREF to divest from companies profiting from colonialism and ethnic cleansing by Israel in Palestine. Video by Jihane al Quds. Lyric:

We don’t need no occupation (Divest! Divest!)
We don’t need no swat patrol (Divest! Divest!)
Cat’s bulldozing West Bank classrooms (Divest! Divest!)
That’s not for the greater good
Elbit Systems, Caterpillar, G4S, Hewlett Packard, SodaStream
Hey, T-Cref, leave them kids alone!
All in all we’re gonna tear those bricks from the wall
All in all we’re gonna tear those bricks from the wall

We don’t need no Northrop Grumman (Divest! Divest!)
Death and mayhem from above (Divest! Divest!)
Motorola’s no Solution (Divest! Divest!)
For Palestine let’s show some love
Northrop Grumman, Veolia, Sodastream, Elbit Systems, Caterpillar
Hey, T-Cref, your dollars flatten homes!
All in all we’re gonna tear those bricks from the wall
All in all we’re gonna tear those bricks from the wall

We don’t need Veolia Light Rail (Divest! Divest!)
Seizing East Jerusalem (Divest! Divest!)
Divest from Elbit’s ammunition (Divest! Divest!)
And yes they helped to built the wall
Hewlett Packard, Northrop Grumman, Elbit Systems, Caterpillar, G4S
Hey, T-Cref, look how apartheid’s grown!
All in all we’re gonna tear those bricks from the wall
All in all we’re gonna tear those bricks from the wall

Read Full Post »


US to give Israel $429 million for its Iron Dome missile system

11 Mar 2014 The United States and Israel have signed an agreement under which $429 million of American taxpayers’ money “will be transferred immediately to Israel” to fund its Iron Dome missile system. The pentagon says the agreement was signed last week in a bid to “continue support of the production of the Iron Dome weapon system” and provide opportunities for US industry to “receive meaningful co-production opportunities for Iron Dome components.” On March 4, the US House of Representatives also passed a bill which named Israel a “major strategic partner” of the US and called for the expansion of Washington’s military ties with Tel Aviv.

[OMG. But there's no money for food stamps or to extend unemployement insurance, though, right?

Read Full Post »


In Kiev, an Israel Defense Forces vet led street-fighting unit

28 Feb 2014 He calls his troops “the Blue Helmets of Maidan,” but brown is the color of the headgear worn by Delta — the nom de guerre of the commander of a Jewish-led militia force that participated in the ‘Ukrainian revolution.’ 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.

Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

Read Full Post »


In December 2013, the Israeli Knesset circumvented a three-month old High Court ruling, quashing the law that criminalized all African asylum-seekers in the country. In its place, the Netanyahu government instituted a new policy to corral the Africans onto an ethnic-cleansing assembly line that forces them into a dead-end desert detention center, where they are pressured to self-deport.

Since December, tens of thousands of African asylum-seekers in Israel have taken to the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to protest the government’s master plan to expel them all by the end of the decade. For all of their considerable efforts, they have not managed to convince the Israeli people or their elected representatives to end the efforts to expel them and examine their refugee status claims instead.

Under these circumstances, it seems that the only possible political development that could force the Israeli government to put an end to its war on the Africans is a massive outpouring of international support for their cause.

On January 22, activists in dozens of cities around the world protested in front of Israeli embassies, in solidarity with the Africans, echoing their demands for freedom. But the plight of the asylum-seekers still remains largely unknown outside of Israel and diasporas African emigre communities.

For the last four years I have been doggedly reporting on this story from the corridors of the Knesset and the streets of south Tel Aviv. In the coming month, I will travel across the United States and Canada, speaking and screening slides at university campuses and community centers across the continent, trying to raise awareness about the ruthless persecution that African asylum-seekers are facing in Israel.

I invite you to come hear  what I have to say and decide for yourself whether these people are deserving of protection, or whether they should be abandoned to their fate.

http://www.davidsheen.com/tour

source link

Read Full Post »


The

The ‘Boycott Israel” movement calls on Tel Aviv to abide by international laws.
Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:20AM GMT
31
48

 

14

 

By Jim W. Dean

Atlanta, February 18, 2014- “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” … Albert Einstein

The Israeli Likuds are showing signs of stress. The world public is finally waking up to heed Einstein’s words and do something about evil Israel. The various AIPAC lobbies have not been able to terrify would be boycotters into submission or have them jailed through the special laws they have been  getting passed in country.

But bad boy Bibi has decided it is now time to deploy Israel’s 2014 Samson option. It’s time to take the whole world down. He is calling us all anti-Semites, as virtually the whole moral world supports boycotting Israel. I am a bit perplexed on how he is going to arrange the logistics of stringing us all up as we number in the billions.

Rank and file Jews have always been ruthlessly exploited by their own elites who used ‘anti-Semite’ campaigns to keep them all on the plantation. They are a very independent and opinionated people and prone to argue and fight endlessly over just about anything. The outside enemy has always been the magic elixir for deflecting attention away from their own failed leadership, and failed they have.

I can still remember doing a two hour Atlanta Public TV interview with Rabbi David Weiss of Neturei Karta ten years ago. He described how the post 1948 Zionists were having difficulty getting North African Jews to immigrate to Israel to supply the manpower and investment capital need to build and protect their new ethnically cleansed land they had just stolen.

They resorted to false flag attacks on Jews and synagogues in these North African countries, and the ruse worked like a charm. Jewish families who had lived peacefully with their neighbors for hundreds of years fled to Israel for safety from this ‘new wave’ of anti-Semitism. They of course did not know that Israeli Intelligence had organized the whole event, one that would be copied again whenever it suited them.

The Neturei Karta anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews learned of this when remorseful Jews who have been involved in the staged pogroms came forward and confessed to them. This remains among my top ten video interviews and the footage is a treasure. And the ‘never give up’ Rabbi Weiss is still fighting militant Zionism as a moral stain on Torah Judaism. He is a brave and dedicated man.

I was going to title this column ‘We are all ‘anti-Semites’ now’, but thought it might be misunderstood as a satire on ‘We are all Palestinians now’…and there is nothing humorous about what they have had to endure from the pretenders who claim they were charged to ‘go forth and be a light unto the world’. They have brought eternal darkness to many lives in the Holy Land.

But I decided to go with the Samson option satire, with the false flag twist due to reading in Press TV’s earlier report:

“The meeting saw Israeli Minister for Intelligence and Strategy, Yuval Steinitz tabling a plan for a media blitz against organizations advocating the boycotts. His strategy includes intelligence agencies working to expose ‘their connection to terror organizations and enemy states.’ ”

I just could not pass this up. Here we go again with these ‘what’s not to love about Israelis’…who once again want to task their well trained false flag Intelligence agency with framing ‘plain’ anti-Semites as the ‘cavorting with terrorists’ kind. I had not thought of asking Bibi for a confession that you all did this kind of thing, but I appreciate getting one today.

Dear Mr. Netanyahu and Steinitz, It is partly due to people like you, and those who put you in power that you deserve to be boycotted. What could be fairer than that? You are guilty by your own hand. But we already had a mountain of evidence before your present to us today.

We have some people at Veterans Today who know a little bit about intelligence. The declassified military and diplomatic intelligence on you folks has shocked everyone I have ever shared it with, including Jews. The Freedom of Information Act during the Reagan years broke the dam and it came flooding out.

It was so embarrassing that the Reagan White House reclassified the most juicy stuff. We have Stephen Green to thank for this mother load, enough to fill ten books but he only had time for one…Taking Sides, 1983. I have pages and pages of excerpts I can send you as I pass them around frequently.

As shocking as Green’s material is, it pales in comparison to the classified stuff that has not been released yet. But you never know…if you folks cranked up another one of your worldwide false flag smear campaigns, maybe somebody would get angry and think that now was a good time for another big document dump to fry your butts up good.

Or, maybe we will wait until we can coordinate a major counter attack with the righteous Jews of the world, sick and tired of what you have done to Judaism. Frankly, I could make a better case for you folks being anti-Semites than…how did Bibi described it, “I think that it is important that the boycotters be exposed for what they are, they are classical anti-Semites in modern garb.”

So not only will I call you anti-Semites, I will also accuse you of being boycotters yourself. You have boycotted all the UN resolutions which would have brought peace to your land decades ago. You have boycotted Palestinian human, cultural and legal rights through the violence you had imposed on them.

You have boycotted the Nuclear non Proliferation Treaty…through your huge accumulation of weapons of mass destruction and also proliferate___…oops! I said I would not get into that classified stuff. You have boycotted showing any appreciation of the country that has misguidedly supported you all of these years, the U.S., by running espionage operations here so extensive that during your peak in the 1980′s during the Cold War, you were soaking up 50% of American counter intelligence resources…opps!…that was a classified slip.

All of this is of great embarrassment to the American leaders who have hidden most of this from the American people. They don’t want it to ever get out, but we live in an age now where leaking large amounts of material is the only way to really focus public attention and create support for what needs to be done.

But if you were going to launch an international frame-up campaign like what brother Steinitz describes above, I think that would boomerang on you. So maybe it is not such a bad idea after all.

source link

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 985 other followers

%d bloggers like this: