BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:50 P.M.) – The newly elected Minister of Parliament Jamil El-Sayyed stated on Thursday that he had no role in the assassination former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, despite accusations by political opponents.
On the third and last day of his testimony at the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Sayyed accused the U.S. and Israel of carrying out the assassination in order to force the Syria to leave the country.
“The U.S. and Israel were behind the assassination of martyr premier Rafik Hariri,” al-Sayyed told the STL, noting that “it was his assassination that led to Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon and not (U.N. Security Council) Resolution 1559.”
Sayyed would then lash out at the tribunal, saying that they are being biased.
“The tribunal is a political tribunal… In Iraq George Bush and Tony Blair killed 1.5 million Iraqis under the excuse of weapons of mass destruction and they displaced 10 million Iraqis. Don’t they deserve a trial?” al-Sayyed continued.
On Thursday, he told the tribunal that “through the elections and the extension for the (then-)president (Emile Lahoud), Hariri was bestowing legitimacy on the Syrian presence, Lahoud and the Resistance.”
“This all is a reason for Israel to assassinate him, because had Hariri stayed alive, all the events that happened later would not have happened,” the MP stated.
“I came to the court to defend two things: the right of the Lebanese to know the truth and my personal right. The Lebanese people have the right to know the truth but not according to the method of March 14 and its sympathizers, and also not through the STL, which approaches things in a politicized manner. The truth cannot be reached through false witnesses but rather through the presence of conclusive evidence.”
“Why was the international investigation misled for four years and who had an interest in that? Twelve false witnesses misled the investigation into Hariri’s assassination and the court is saying that that does not fall under its jurisdiction,” the former spy chief added.
An altercation happened at the end of Thursday’s session when al-Sayyed approached the Prosecution’s representative to shake hands with him.
“You have no manners and you don’t deserve to be respected,” al-Sayyed told the representative when he refused to shake his hand.
BEIRUT, LEBANON (10:10 A.M.) – Russian Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Vasily Nebenzya called on Israel “to end occupation” of Palestine, as the long-running conflict is “the core and the key to solving all other conflicts and puzzles in the Middle East,” in comments from special press conference for the new UN Security Council President New York on Friday.
“I don’t know such a thing as a ‘legitimate occupier’, that’s a new notion for me. There is no such thing as ‘legitimate occupier’. The occupier can only be illegitimate.”
Nebenzya also wished the United States luck in their talks with North Korea.
As the sitting president of the Security Council, he has asked to be briefed on the developments in the Korean peninsula.
On Friday evening, the United States vetoed a Kuwait-drafted resolution requesting ‘international protection’ for Palestinian civilians.
It was also the only country to back its own measure condemning Hamas for the recent violence in the Gaza Strip.
Declassified documents have revealed that post World War II Jewish Zionists used ethnic cleansing in Palestine in the late 1940’s. Israeli soldiers imprisoned thousands of Palestinian civilians within at least 22 Zionist-run concentration and labour camps that existed from 1948 to 1955. The documents reveal some horrific information regarding the living conditions and health concerns of men, women and children who were forced into these concentration camps. This may not come as a surprise to many historians as the facts have been documented. However, historically many people who have attempted to bring these facts to light have been condemned as anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. The release of these documents conclusively proves this (once taboo) portion of history has in fact been covered up. [1], [2], [3].
Almost 70 years ago Israel turned its forces on the all-Palestinian towns of Lydda and Ramleh. In July 1948 Israeli troops forcefully compelled the entire population of these two towns – of almost 60,000 Palestinian civilians, Including men, women, children and the elderly – to flee their homes in the middle of the hot Mediterranean summer. When many of the native inhabitants refused to leave or couldn’t, Israeli Prime Minister (at the time) David Ben-Gurion gave orders to ethnically cleanse both towns. The edicts to seize both cities were signed by Yitzhak Rabin (who later became Israel’s Prime Minister).
Israeli soldiers were commanded to strip Palestinians of their valuables after driving them out of their homes. Many of the refugees died from thirst, hunger, and heat exhaustion, according to the Palestinian historian ‘Aref al-‘Aref. Swarms of Jewish immigrants poured into Lydda and Ramleh and within days, these ancient Palestinian towns were transformed into part of the Jewish settlement. Around 750,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced from their homeland during this period.
The official Israeli government explanation for the ‘disappearance’ of 750,000 Palestinian Arabs from the land (roughly half the Arab population in Palestine in 1948) was that they left ‘Voluntarily’.[4], [5], [6], [7].
“A partial Jewish state is not the end, but only the beginning. The establishment of such a Jewish state will serve as a means in our historical efforts to redeem the country in its entirety… We shall organize a modern defense force… and then I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or by some other means… We will expel the Arabs and take their places… with the forces at our disposal.” — David Ben-Gurion
The Palestinian exodus of Lydda – Take note of the absence of adult men.
Yitzhak Rabin wrote in his diary soon after Lydda’s and Ramla’s occupation on 10th-11th of July 1948:
“After attacking Lydda and then Ramla, What would they do with the 50,000 civilians living in the two cities, not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution …. and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he [Ben-Gurion] remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda’s] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endangered the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward. Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: What is to be done with the population? Waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! [garush otam in Hebrew]. ‘Driving out’ is a term with a harsh ring … Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook”.(Soldier Of Peace, p. 140-141 & Benny Morris, p. 207).
For any settler colonies, as the Zionists were, there are roughly four conditions which have to met if they are to survive. Graham Usher, an Israeli journalist, wrote that:
“They [Zionists] must obtain a measure of political, military, and economic independence from their metropolitan sponsors. They must achieve military hegemony over, or at least normal relations with, their neighboring states. They must acquire international legitimacy. And they must solve their “native problem.” (Graham Usher, “Unmaking Palestine: On Israel, the Palestinians, and the Wall,” Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 35, No. 1, Autumn 2005), page 26.)
Resistant or hesitant Palestinians were reportedly executed
Most official and unofficial camps were situated within the borders of the UN-proposed Jewish state, which existed from 1948 to 1955 (twice as long as the ones run by Nazi-Germany). At least four unofficial camps were in the UN-assigned Arab state and one was inside Jerusalem “Corpus Separatum”. The number of Palestinian non-combatant detainees “far exceeded” those of Arab soldiers in regular armies or bona fide Prisoners of War. In a monthly report made by the International Committee of the Red Cross’s mission head ‘Jacques de Reynier’, in 1948, states, “the situation of civilian internees was ‘absolutely confused’ with that of POWs” and that the Jewish authorities “treated all Arabs between the ages of 16 and 55 as combatants and locked them up as prisoners of war.” In addition, the ICRC found among the detainees in official camps, that 90 of the prisoners were elderly men, and 77 were boys, aged 15 years or younger.
It should be noted the Zionist account of this war crime was intentionally suppressed until Yitzhak Rabin reported it in his biography and in a New York Times interview (which was censored in Israel at the time), however, it was later confirmed in the declassified Israeli and Zionist archives.
One thing that comes to mind is the ironic promotion of the ‘Never Again’ hash-tags that have been doing the rounds on social media, aimed at raising awareness for the Jewish suffering which occurred in concentration camps run by Nazi Germany.
Whether you find this as hypocrisy or just history repeating itself, there can be no denial of the fact Jewish-run concentration camps did exist. Much of the information is only now being released since the declassified documents very quietly became available to the public. I wouldn’t expect any justice to come for this, nor would I expect to see the likes of something similar to that of the Nuremberg trials which followed the end of World War 2.
The full extent of the suffering that Palestinians had to endure during the exodus has not been reported on by the mainstream media, nor have the uncovered documents been spoken of since the release. Regardless of this, I hope that people can come to respect this portion of history to be true.
Israel is getting desperate, because they have failed miserably to achieve anything since the last Lebanon war. Desperate malevolent people, sitting on atomic-bombs and mountains of rockets, are dangerous for all of us.
The good news: these guys are making big mistakes; every bomb on Syria and every sponsored ISIS fighter in Syria was and is a mistake that will turn viciously against them. The whole world today is openly discussing Zionism, which was a “no go” just 10 years ago.
Even as CNN is out with a new report condemning Iran for denying any responsibility or role in the latest massive exchange of fire between Israel and Syria, The New York Times has admitted (albeit buried deep in the story) that Israel was the actual aggressor and initiator of hostilities which threatened to spiral out of control overnight Wednesday and into Thursday morning.
While CNN and most Israeli and mainstream media sources blame Iran for initiating an attack on Israel, on the very day of the early morning strikes (Thursday), the Times acknowledged, “The barrage [of Syria/Iran missiles] came after an apparent Israeli missile strike against a village in the Syrian Golan Heights late Wednesday.”
This is significant as Israel is seeking to cast Iran as an aggressor on its border which must be dealt with preemptively; however Syria’s response—which involved between 20 and 50 missiles launched in return fire—imposed new rules of engagement on a situation in which Israel previously acted with impunity.
Israeli F-15 fighter jet takes off in Negev desert. Image source: AFP via Middle East Eye
And though multiple international reports have pointed to strikes landing on the Israeli side, Israel has apparently been extremely careful in preventing photographs or video of any potential damage to see the light of day. According to professor of Middle East history Asad AbuKhalil, “Israel censor still hasn’t allowed any reports about casualties or damage.”
Up until recently, Assad had not taken the bait of Israeli provocation for years now in what we previously described as a kind of “waiting game” of survival now, retaliation later. But with the Syrian Army now victorious around the Damascus suburbs and countryside, and with much of Syria’s most populous regions back under government control, it appears that Assad’s belated yet firm response to the Israeli large scale attack has changed the calculus.
Even NYT admits towards end of the article that Israel initiated the exchange of fire:
“The barrage came after an apparent Israeli missile strike against a village in the Syrian Golan Heights late Wednesday.”
Damascus has now signaled to Israel that its acts of aggression will be costly as Syrian leadership has shown a willingness to escalate. But how did this new and increasingly dangerous situation come about, and which side actually has the upper hand?
* * *
Below is a dispatch authored and submitted by Elijah Magnier, Middle East based chief international war correspondent for Al Rai Media, who is currently on the ground in the region and has interviewed multiple officials involved in the conflict.
Israel hits Syrian and Iranian objectives and weapons warehouses again (evacuated weeks before) for the fourth time in a month. 28 Israeli jets participated in the biggest attack since 1974. Tel Aviv informed the Russian leadership of its intentions without succeeding in stopping the Syrian leadership from responding. Actually, what is new is the location where Damascus decided to hit back: the occupied Golan Heights (20 rockets were fired at Israeli military positions).
Syria, in coordination with its Iranian allies (without taking into consideration Russian wishes) took a very audacious decision to fire back against Israeli targets in the Golan. This indicates that Damascus and its allies are ready to widen the battle, in response to continual Israeli provocations.
But what is the reason why new Rules of Engagement (ROE) were imposed in Syria recently?
For decades there was a non-declared ROE between Hezbollah and Israel, where both sides were aware of the consequences. Usually, Israel prepares a bank of target objectives with Hezbollah offices, military objectives and warehouses and also specific commanders with key positions within the organization. Israel hits these targets, updated in every war. However, the Israelis react immediately against Hezbollah commanders, who have the task of supporting, instructing and financing Palestinians in Palestine, and above all the Palestinians of 1948 living in Israel. This has happened on many occasions where Hezbollah commanders related to the Palestinian dossier were assassinated in Lebanon.
Last month, Israel discovered that Iran was sending advanced low observable drones dropping electronic and special warfare equipment to Palestinians. The Israeli radars didn’t see these drones going backward and forward with their traditional radars, but were finally able to identify one drone using thermal detection and acoustic deterrence, to down it on its last journey.
In response to this, Israel targeted the Syrian military airport T-4 used by Iran as a base for these drones. But Israel was not satisfied and wanted to take further revenge, hitting several Iranian and Syrian targets during the following weeks.
Tel Aviv believed it could get away with repetitively hitting Iranian objectives without triggering a military response. Perhaps Israel really believed that Iran was afraid of becoming engaged in a war with Israel, with the US ready to take part in any war against the Islamic Republic from its military bases spread around Syria, in close vicinity to the Iranian forces deployed in Syria. Obviously, Iran has a different view from the Israelis, the Americans and even the Russians, who like to avoid any contact at all cost.
‘Israel retaliates’
The ridiculous trope that sums up ‘mainstream’ reporting on the Middle East. Israel: so often the victim, rather than the aggressor. Fake news. pic.twitter.com/bOfP0ANJmu
Regardless of how many Israeli jets took part in the latest attack against Iranian and Syrian objectives and how many missiles were launched or intercepted, a serious development has occurred: the Syrian high command broke all pre-existing rules and found no obstacle to bombing Israel in the occupied Golan Heights.
Again, the type of missiles or rockets fired by Syria against Israeli military objectives it is not important or whether these fell into an open space or hit their targets. What is important is the fact that a new ROE is now in place in Syria, similar to the one established by Hezbollah over Kiryat Shmona near the Lebanese border, when militants fired anti-aircraft cannons every time Israel violated Lebanese airspace in the 2000.
Basically Israel wanted to hit objectives in Syria but claims not to be looking for confrontation. Israel would have liked to continue provoking Syria and Iran in the Levant, but claims to be unwilling to head towards war or a battle. Israel would like to continue hitting any target it chooses in Syria without suffering retaliation.
But with its latest attack, Israel’s “unintended consequences” or provocation has forced the Syrian government to consider the occupied Golan Heights as the next battlefield. If Israel continues and hits beyond the border area, Syria will think of sending its missiles or rockets way beyond the Golan Heights to reach Israeli territory.
Actually, Hezbollah’s secretary general Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said a few years back: “Leave Lebanon outside the conflict. Come to Syria where we can settle our differences.” Syria, logically, has become the battlefield for all countries and parties to settle their differences, the platform where the silent war between Israel and Iran and its allies is finding its voice.
In Damascus, sources close to the leadership believe Israel will continue attacking targets. However, Israel knows now where Syria’s response will be.This is what Israel has triggered but didn’t expect. Now it has become a rule.
The Israeli Iron Dome is inefficient and unable to protect Israel from rockets and missiles launched simultaneously. Now the battle has moved into Syrian territory occupied by Israel to the reluctance of Tel Aviv, and Russia. Iran and Syria are not taking into consideration Russia’s concern to keep the level of tension low if Israel is not controlling itself. Syria recognizes the importance of Russia and its efficient role in stopping the war in Syria and all the military and political support Moscow is offering.
However, Damascus and Tehran have other considerations, especially the goal of containing Israel. They have trained over 16 local Syrian groups ready to liberate the Golan Heights or to clash with any possible Israeli advance into Syrian territory.
Israel triggered what it has always feared and has managed to get a new battlefield, the Golan heights. It is true that Israel limited itself to bombing weapons warehouses never hit before. It has bombed bases where Iranian advisors are based along with Syrian officers (Russia cleared most positions to avoid the embarrassment of being hit by Israel). It is also true that Israel didn’t regularly bomb Iranian military and transport aircraft carrying weapons to Syria, or the main Iranian center of control and command at Damascus airport. This means that not all parties are pushing for a wider escalation, so far.
Can the situation get out of control? Of course it can, the question is when?!?
While in the Soviet Union, the 7 November celebrations of the anniversary of the Octomber Revolution and Victory Day on the 9th of May were co-equals when it came to sacred national holidays, in modern Russia, the 9th of May remains not only the most sacred national holiday but the most popular, even more so than Russia’s New Years Eve – a secular holiday which combines what in the west are both New Year’s and civic Christmas traditions.
It is in this context that one must view Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invitation to “Israeli” leader Benjamin Netanyahu as the Russian President’s “guest of honour” for Victory Day.
The background
When it comes to Syria, the Russian military is helping the Arab Republics Ba’athist government that “Israel” has been trying to destroy for decades. This is a fact, but it nevertheless only tells a half truth. While the Russian military has in fact been helping Syria to fight Takfiri terrorism, Russia has not and according to its own limited mandate will not help Syria fight any defensive or offensive wars against a foreign government/regime.
In fact the opposite is true. Now that the war against Takfiri terrorism is winding down, Russia would prefer Syria to begin engaging in a political process to end the conflict. From Russia’s preferred point of view, such a process would include Syria’s diplomatic reconciliation with Turkey, Syria putting off settling the illegal “Israeli” occupation of the Golan Heights for sometime in the future and finally, Russia would rather see Syria work with other international and regional powers to force a US withdrawal from Syria, over direct attacks on US occupation forces in the country.
In this sense, Russia’s strategy in Syria contradicts that of Iran. When contrasted with Russia, Iran is not only supportive of Syria’s stated mission of liberating the entire country from both terrorism and from the regular armies of foreign governments/regimes, but increasingly as foreign powers including “Israel” use Syria to escalate a war on Iran that they refuse to launch on Iranian soil, not only is Iran willing to fight back from Syrian soil but at this point, some elements of both the “Israeli” military and Iranian military are salivating at the thought of firing their latest missiles at each other over Syria. Some in Syria support this strategy too in the hope that Iran could help Syria recover its legal territory in the occupied Golan Heights.
While firefights such as last night’s cross-contact line missile attacks between “Israel” on one said and Syria + alleged “Iranian forces” on the other happen, Russia does nothing because all the sides involved know the stay out of the way of Russian forces. So long as they do, Russia will not react nor choose sides. In these matters Russia is de-facto neutral and if called upon to mediate between Syria and “Israel” or Iran and “Israel” Russia would happily do so, but Russia is not going to make such an offer if it knows that the sides involved are not ready for such mediation.
The optics and the illusions
With Netanyahu standing next to Putin on the most important day in the Russian calendar year, the message is clear that Netanyahu is considered deeply honourable by the Russian government, far more so than many western leaders who have repeatedly refused attendance at Russia’s Victory Day parades in an attempt to insult the Russian state and people. While this is clearly a sign of “Israel’s” strong relationship with Russia, it does have to be noted that as Netanyahu stood shoulder to shoulder with Putin, he would have heard the announcement that many of the soldiers marching past were young veterans of a conflict in Syria. In this sense, Russia could be accused of “trolling” the “Israeli” leader by demonstrating to him that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who liberated Europe from fascist rule have now liberated Syria from Takfiri rule. However, in actual fact, the realities on the ground in Syria which were largely created by Russia have already got “Israel” to make one of the biggest ever geopolitical concessions of its history, even though many have failed to notice.
Multiple “Israeli” officials have stated through gritted teeth that they are now willing to live next door to their arch nemesis President Bashar Al-Assad, so long as Al-Assad persuades Iran to take its military assets out of Syria. While Syria retains the right as a sovereign nation to be allied with and cooperate with any power it wants, when analysed through the prism of traditional “Israeli” ultimatums, this one is comparatively moderate. In order for Egypt to have its stolen Sinai peninsula returned from “Israel”, Egypt had to essentially give up the central part of its formerly Nasserist foreign policy and recognise “Israel” as a state. As a result, President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in broad daylight. In 1994, Jordan too surrendered to pressure and recognised “Israel” even though Jordanians are still cannot easily travel to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Al-Quds, even though the Jordanian King is the Mosque’s custodian.
But for Syria, Tel Aviv merely wants Iran’s military presence in all its real and imagined forms expunged from Syria and in exchange “Israel” will accept that under these conditions it lost in its proxy war to remove President Al-Assad from power. On the other end of this spectrum, these concessions from “Israel” have been followed up with increasingly vicious threats to “assassinate” the Syrian President if Iran retains its presence. That being said, the fact that “Israel” is willing to concede that it might have to live next to a country ruled by an Al-Assad family that has been the target of “Israeli” aggression and propaganda for deacdes, still represents the biggest concession “Israel” has made to an Arab Nationalist state in its history. The fact that such a concession came about is almost entirely due to Russia’s presence in Syria. This achievement of Russian diplomacy should not be ignored, although thus far it largely has been.
By inviting Benjamin Netanyahu to Victory Day, Russia is sending a big hint to Syria to accept “Israel’s” ultimatum and allow Iran a dignified way to shift its presence in Syria from a military one to a political one that is less focused on defending against “Israel’s” war fought against Iran on Syrian soil and more interested in ending all of the many aspects of the current Syrian conflict. This could also transform the “Israeli” + US war on Iran from a proxy war in Syria to a mere sanctions war as the US and its allies remain rightly afraid of attacking Iran in Iran.
This is not “5D chess” or mind games, its sending a strong message to both Syria and Iran to take the compromise that Russia has quietly set up. If Syria and Iran refuse, as is their right, Russia will not do anymore than it already has except for mediating a conflict that Russia tried to stop months ago.
Russia and “Israel’s” long term bilateral goals
a. For Russia
Far from merely using Netanyahu’s presence at Victory Day to send a message to Syria and Iran, Moscow does have long term plans with “Israel”. The last three decades of immigration to “Israel” have included a vast number of Russian speakers who naturally have some degree of cultural affinity with Russia. While western historians of Soviet Jewry often adopt the same anti-Moscow black propaganda as their gentile colleagues, in terms of the bilateral cultural ties between the countries of the wider post-Soviet space and “Israeli” Jews of Russian speaking origin, there is a far more circumscribed attitude to Soviet and Russian history. In this sense, while Jews of European origin who immigrated to Palestine dislike most mentions of their European backgrounds in anything other than an academic context, for the Russian speakers in “Israel”, many such individuals have varying degrees of pride in respect of Soviet heritage.
Not only is Soviet music, television and film popular among many Russian speaking “Israelis” consistently popular, but as it was the Soviet Army that liberated Europe, including Europe’s concentration camps where many European Jews were held, there is a clear historical affinity towards Russia from the perspective of any Jew who believes that even in 2018 Europe is too dangerous a place to live. Indeed Netanyahu has stated on multiple occasions that 21st century Europe is not a safe place for Jews to live. He has not and wouldn’t ever say such a thing about 21st century Russia.
Contrary to western propaganda, the Soviet Union was always a safe place for those of a Jewish background. While the USSR was a formally atheist state, no one was singled out because of their background as they were in Europe during that same period in time. Today, many “Israelis” including Netanyahu appear to be openly acknowledging this fact of history that remains distorted by western “historians” of all confessional and ethnic backgrounds.
This is part of Russia’s larger strategy to co-opt both “Israel” and the western pro-“Israel” Jewish lobby into having more favourable views to Russia. If “Israel” is America’s closest ally and one which can influence elements of US foreign policy far more easily than for example many of America’s close European allies (the JCPOA being case and point), if such an ally is also an ally of Russia, it means that the US cannot monopolise its relationship with “Israel” to form an anti-Russian axis. In this sense, while the overwhelmingly non-Jewish population of the United States is being fed a constant diet of black propaganda designed to defame Russia, if American Jews who are still generally pro-“Israel” (though not as strongly as in past decades) see that Vladimir Putin, a man that as Americans they are told to hate, is warmly embracing the leader of a country they generally respect if not love, the clear psychological message being sent is that “Russia cannot be all that bad”.
Many in alt-media may find this hard to realise but Russia is not an Arab country! Furthermore, most Russians are either Orthodox or non-religious. Only after that is there a small contented minority of patriotic Muslims and an even smaller contented minority of patriotic Jews. As such, Russia’s foreign policy values will be different than those of traditional Arab Nationalist states, as well as Revolutionary Islamic Republics like Iran. This will only be surprising by those stupid enough to believe that in helping Syria fight terrorism in order to maintain a safe Russian presence in the eastern Mediterranean, that Russia has somehow transformed itself into an Arab Nationalist state. This is not real geopolitical analysis, to paraphrase George H.W. Bush it is “voodoo geopolitical analysis”.
Instead, the reality is that Russia wants to and is using its partnership with “Israel” as a means of leveraging Arab states as well as countries like Iran so that they allow Russia to mediate disputes which are too heated for countries in the region to negotiate directly. In addition, Russia is positioning itself in such a way that it is confusing America’s cheap anti-Russian propaganda campaign in the minds of American Jews who are seeing that Vladimir Putin is far more pro-“Israel” than many in the US based alt-media. In an age where various Jewish groups further allege a rise in western antisemitism, it is a further soft power blow against American propaganda for such Jews to see that Vladimir Putin does not embrace the hateful causes that the liberal western establishment wrongly associate with him.
b. For “Israel”
“Israel” realises that as US influence in the Middle East wanes and as the days of the US as a single global superpower are over thanks to the re-emergence of Russia and China. Because of this Tel Aviv’s more worldly leaders know that they are going to need to diversify alliances in order to retain power in the region. As there aren’t any people of Chinese background living in “Israel”, Russia is the more natural of the two eastern superpowers for Tel Aviv, although Beijing and Tel Aviv also have very healthy relations.
This itself is one of the reasons that “Israel” wants to ram a pro-Zionist one-state solution in all but name down the throats of Palestinians as soon as possible, because while China and Russia do not share the one-state Palestine ideal of countries like Iran and Syria, they are in fact sincere about wanting a two-state solution that is equitable to Palestinians.
In the wider context, while Russia and China may want a smaller Palestine than Iran and Syria, they certainly want a bigger Palestine than the United States and Saudi Arabia. This is why the forthcoming so-called “peace deal” authored by the US and Saudi Arabia which if signed by the Palestinian leadership would solidify a one-state “Israel” with a few bits of a disjointed Palestine sprinkled inside in the less important parts of the territory, would allow Tel Aviv to breath a sigh of relief because in a middle and late 21st century dominated by Russia and China, a real two-state solution would be back on the table and this would clearly give “Israel” less than any US/Saudi authored deal.
Be that as it may, “Israel” is in its own way acting pragmatically in courting a superpower that is rising. While the US will still be seen as the country that will do more for “Israel” as Washington is largely wantonly oblivious to the opinion of the Arab and Muslim world, Russia which is very keenly aware of Muslim and Arab public opinion will have to be the go-to superpower in future decades so far as Tel Aviv is concerned. Saudi Arabia is developing increasingly strong ties with Russia and China for the same reason.
The Arab World
Russia’s embrace of “Israel” does not equate to Moscow turning its back on the Arab World. By contrast, many of Russia’s former Arab allies have been ‘regime changed’ by the United States dating to a post-Cold War era when Russia was far weaker than it is today. Because of this, the all-weather Arab Nationalist friends of the USSR in the Arab World are mostly gone so instead, Russia is embracing a policy of multilateralism in the region where Moscow is able to have healthy relations with Iran and Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey, “Israel” and Palestine, Egypt and Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, etc…
Those who negatively contrast Russia’s multilateral win-win foreign policy aims of 2018 with the more ideological ‘bloc based’ foreign policy of the USSR have a fatal flaw in their analysis. Russia’s main rival, the United States isn’t living in the Soviet era anymore so why should Russia? The proper contrast to draw against Russia’s contemporary multilateral foreign policy is that of the contemporary United States. When it comes to that contrast, Russia is building a far more sustainable set of relationships than is the US.
While the US can barely make a friend without alienating someone else (fro example Washington trading Pakistan for India, Turkey for anti-Turkish regimes and terror groups, the Philippines for Vietnam etc), Russia is by contrast able to retain old allies while making new important partners.
In this sense, Russia is not going to abandon the Arab world but nor is Russia going to fight to liberate Palestine. Palestine is today as it always was, an Arab issue. While it is true that in the Cold War era, the USSR did side exclusively with Palestine between 1956 and the 1980s, the fact is that the USSR didn’t liberate Palestine then, even at a time when Moscow did ‘take sides’. In fact, far form liberating Palestine during the Cold War, during the decades in which Moscow took an openly pro-Palestine position, Palestine continued to shrink while “Israel” continued to grow. This reality means that it is important to separate Moscow’s Cold War rhetoric on Palestine from its actions – actions which de-facto led to nothing. If Moscow did not take it upon itself to liberate Palestine at the height of the Cold War, than why then should a far more geopolitically neutral Russia take on that task today?
The answer is that Palestine is today as it has always been a matter for the Arab world. If the Arab world remains too bitterly divided by western provocateurs to do anything for Palestine, why should a Russian government save Palestine, when frankly Moscow has errored in refusing to even save Russian men, women and children in Donbass? If Russia has been hesitant to liberate Donbass, Russia’s own version of the occupied territories, why should Russia sacrifice its pragmatic geopolitical stance for a moral cause that ought to be owned by the Arab world? The answer is self-evident.
Conclusion
The following points are therefore important to consider
–Russia and “Israel” have a strong relationship. It is imperfect but it is a lot better than many think it is. If non-Russians who expect Vladimir Putin to be the heir to Nasser cannot accept this, I suggest you seek psychiatric help.
–Russia needs “Israel” as a means of leveraging its mediation strategy against other partners including Syria and Iran.
–Russia needs “Israel” to expose the flaws in the western anti-Russian propaganda war by showing that Russia is friends with America’s best friend and that unlike western leaders who are confused by 21st century trends in antisemitism, Russia has no such conflicts of interests nor in approaches to history.
–“Israel” needs Russia as a key superpower partner in an age of declining US influence
–“Israel” needs Russia in order to de-escalate future tensions between “Israel” and anti-Zionist regional powers including Iran.
Adam Garrie is Director at Eurasia future. He is a geo-political expert who can be frequently seen on Nedka Babliku’s weekly discussion show Digital Divides, RT’s flagship debate show CrossTalk as well as Press-TV’s flagship programme ‘The Debate’. A global specialist with an emphasis on Eurasian integration, Garrie’s articles have been published in the Oriental Review, Asia Times, Geopolitica Russia, the Tasnim News Agency, Global Research, RT’s Op-Edge, Global Village Space and others.
Editor’s note: President Assad announced today that the Russian made S300 air defense system is operational in Syria already, with the first delivery days ago. He announced that a second delivery is due and expected.
This announcement was published today in Pravda:
Israel likes to bomb Syria and get away with it. However, with S-300 air defence systems deployed in the war-torn country, Tel Aviv will have to negotiate with Bashar Assad, military expert Andrei Koshkin believes.
On April 25, Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that Israel would respond accordingly, if Damascus uses S-300 systems against Israeli Air Force. Would it be better for Israel to stop bombing Syria given that S-300 systems are purely defensive weapons?
According to political scientist Andrei Koshkin, head of the department of political science and sociology at the Plekhanov Russian Economic University, Israel was worried in 2010 as well, when Russia and Syria agreed on the supplies of S-300 air defence systems. Russia subsequently canceled the deal after Western countries insisted Moscow should not ship its air defence systems to Damascus. These days, however, it has become obvious that the Western coalition likes to invade sovereign states with impunity and punish those who want to stop the West from acting so, Andrei Koshkin said.
Israel does not have a peace treaty with Syria, so Tel Aviv feels like it can attack those that pose a threat to the security of Israel.
Russian President Putin described the missile attack on Syria on the night of April 14 as an act of aggression. Syrian air defences destroyed 70 out of 100 missiles that the coalition launched. Undoubtedly, Israel’s attack on Syria’s T-4 base, where people were killed, should be considered an aggressive act as well, the political scientist told Pravda.Ru.
According to him, the S-300 Favorit modified complex can destroy all carriers, including missiles. In a nutshell, it allows to neutralise any aggression from air. According to the expert, the statement from Russia’s Defence Ministry about the supplies of S-300 systems to Syria forces aggressive states, like Israel, to bethink themselves and negotiate.
“The situation inspires optimism, because it translates armed confrontation into diplomatic negotiations.” It is S-300 systems that can make reason prevail over lawlessness. Just one statement from Russia was enough to make everyone in the Middle East quiet,” Andrei Koshkin told Pravda.Ru.
Interestingly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a briefing in Beijing that the question about the shipment of S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems to Syria had not been resolved yet. However, Syrian Ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad said that S-300 missile systems had been delivered to Syria last month.
[…]In this article, I am not going to demonstrate, but simply hypothesize, that the leaking and revelation of the Pentagon Papers, and more broadly the role of the media establishment in the anti-Vietnam movement, were in the interest of Israel. At that moment Israel was starting to face a unified international front against its illegal occupation. There was a real threat that the US would force Israel to withdraw, as required by UN Resolution 242. But I will go further and suggest that the Vietnam War itself, not just the protest against it, served the interests of Israel, regardless of other factors that motivated it. There is, of course, no contradiction between these two theses, since the anti-Vietnam-war movement presupposes the Vietnam war. Significantly, until around 1969, the Washington Post’s editorials were unequivocally pro-war.
As I wrote in JFK-9/11 and again in From Yahweh to Zion, if John Kennedy had not been assassinated, the very expression “Vietnam War” would not exist in school textbooks. Under his presidency, US military deployment amounted officially to a mere 15,000 “military advisors.” At the end of 1963, Kennedy had taken the decision to withdraw from Vietnam. On November 11, he signed directive NSAM-263 for the removal of “1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963,” in anticipation for withdrawing “by the end of 1965 […] the bulk of U.S. personnel.”[1] On November 21, the day before his fatal visit to Texas, he expressed his resolution to his assistant press secretary Malcolm Kilduff, after reading a report on the latest casualties: “After I come back from Texas, that’s going to change. There’s no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life.”[2]
But on November 26, the day after Kennedy’s funeral, Johnson buried NSAM-263 and replaced it with NSAM-273, which required the military to develop a plan “for the United States to begin carrying the war north,” including “different levels of possible increased activity,” and “military operations up to a line up to 50 kilometers inside Laos”—which violated the 1962 Geneva Accords on the neutrality of Laos.[3] Johnson’s decision regarding Vietnam was a clear betrayal of Kennedy’s earlier policy, and the amazing expediency of his change of policy suggests premeditation. All ambiguities cleverly laid out in NSAM-273 would be lifted by another memo signed on January, 1964 by General Maxwell Taylor, which said: “National Security Action Memorandum n° 273 makes clear the resolve of the President to ensure victory over the externally directed and supported communist insurgency in South Vietnam […]. To do this, we must prepare for whatever level of activity may be required.” It is no longer a question of stopping the war, but rather winnings at any cost. Robert McNamara, continuing as Secretary of Defense, acceded to Johnson’s agenda, recommending the mobilization of 50,000 soldiers and a program of “graduated overt military pressure” against North Vietnam, a policy which Johnson rubberstamped in March 1964 by memorandum NSAM-288.[4]
A suitable pretext was still needed for aggression. It came in Gulf of Tonkin on the 2nd and 4th of August 1964, when torpedoes were allegedly launched by the North Vietnamese against American destroyers. It is now known that the second attack, if not the first, was imaginary, made up out of falsified NSA data.[5] With that faked event, Johnson could announce on national television a “retaliatory” bombing of the North Vietnamese navy, and push through Congress on August 7, 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave him full powers to send up to 500,000 soldiers into North Vietnam. With that, Johnson plunged the Vietnamese people into a decade of unspeakable suffering, taking the lives of more than a million civilians. From 1965 to 1968, as part of Operation Rolling Thunder, 643,000 tons of bombs were dropped—three times more than during the entire Second World War—on a mostly rural country, and about 500,000 American soldiers were sent to Vietnam, where 50,000 perished. 19 million gallons of toxic chemicals were sprayed from the air to destroy approximately 40 percent of the South’s forests, one-third of its valuable mangrove swamps, and large areas of prime cropland. The chemicals are also suspected of causing widespread health problems, including cancer and birth defects. An estimated 3.5 million Vietnamese were killed directly in the war. One-third of the South’s population became “internal refugees”, their way of life destroyed, forced to live for years in the misery of refugee camps and overfull cities, with prostitution and other social problems as a result. Since the war ended for the US in 1975, nearly 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed by residual explosives, including an estimated 3.5 million land mines. Many more have been crippled for life. A decade after the war, over 13 percent of Vietnam’s population were still suffering from some war-related injury.[6]
It was during that period that Israel chose to launch its operation to annex Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian territories, by creating the illusion that it was acting in self-defense. Johnson had given Israel a green light in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, dated June 3: “I want to protect the territorial integrity of Israel […] and will provide as effective American support as possible to preserve the peace and freedom of your nation and of the area.”[7] Johnson also asked the CIA to transmit to the Israeli army the precise positions of the Egyptian air bases to be destroyed.
Four days after the start of the Israeli attack, Nasser accepted the ceasefire request from the UN Security Council. It was too soon for Israel, which had not yet achieved all its objectives. It was then that, on June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty, an unarmed NSA spy ship, was bombed, strafed, and torpedoed for 75 minutes by Israeli Mirage jets and torpedo boats. The Israelis obviously intended to sink it without leaving any survivors (even the lifeboats were machine-gunned), while Johnson personally prohibited the nearby Sixth Fleet from coming to its rescue. Had the USS Liberty been successfully sunk, the attack would have been blamed on the Egyptians, and would have given Johnson the pretext to intervene militarily alongside Israel, probably forcing the USSR to go to war.[8]
But it failed. The affair was successfully smothered by a commission of inquiry headed by Admiral John Sidney McCain II (father of Arizona Senator John McCain III). The survivors received a medal in an unadvertised ceremony, accompanied by a formal order never to mention the incident. Only recently have some broken the silence.[9]Johnson accepted Israel’s spurious “targeting error” explanation, and rewarded the unprovoked attack by lifting the embargo on the sale of offensive military equipment to Israel.
The USS Liberty failed false flag attack is proof of Johnson’s secret complicity with Israel, and of his high treason against the country he had sworn to protect. But Johnson had in fact always been Israel’s man. As early as 1948, his campaign for a Senate seat had been financed by Abraham Feinberg, president of Americans for Haganah Incorporated and financial godfather of Israel’s atomic bomb.[10] In 2013, the Associated Press reported on newly released tapes from Johnson’s White House office showing LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel.” The tapes showed that during the Johnson presidency, “the United States became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier.” An article from the 5 Towns Jewish Times“Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson?” recalls Johnson’s continuous support of Jews and Israel in the 1940s and 50s, and concludes: “President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel direction.” The article also mentions that, “research into Johnson’s personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America.” And, in an additional note: “The facts indicate that both of Lyndon Johnson’s great-grandparents, on the maternal side, were Jewish. […] The line of Jewish mothers can be traced back three generations in Lyndon Johnson’s family tree. There is little doubt that he was Jewish.”[11]
It is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger (A Thousand Days, 1965) that it was in fact Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher and columnist of the Washington Post, both strong supporters of Israel, who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson on his ticket, in a closed door conversation.[12] Schlesinger doesn’t reveal Graham and Alsop’s arguments, and states that Kennedy’s final decision “defies historical reconstruction”—a curious statement for a historian so well informed, which can only be explained by Schlesinger’s refusal throughout his 872 pages to come to grips with Kennedy’s Middle East policy and his battle with Zionism. Alan Hart has convincingly filled in the blanks: both Graham and Alsop were strongly pro-Israel as well as pro-Johnson, and both could exert a huge influence on public opinion. So “Kennedy was forced by Israel’s supporters to take Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate.”[13]
Is there a connection between those two wars, each waged or supported by Lyndon Johnson? In my book JFK-9/11, I suggested that Johnson escalated the Vietnam War as a substitute for the invasion of Cuba that the CIA and Pentagon hawks involved in the plot to assassinate JFK had been led to believe that they could start by blaming the assassination on a communist plot. “In lieu of invasion,” I wrote, “Johnson offered to the generals the Vietnam War.” That was a grossly insufficient explanation. There is little evidence that Pentagon generals, let alone CIA officers, needed a war, any war, at all cost. But I could think of no other explanation, short of the unlimited greed of war profiteers, of whom Johnson was a highly representative specimen. (In the weeks preceding the Kennedy assassination, he had invested in the Dallas aircraft manufacturer Ling-Temco-Vought, which was to become one of the Pentagon’s biggest arms suppliers for the Vietnam War.[14] Johnson also owned stocks in Bell Helicopter, to which he transferred illegally a contract for 220 helicopters that had been signed in 1963 with its rival Kaman Aircraft.[15])
Only recently did the idea come to me of a hidden link between the Vietnam War and the Six-Day War. I could not conceive it before because I had not yet taken the full measure of the perversity of the Israeli leadership, whose collective psychopathy resonated deeply with Johnson’s personal psychopathy. Having now studied the deep thinking of those ultra-Machiavellian crypto-Likudniks whom we call neoconservatives, I have acquired the conviction that the tragedy of the world for the last hundred years is only comprehensible once we admit that Israel (before and after 1947) acts on the international scene in a biblical way, that is, with the same indifference and cruelty toward non-Jewish nations that Yahweh demanded of his people in the Bible. In their eyes, these populations are no more worthy than livestock, and their suffering is irrelevant (unless, of course, it can be exploited). There is absolutely no moral limit to the determination of Israel to pave its way toward hegemony through the ruin of whole nations. Absolutely none. This is what I meant when calling Israel the “psychopathic nation”.
And so my hypothesis is that one of the purposes of the Vietnam War desired by Johnson and his masters was to create a diversion while Israel was engaging in the decisive stage of its expansion. Let us imagine for a moment that there had been no Vietnam War, in 1967 and thereafter, to mobilize Americans’ limited attention on world affairs, and to divert their indignation. Could the Washington Post and the New York Times have managed to hide from the public the scandal of that war of aggression and illegal annexation? Even more importantly, Israel’s strategists surely understood that the legitimacy of the US state to condemn Israel’s crimes would be much diminished if the US could be blamed for even worse crimes.
French President Charles De Gaulle actually understood that the Vietnam War was preventing a peaceful solution in Palestine. In a press conference on November 27, 1967, after condemning Israel’s aggression and famously qualifying the Jews as “an elite people, self-confident and dominating,” he called for the four great powers to enforce an international settlement on the basis of Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories, and added:
“But one cannot see how such an agreement could be reached as long as one of the greatest among the four will not withdraw from the heinous war that they are waging elsewhere. Without the tragedy of Vietnam, the conflict between Israel and the Arabs would not have become what it has become. And if South-East Asia could experience a renewal of peace, the Middle-East would also find its way to peace, in the climate of détente which would follow such an event.”[16]
Soon after that press conference, De Gaulle’s government became the target of a major student protest that culminated in May 1968, ultimately forcing De Gaulle to resign. These students, led by predominantly Jewish Trotskyist activists,[17] were not protesting against the US aggression against Vietnam, nor against Israel’s aggression against its Arab neighbors, but against bourgeois society.
It is not an exaggeration to qualify the Vietnam War as a “holocaust”, as did the 2008 documentary film Vietnam: American Holocaust.[18] In the Bible, a holocaust designates an animal offering completely consumed by fire, producing an “enjoyable smell” for Yahweh (Genesis 8:20-21; Exodus 29:25). According to the Book of Ezra, a gigantic holocaust was offered “to the God of Israel who resides in Jerusalem” by the Judeo-Babylonians who (re)colonized Palestine, in preparation for the (re)building of the Temple (7:12–15).
Strangely, it is during the Vietnam War that the term “Holocaust” became the common designation of the killing of Jews during World War II. Unless we consider that Hitler was working for the glory of Yahweh, that expression seems absurd. Surely, the anti-Zionist rabbi Moshe Shonfeld believes that “The Zionist leaders saw the spilt Jewish blood of the Holocaust as grease for the wheels of the Jewish national state.”[19] But the term logically applies much better to the Vietnam War if we consider that by focusing the attention of the American public, then the protests of American youths and liberal intellectuals, it left the field wide open for Israel’s conquest of Palestinian, Egyptian, and Syrian territories. After all, the Vietnamese plight was greater than the Palestinians’. This, I believe, provides a plausible answer to the question: Why did Johnson, who did not satisfy the CIA hawks on Cuba, draw the US into the Vietnam inferno? The strongest Johnson administration advocate for a deepening commitment in Vietnam was National Security Advisor Walt Rostow, whose brother Eugene was Under-Secretary of State. They happened to be sons of Jewish immigrants. The historian David Milne has called Rostow “America’s Rasputin.”
Two months after his election in 1968, Nixon secretly and illegally expanded the war into Cambodia, ordering a massive bombardment under the codename Breakfast, followed by Lunch, Dessert, Snack, Dinner and Supper—all of which led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, an exceptionally bloody, tyrannical regime responsible for the extermination of one third of the Cambodian population. The man who pushed him in that direction was National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, also acting as Secretary of State. Like the Rostows, Kissinger happens to be Jewish.
Many of the leading figures of the anti-war movement were also Jewish. But soon after the leaking of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg, with the help of Anthony Russo, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn (all Jewish by birth), other liberal Jewish intellectuals made a 180-degree turn and became leading advocate of the war: they called themselves “neoconservatives”. We have here a fine example of dialectical engineering of history: as Jewish leftists like Noam Chomsky started to protest against the war, former Jewish leftists like Irving Kristol started to protest against the protesters. Meanwhile, Israel could be pushed out of the headlines. Kristol wrote in the magazine of the American Jewish Congress in 1972 that it was necessary to fight against George McGovern’s proposal to reduce the military budget by 30 percent: “This is to drive a knife into the heart of Israel. […] Jews don’t like a big military budget, but it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States. […] American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”[20]
Against McGovern’s demand for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, Kristol could have added: “American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to withdraw from Vietnam, it is important to pursue the genocide of the Vietnamese, so that America’s youthful idealists will protest against their own government rather than against Israel’s violation of international law.”
[6] Figures taken from “Vietnam Holocaust, 140 years of pillage, slaughter & persecution,” ã Föreningen Levande Framtid, Sweden, 2001: http://www.nnn.se/vietnam/holocaust.pdf
[8] Robert Allen, Beyond Treason: Reflections on the Cover-up of the June 1967 Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, an American Spy Ship, CreateSpace, 2012.
[9] Watch the 2014 Al-Jazeera documentary The Day Israel Attacked America.
[10] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 250.
[11] Morris Smith, “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!,” 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.
[12] Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56.
[13] Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2: op. cit., p. 257.
[14] Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, Potomac Books, 2007.
Jeremy Corbyn taking the night bus home after a hard day in the Commons. How many other top politicians do this? The answer is none, they are all in it for the money.
They are the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, members of various Friends of Israel and assorted Israel lobby dogsbodies and flag wavers including Tony Blair.
The opening shot was a letter from the Board of Deputies to the chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, saying: “Today, leaders of British Jewry tell Jeremy Corbyn that enough is enough. We have had enough of hearing that Jeremy Corbyn ‘opposes antisemitism’, whilst the mainstream majority of British Jews, and their concerns, are ignored by him and those he leads.”
It went on to complain that there was “repeated institutional failure to properly address Jewish concerns and to tackle antisemitism” and concluded that Corbyn issues empty statements about opposing anti-Semitism and cannot seriously deal with it because “he is so ideologically fixed within a far left worldview that is instinctively hostile to mainstream Jewish communities”.
The insults continued with this gem: “Hizbollah commits terrorist atrocities against Jews, but Corbyn calls them his friends and attends pro-Hizbollah rallies in London. Exactly the same goes for Hamas.”
Has the BoD forgotten why Hezbollah and Hamas were founded in the first place? The idea that it’s OK to support Israeli terror and occupation but not OK to talk with those who resist it, is preposterous and Corbyn needs to rub their noses in it. Moreover Israel’s values are not necessarily ours, and their sworn enemies are certainly not ours.
Corbyn is also accused of being “repeatedly found alongside people with blatantly antisemitic views, but claims never to hear or read them”. The letter ends with the suggestion that Corbyn is part of “a conspiratorial worldview in which mainstream Jewish communities are believed to be a hostile entity, a class enemy”.
Corbyn sent an apology in which he was sincerely sorry for the pain caused by “pockets of anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party. But, he reasoned, “criticism of Israel, particularly in relation to the continuing dispossession of the Palestinian people, cannot be avoided”. Nevertheless, comparing Israel or the actions of Israeli governments to the Nazis, or attributing criticisms of Israel to Jewish characteristics or to Jewish people in general, or calling supporters of Israel ‘Zio’, all count as contemporary anti-Semitism, he said. And Jewish people must not be held responsible or accountable for the actions of the Israeli government.
Back came BoD president Jonathan Arkush and JLC chair Jonathan Goldstein with a statement saying that after almost three years of Corbyn’s leadership “words are no longer enough – now we need action. The Labour Party must finally demonstrate that it has the genuine will and determination to act effectively against the hate in its membership. We will not be silent and we will continue to hold it to account.”
Who are the Israel lobby? And should we listen?
This attack on Corbyn and the Labour Left in the run-up to Easter is a reminder of the deep racism and the religious war being waged in the Holy Land.
The place where Christianity was born is defiled by a brutal and illegal military occupation that has gone unpunished for 70 years and turned a beautiful and very special historic region, precious to three religions, into a swamp of racial hatred resulting in unspeakable crimes against the native Arab population hundreds of thousands of whom have been cruelly dispossessed of their homes and lands and forced to flee.
The Israel Project was a Zionist political initiative of the late 1800s given a huge boost by the murky scheming behind the Balfour Declaration of 1917, actually drafted by Zionist Leopold Amery. It caused Lord Sydenham to remark: “What we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend.”
Well, now we know. And it suits the Israel lobby to confuse the issue by conflating anti-Zionist views with anti-Semitism.
The Israel lobby insists Israel is not an “apartheid state”. But this puts it at odds with a recent UN report and the facts on the ground. The lobby is also furious about the success of BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), the non-violent movement by civil society as a result of the international community’s failure to act. It aims to persuade Israel to comply with international law and UN resolutions, recognise the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and end its occupation and colonisation of their lands.
Theresa May warns she’ll “have no truck” with people who support BDS. But 200 legal scholars and practising lawyers have pointed out that it is a lawful exercise of freedom of expression and outlawing it undermines a basic human right protected by international convention.
Who are the Israel lobby anyway? Essentially the Friends of Israel groups that are allowed to flourish within our political parties (except the SNP which has resisted pressure to let them in), backed by the BoD and the JLC who claim to speak for the Jewish community. This is a noisy coalition that certainly isn’t supported by all Jews. A growing number of Jewish organisations are highly critical of the Israeli state and its policies. Not all Jews are Zionists – and not all Zionists are Jews; indeed a very large number are Christians, especially in the US.
Discontent about the conduct of the Jewish State and its military is spreading even among Israelis. At the Labour Party conference last year Miko Peled told activists that Israel is “terrified” of Jeremy Corbyn becoming British prime minister. “They are going to pull all the stops, they are going to smear, they are going to try anything they can to stop Corbyn from being prime minister….
“The reason anti-Semitism is used is because they [the Israelis] have no argument, there is nothing to say. How can a call for justice and tolerance be conflated with anti-Semitism? I don’t know if they realise this but they are pitting Judaism against everything good and just.”
Peled is an Israeli Jew, the son of an Israeli general, and a former soldier in the Israeli army.
I’d be more impressed with Corbyn if he turned on his tormentors and told them straight: “You yourselves need to condemn the horrendous crimes committed by the Israeli regime against the Palestinians, and urge the Jewish State to end its occupation, recognise Palestinian independence, restore the refugees to their homes (or provide compensation), and issue a fulsome apology for past wrongs. That’s when I will begin to listen to you.”
I’m also waiting for him to demand an explanation for the Israelis’ anti-Semitism. It turns out, or so we’re told, that the true Semites are the Arabs, and most Israelis are Ashkenazi coverts with no ancestral links to the Holy Land at all.
That’s not all. The Israel lobby might like to reflect on the desperate cry for help from over 30 Christian organisations in occupied Palestine to the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement recently. They had issued a similar heart-wrenching plea 10 years earlier. Their message now is stark: “Things are beyond urgent. We are on the verge of a catastrophic collapse. The current status-quo is unsustainable. This could be our last chance to achieve a just peace. As a Palestinian Christian community, this could be our last opportunity to save the Christian presence in this land…. We need brave women and men who are willing to stand in the forefront. This is no time for shallow diplomacy….”
But shallow diplomacy is all they get still. Response from the WCC, which represents 500 million Christians in more than 110 countries, has been heavily muted or non-existent. Feeble leadership means that Western Christendom could soon say goodbye forever to the wellspring of their faith, Jerusalem, which is being stolen from under their noses. Do they care? Apparently not.
The Israel lobby is no doubt celebrating.
The illegal occupier also restricts access to Islam’s third most holy place, the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Do Muslim rulers care? They are so divided they cannot mobilise effectively to deal with it.
As someone who has witnessed the racial abuse of Palestinian Arabs (Christian and Muslim) and seen how their homeland – the Holy Land – has been made a living hell, I’d love to know what the 500 million Christians and 1.8 billion Muslims in this world are going to do about it.
