American Resistance To Empire

Two Documents Which Prove That Barack Obama Went To War Against Syria To Steal Syrian Gas and Oil

[SEE: Why Syria’s small oil reserves have become the linchpin for political control in the region]

Aug. 17, 2011

Syria announces discovery of new gas field near Homs

DAMASCUS: Syria announced Tuesday it has found a promising gas field in the central governorate of Homs, as Human Rights Watch urged the European Union to freeze the assets of Syria’s state oil and gas companies. “The first wells were drilled at Qara in Homs governorate and the flow rate is 400,000 cubic meters per day.” Oil Minister Sufian Allawi was quoted as saying by state news agency SANA.

“This discovery opens new perspectives in the region of Qalamun and the Syrian company will continue its drilling,” said Allawi, adding that the field was located in the Basin of Dau.

He said Syria’s natural gas production has reached 30.29 million cubic meters per day, up by 3 million cubic meters since last year. Oil production in Syria is about 380,000 barrels per day, Allawi added.

Syria has partially replaced oil with gas as fuel in its power stations on falling crude production.

The nation’s gas reserves, estimated at 284 billion cubic meters, may increase after new discoveries in many parts of the country, Allawi added.

New York-based Human Rights Watch said the European Union should freeze the assets of the Syrian National Oil Company, Syrian National Gas Company and the Central Bank of Syria until Damascus “ends gross human rights abuses against its citizens.”

The rights advocacy group said the state-run oil and gas companies have a 50 percent share in every oil and gas project in Syria.

On Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged countries to stop buying Syrian oil and gas in a bid to pressure President Bashar Assad to end a brutal crackdown on protesters.

“We urge those countries still buying Syrian oil and gas, those countries still sending Assad weapons, those countries whose political and economic support give him comfort in his brutality, to get on the right side of history,” Clinton said.

In a March 2010 report, the International Monetary Fund estimated that the Syrian government earns approximately 2.1 billion euros ($3 billion) from oil and gas revenues per year.

Most of Syria’s oil is used domestically, but it exports approximately 150,000 barrels per day. Around 95 percent of that goes to Europe, primarily to Italy, the Netherlands, France, and Germany.

[The next day, Obama issued the following Executive Order, which amounted to a declaration of economic war against Syria, with the clear intention of preventing Bashar Assad from harvesting any of the newly discovered Syrian hydrocarbon wealth…Clearly an act of aggression.]

August 18, 2011

Executive Order 13582– Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in order to take additional steps with respect to the Government of Syria’s continuing escalation of violence against the people of Syria and with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006, Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008, Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011, and Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011, hereby order:

Section 1.  (a)  All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any overseas branch, of the Government of Syria are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(b)  All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any overseas branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:  any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(i)   to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(ii)  to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

Sec2.  The following are prohibited:

(a)  new investment in Syria by a United States person, wherever located;

(b)  the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any services to Syria;

(c)  the importation into the United States of petroleum or petroleum products of Syrian origin;

(d)  any transaction or dealing by a United States person, wherever located, including purchasing, selling, transporting, swapping, brokering, approving, financing, facilitating, or guaranteeing, in or related to petroleum or petroleum products of Syrian origin; and

(e)  any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee by a United States person, wherever located, of a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by this section if performed by a United States person or within the United States.

Sec3.  I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338 and expanded in scope in Executive Order 13572, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec4.  The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:

(a)  the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b)  the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec5.  The prohibitions in sections 1 and 2 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec6.  (a)  Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b)  Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec7.  Nothing in sections 1 or 2 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.

Sec8.  For the purposes of this order:

(a)  the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(b)  the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

(c)  the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and

(d)  the term “Government of Syria” means the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities.

Sec9.  For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual.  I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338 and expanded in scope in Executive Order 13572, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

Sec10.  The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order.  The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law.  All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec11.  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec12.  This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on August 18, 2011.


US GOVT Orders Pro-Israel Bias Into NC Colleges’ Curriculum

The chapel at Duke University. The Education Department is investigating a Middle East studies program that the university runs jointly with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Credit…Lance King/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Education Department has ordered Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to remake the Middle East studies program run jointly by the two schools after concluding that it was offering students a biased curriculum that, among other complaints, did not present enough “positive” imagery of Judaism and Christianity in the region.

In a rare instance of federal intervention in college course content, the department asserted that the universities’ Middle East program violated the standards of a federal program that awards funding to international studies and foreign language programs. The inquiry was part of a far-reaching investigation into the program by the department, which under Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, has become increasingly aggressive in going after perceived anti-Israel bias in higher education.

That focus appears to reflect the views of an agency leadership that includes a civil rights chief, Kenneth L. Marcus, who has made a career of pro-Israel advocacy and has waged a yearslong campaign to delegitimize and defund Middle East studies programs that he has criticized as rife with anti-Israel bias.

In this case, the department homed in on what officials saw as a program that focused on the region’s Muslim population at the expense of its religious minorities. In the North Carolina program’s outreach to elementary and secondary school students, the department said, there was “a considerable emphasis placed on the understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East.”

Too few of the Duke-U.N.C. programs focused on “the historic discrimination faced by, and current circumstances of, religious minorities in the Middle East, including Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Yazidis, Kurds, Druze and others,” the department said.

With its actions, the department entered the debate over Israel and Palestinians that has roiled campuses around the country.

The department’s action “should be a wake-up call,” said Miriam Elman, an associate professor at Syracuse University and the executive director of the Academic Engagement Network, which opposes the boycott-Israel movement that has animated campus activism across the country. She added, “What they’re saying is, ‘If you want to be biased and show an unbalanced view of the Middle East, you can do that, but you’re not going to get federal and taxpayer money.’”

Palestinian rights groups accused the Education Department of intimidation and infringing on academic freedom.

“They really want to send the message that if you want to criticize Israel, then the federal government is going to look very closely at your entire program and micromanage it to death,” said Zoha Khalili, a staff lawyer at Palestine Legal, one such group. The department’s intervention, she added, “sends a message to Middle Eastern studies programs that their continued existence depends on their willingness to toe the government line on Israel.”

In a letter to university officials, the assistant secretary for postsecondary education, Robert King, wrote that programs run by the Duke-U.N.C. Consortium for Middle East Studies appeared to be misaligned with the federal grant they had received. Title VI of the Higher Education Act awards funding to colleges “establishing, strengthening and operating a diverse network of undergraduate foreign language and area or international studies centers and programs.”

The Education Department “believes” the Middle Eastern studies consortium “has failed to carefully distinguish between activities lawfully funded under Title VI and other activities” that are “plainly unqualified for taxpayer support,” Mr. King wrote.

The letter, published this week in the Federal Register, said that the consortium’s records on the number of students it had enrolled in foreign language studies — a cornerstone of the federal grant program — were unclear, and that “it seems clear foreign language instruction and area studies advancing the security and economic stability of the United States have taken ‘a back seat’ to other priorities.”

Mr. King wrote that the department believed other offerings, like a conference focused on “love and desire in modern Iran” and another focused on Middle East film criticism, “have little or no relevance to Title VI.” The department wrote the consortium’s programming also “appears to lack balance.”

The department also criticized the consortium’s teacher training programs for focusing on issues like “unconscious bias, serving L.G.B.T.I.Q. youth in schools, culture and the media, diverse books for the classroom and more.” They said that it had a “startling lack of focus on geography, geopolitical issues, history and language.”

The administration ordered the consortium to submit a revised schedule of events it planned to support and a full list of the courses it offers and the professors working in its Middle East studies program. The department also directed the consortium to demonstrate that it had “effective institutional controls” to stay compliant with the administration’s interpretation of the Higher Education Act. The universities were given until Sept. 22, only days before the department is scheduled to approve funding on Sept. 30.

A spokesman for Duke declined to comment, referring questions to the University of North Carolina. A spokeswoman for the U.N.C. acknowledged receipt of the letter.

“The consortium deeply values its partnership with the Department of Education and has always been strongly committed to complying with the purposes and requirements of the Title VI program,” the university said in a statement. “In keeping with the spirit of this partnership, the consortium is committed to working with the department to provide more information about its programs.”

To advocacy groups enmeshed in academic battles over Israel, the new investigation was not surprising.

Last year, the department reopened a case into anti-Jewish bias at Rutgers University that the Obama administration had closed with no finding of wrongdoing. In reconsidering the case, Mr. Marcus said the Education Department would be using a State Department definition of anti-Semitism that, among other things, labels “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” anti-Jewish bigotry, suggesting that it had been adopted by his office. The Education Department has not adopted that definition.

In June, Ms. DeVos said she had ordered an investigation into whether the Duke-U.N.C. consortium had misused any of the $235,000 it received in Title VI grants, including to sponsor an event in March called “Conflict Over Gaza: People, Politics and Possibilities.” Representative George Holding, Republican of North Carolina, had requested that Ms. DeVos investigate whether federal funding was used to host the conference, which constituents had said was rife with “radical anti-Israel bias.”

Mr. Holding said the conference featured active members of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel — known as B.D.S. — and featured panelists who “distorted facts and misrepresented the complex situation in Gaza.” He said a video shown at the conference featured a performer who sang a “brazenly anti-Semitic song.”

But some groups came to the defense of the Middle East studies consortium. Tallie Ben Daniel, the research and education manager at Jewish Voice for Peace, a liberal group that advocates Palestinian rights, said the investigation was the latest attempt by the Trump administration “to enforce a neoconservative agenda onto spaces of academic inquiry and exploration.” She called the consortium’s curriculum “rich and diverse.”

To critics like Ms. Daniel, the targeting of the U.N.C.-Duke program appeared to be a continuation of efforts that predated the Trump administration. A group founded by Mr. Marcus, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, has pressed Education Department and Congress for years to crack down on Middle East studies programs that the center claimed promoted an anti-Israel bias.

But Ms. Elman, the professor at Syracuse, said the department’s scrutiny of the programs was long overdue.

“To get Title VI, you really have to strive for viewpoint diversity,” she said. “This is what our students want. They don’t want to be indoctrinated. They want both sides. It’s possible to do that and still make people uncomfortable.”

Before joining the Education Department, Mr. Marcus had aggressively lobbied for the Higher Education Act to crack down on Middle East studies programs, and criticized both the Education Department and Congress for failing to hold institutions accountable for violating the law’s “diverse perspectives” requirement.

In 2014, he wrote an opinion article that assailed the Title VI program for “being used to support biased and academically worthless programming on college campuses,” leaving students and faculty with opposing views “ostracized and threatened.”

“Aside from their intellectual vapidity,” Mr. Marcus wrote, “many of these programs poison the atmosphere on campus.”

He called on the department to establish a complaint process that would prompt extensive reviews of entire programs like the one being undertaken into U.N.C. and Duke.

Anti-Zionism Is Not Antisemitism

Anti-Zionism Is Not Antisemitism

Just days after he was warmly applauded by a Zionist group for delivering a stunningly antisemitic speech, Donald Trump issued a cynical “antisemitism” decree meant to stamp out campus criticism of Israel. It’s just the latest episode in Zionism’s long history of allying with antisemites.

US president Donald Trump signed an executive order to combat antisemitism during a Hanukkah reception in the East Room of the White House on December 11, 2019 in Washington, DC. Mark Wilson / Getty

Few people would trust Donald Trump to protect Jews from a rise in antisemitism. In the United States alone, there were more than a hundred cases of physical attacks, arson, vandalism, and threats in 2018, including last October’s assault in Pittsburgh that left eleven Jews dead at the Tree of Life synagogue. Tuesday’s shooting at a Jersey City kosher market appears to be the latest anti-Jewish attack.

Trump once called himself “the least antisemitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life.” But his December 11 executive order, which claims to target antisemitism on campuses, ironically employs an antisemitic trope. By defining Judaism as a nationality, Jews, the logic flows, are inherently foreign. This should come as no surprise, given the home that white nationalism and antisemitism have found in the Trump White House.

This isn’t new territory for Trump, who famously refused to call out antisemitic white supremacy after the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Most recently, he told a room full of Jews at the Israeli American Council:

You’re brutal killers, not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me — you have no choice. You’re not gonna vote for Pocahontas, I can tell you that. You’re not gonna vote for the wealth tax. Yeah, let’s take 100 percent of your wealth away! Some of you don’t like me. Some of you I don’t like at all, actually. And you’re going to be my biggest supporters because you’re going to be out of business in about fifteen minutes if they get it. So I don’t have to spend a lot of time on that.

But the intention of the executive order is plainly not to protect Jews, but to silence the movement for Palestine. As Peter Beinart put it: “It is a bewildering and alarming time to be a Jew, both because antisemitism is rising and because so many politicians are responding to it not by protecting Jews but by victimising Palestinians.”

The executive order adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which so broadly defines the term that it includes such items as: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” And by defining Judaism as a nationality, the order has power to withhold federal money from educational institutions that don’t adequately clamp down on these broadly and cynically defined affronts.

Trump isn’t actually trying to fight antisemitism here. He’s cynically trying to shut down criticism of Israel’s barbaric policies — the latest episode in Zionism’s long history of allying with antisemites.

“A Debate They Know They Can’t Win”

Trump’s order is but the latest salvo in a years-long campaign to redefine antisemitism for the purposes of shutting down criticism of Israel.

As Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, told the New York Times: “Israeli apartheid is a very hard product to sell in America, especially in progressive spaces. And realizing this, many Israeli apartheid apologists, Trump included, are looking to silence a debate they know they can’t win.”

Across the ocean, France’s parliament recently passed a resolution equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. And in Britain, today’s elections, in which a victory for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party would dramatically turn around the state of British politics, have already been marred by nonstop smears purporting endemic antisemitism within the Labour Party. These attacks have mirrored the attempts to silence Ilhan Omar, an outspoken critic of Israeli aggression.

As the Guardian recently reported, this strategy has been quite explicit, and it has been driven by a sundry assortment of right-wing forces. At a conference this summer of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative network that promotes right-wing policies, Republicans met with pro-Israel lobbyists.

Their aim was to draft laws that, in the words of Randy Fine, a Republican representative from Florida, would mean that “antisemitism [will] be treated identically as how racism is treated. Students for Justice in Palestine is now treated the same way as the Ku Klux Klan — as they should be.”

Joseph Sabag of the Israeli American Council — the same group that hosted Donald Trump and applauded his openly antisemitic speech — agreed:

[Students for Justice in Palestine] is one of America’s most prominent anti-Israel propaganda groups and has material connections to organizations designated by the US justice department as terrorism co-conspirators. In the course of promoting BDS, or national-origin based discrimination against Israel, SJP members typically employ classic antisemitic themes and blood libels.

In fact, US lobby groups have a long history of working with the Israeli government’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and its hasbara (propaganda) efforts to sabotage Palestinian activism on campuses. Particularly, they have targeted the advances made by Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaigns to pass resolutions to divest their universities from companies that support Israeli occupation.

One Minoritarian Response to Antisemitism Among Many

Thankfully, a growing chorus of voices is making it clear that criticism of Israel cannot be equated with antisemitism — including a significant and ever-growing number of Jews and Jewish organizations.

Some progressives choose to differentiate between criticism of Israel’s most indefensible policies and deeper objections to the Zionist project as a whole. But this is a mistaken concession to a project that, no matter its claims, has always been one of colonization rather than Jewish emancipation. Not only does Israel not speak for the world’s Jews, but there is no correlation between support for Zionism or Israel on the one hand, and opposing antisemitism on the other.

Until the rise of fascism in Europe, Zionism was a fringe movement among Jews. Most had no interest in moving to Palestine, let alone driving out its native population. Between 1880 and 1929, almost 4 million Jews emigrated from Russia and Eastern European countries. But only 120,000 moved to Palestine, while more than 3 million moved to the United States and Canada.

In 1914, there were only 12,000 members of Zionist organizations across the entire United States. The Socialist Party had that many Jewish members in the Lower East Side of New York alone.

Modern antisemitism was born out of the tumultuous period of Eastern European and Russian history when feudalism was giving way to capitalist development. In Russia, antisemitic scapegoating deliberately organized and provoked by the czar was used as a means of dividing and weakening workers’ struggles. A wave of pogroms — anti-Jewish riots — exploded through Russia from 1881 onward, spreading to Poland and other Eastern European countries. Another outbreak of anti-Jewish violence reached even more barbaric proportions in 1903. Not coincidentally, both 1882 and 1904 saw waves of immigration to Palestine and other countries.

From its inception, Zionism was a secular rather than a religious movement and, in that sense, was never a “Jewish” idea. Religious Jews, by and large, opposed the growth of Zionism at that time, and some Orthodox groups still do today, on the basis of Jewish religious law.

Jewish liturgy refers to a return to the Holy Land on a spiritual level, and some Jewish religious pilgrims had emigrated to Palestine in the past to form religious communities — but not to establish a state. Political Zionism — which sought to form an exclusive Jewish state — was a new phenomenon that arose in Eastern Europe in response to the growth of modern antisemitism.

But Zionism was just one (minority) response to antisemitism, among many. Many more Jews flocked to socialist and communist movements, which were critical in the fight against fascism. Zionism’s response, on the other hand, was one of resignation to antisemitism and, at times, even collaboration with it.

As a member of the (now-defunct) Israeli Socialist Organization put it, Zionism “accepts at least tacitly the basic assumptions of racism.” That is, there is something inherent either in Jews or non-Jews that necessarily warrants a separation.

A number of leading Zionists concurred with popular racist ideas aimed at Jews themselves. Herzl accepted the idea that Jews were an economic burden to non-Jews, and in this way brought antisemitism on themselves anywhere they went. Thus, there has always been a disquieting symmetry between Zionism and antisemitism.

At minimum, Zionism resigned itself to antisemitism. Some major strands within the movement consciously articulated a common interest between Zionism, on the one hand, and antisemites — even fascists. One particularly appalling example of this attitude was expressed by Joachim Prinz, a Zionist leader in Germany in the 1930s. Commenting on Hitler, who pushed to institute total separation between Jews and non-Jews, especially a prohibition on intermarriage, he wrote:

The theory of assimilation has broken down. We have no longer any refuge. We want assimilation to be replaced by the conscious recognition of the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. Only those Jews who recognize their own specificity can respect a state founded on the principle of the purity of nation and race . . . From every last hiding place of baptizing and mixed marriage [the Jews] are being pulled out. This does not make us unhappy. In this coercion to acknowledge and clearly stand by one’s own community, we see at the same time the fulfillment of our dreams.

Practically speaking, the most overarching reason that emerged for why so many Zionists could view antisemitic regimes in a favorable light wasn’t necessarily that they actively preferred antisemites (though sometimes they did), but that the Zionist project was, and remains, dependent on the backing of imperial powers — first the Ottoman Empire, then the British, then the United States.

A minority settler community simply could not colonize a majority native population without the military support of one or more of the major powers. Zionists, including those in the mainstream “Labor” camp, weren’t discriminating as to where that backing came from, even when it was motivated by a disdain for Jews.

For instance, the British ruling class agreed with the Zionists that it would be mutually beneficial to support a Jewish state in Palestine, because a Zionist state could act as an important counterweight to growing Arab nationalism as well as to the tendency of many Jews in Britain to join radical and revolutionary movements.

Winston Churchill made this argument in an article called “Zionism versus Bolshevism,” which argued that it was important to “develop and foster any strongly-marked Jewish movement” such as Zionism that could “lead directly away from” the “worldwide conspiracy” of “the International Jews” (and here he mentions Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Emma Goldman, and Rosa Luxemburg) “for the overthrow of civilization.”

In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, formally declaring support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Lord Balfour, who wrote the declaration, was a known antisemite who had sponsored legislation against Jewish immigration into Britain.

British officials began to give economic and political support to the burgeoning Zionist proto-state in Palestine. For instance, 90 percent of economic concessions were granted to Jews even though they made up a fraction of the population. As settlers drove Palestinians from their lands and workplaces, Arab nationalism grew in response to what was clearly an unfolding disaster.

It was with the rise of fascism in Europe that the Jewish population in Palestine experienced its greatest growth. But it was also in this period that Zionism showed its ugliest face with regard to Europe’s Jews. Within months of Hitler’s coming to power, the leading German Zionist organization sent him a memo offering collaboration. While the Nazis were smashing socialist and Jewish resistance organizations, they allowed the Zionists to continue operating. The leading Zionist organizations, for their part, worked to undermine a worldwide anti-German boycott.

Zionist leaders believed that fighting antisemitism in Europe was a distraction from winning a Jewish state in Palestine. Time and again, they chose to negotiate for more immigration of Jews to Palestine rather than confronting antisemitic regimes. In the process, they decided which immigrants were desirable. Chaim Weizmann, for instance, declared:

From the depths of this tragedy I want to save young people. The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in the a cruel world . . . Only the branch of the young shall survive.

Similarly, the Jewish Agency, the central Zionist organization in Palestine, refused to devote funds to the rescue of European Jews. It decided to spend the money on acquiring land in Palestine.

And David Ben-Gurion, who was to become Israel’s first prime minister, opposed a plan to allow German Jewish children to emigrate to Britain. His explanation:

If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them to Israel, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.

By 1947 — on the eve of Israel’s establishment — Jews still made up less than one-third of the population of Palestine. Settlement alone couldn’t create a Jewish state. The other arm of the strategy had to be the “transfer” of the Arab population (an antiseptic euphemism for ethnic cleansing.)

This idea was embraced by the majority of Zionist leaders, from Herzl to Ben-Gurion. As Yosef Weitz, the head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department, said:

Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries — all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.

The UN partitioned Palestine in 1947, reserving 55 percent of the land for a Jewish state and leaving the Arab majority with only 45 percent of their own country. The Zionist leadership publicly accepted the partition, but privately drew up plans to capture the rest of the country and drive the Arab population out. In the months between the partition and the British army’s withdrawal, Zionist militias took the opportunity to terrorize the Arab population. It was at this time that atrocities like the infamous Deir Yassin massacre — in which every man, woman, and child in the village, 254 in total, were killed — took place.

The final irony of Zionism is that it turned the oppressed minority Jews of Europe into an oppressor majority in Palestine. Rather than challenge domination, Zionists accepted discrimination and separation as natural principles of humanity. The rise of European fascism not only created a massive impetus for immigration to Palestine, it also, in the eyes of many Zionists, legitimized the ethnic cleansing of Arabs. The most right-wing strands of Zionism embraced ideas of racial purity as their own.

Ultimately, the fight against antisemitism has to be linked to the wider fight against oppression. For that reason, the fight against Palestinian oppression has far more in common with the struggle against antisemitism than Zionism does. This struggle must avoid compromising with the slanders against it — whether they come from the likes of Donald Trump or Israeli hasbara.

A movement that includes Jewish Voice for Peace and Bernie Sanders as much as it does Ilhan Omar and Jeremy Corbyn can get us a step closer to a world where the brutality of pogroms and occupations are consigned to the dustbin of history.


Hadas Thier is an activist and socialist in New York, and the author of the forthcoming book A People’s Guide to Capitalism: An Introduction to Marxist Economics.

Is It Time To Kill Another Hariri, Already?

Israel Plans To Assassinate Saad Hariri

When all else fails against an enemy, the Israeli Mossad activates its assassins, either through a missile strike targeting a passenger in a moving car, or through a car bomb, through poisoned toothpaste, else through a bullet to the brain of their target.  This is their MO, as illustrated by their very own supremely long history of terrorism.

Following the dramatic civil unrest and protest upheaval in the Lebanon these past two weeks – a genuine anti corruption Lebanese revolution that was hijacked on the fifth day by the internal and external enemies of Lebanon, and more specifically, by the enemies of Hezbollah – Lebanon returned to some semblance of normality two days ago, albeit a volatile one.

Nasrallah, in his last speech, heartily congratulated the “awoke population of the Lebanon” for foiling an Israeli-Saudi plan to ignite sectarian civil war in their nation.  Indeed, it’s a miracle that gun fights on narrow Lebanese streets and strategic bridges didn’t erupt between hot-headed protesting civilians, considering that the majority of Lebanese homes proudly count weapons as part and parcel of their furniture.

Clearly, the aim of the revolution’s hijackers was solely to target Hezbollah for destruction – or at least, for weakening.  For over two decades, Hezbollah’s Jewish and Jew-centric enemies have been conspiring to destroy it, and all their efforts and missions have failed thus far – nay, all their efforts ended up making Hezbollah even stronger than the day before the dastardly conspiracies against it.

It is practically impossible to destroy a popular, home-grown resistance group that’s focused, disciplined, committed, well-trained and well-armed.  In fact, we can no longer refer to the Hezbollah as a resistance ‘group’, for it is now an intact army on par with any able-bodied regional army.  Yes, Hezbollah is an army – an experienced one, a professional one – and its stellar warfare tactics and methodology are currently being studied in military academies the world over.

Strategists in Tel Aviv sitting in windowless rooms have ran out of ideas in their endeavors to destroy Hezbollah.  They have run through the whole gamut of evil ploys with zero results, and now as a last resort, they have called in their kosher assassins.  And when Jewish assassins are called in, the target is usually the highest and most consequential.  Often, the target is one of their own ‘Controlled Opposition’ agents – an agent directly or indirectly and preferably Gentile – as indeed was the case with the Mossad-murdered Rafik Hariri, Lebanon’s ex Prime Minister and father of the current (resigned) Prime Minister, Saad Hariri.

In Lebanon, sectarianism still exists, though in much milder form than it did back in the 1970’s.  The recent mass protests distinguished themselves and confirmed this by the pluralistic protestors’ unified anti-corruption cries, instead of divisive and bellicose calls in support of their own religious sect, which used to be the norm in Lebanon.  Watchers of Saad Hariri observed that soon as he resigned, he began speaking in a sectarian language and warning of Lebanon’s Sunni community losing political power in the next new government, thus inciting Sunni extremists to take to the streets to ‘insult’ the powerful Hezbollah and their proud Shia and Christian supporters.  Armed protestors on the night streets of Tripoli (a Hariri stronghold) demanded his immediate return to government and skirmished and battled with the Lebanese army over two nights (they only appeared at nightfall).  It became clear then that Saad Hariri’s resignation and government dissolution was intended by him (and his Axis of Evil controllers) to elbow Hezbollah’s members out of government, thus stripping them of political power; as well as spinning the nation into an ‘atmosphere’ of sectarian civil war.  But alas, this too didn’t work as Tripoli’s armed and paid Sunni extremists could not give more than two nights’ worth of sedition and ruinous rebellion; and Hezbollah’s leadership, being an awoke and cool-headed lot, showed no physical reaction to these incitements at all.

Fizzle after fizzle laid at the feet of Hezbollah these past two weeks.

Saad Hariri, not known for being a political intellectual, nor for being a notable strategist, now with hindsight appears to be a pawn-member of the Jewish plan to weaken Hezbollah at the expense of Lebanon’s security – all to insure his leadership as head Sunni puppet, and not as a patriotic leader with profound responsibility towards the whole of the citizenry of Lebanon.

Here we must pause and ask ourselves: what does Saad Hariri mean to the Israeli Mossad?  What is his value and worth to the Jewish terrorist state?

We know that the Axis of Evil members, all of them, consider him as a weakling and view him with utter contempt.  Saudi MbS kidnapped him and had his security men slap him around and put a gun to his head.  We know that Jews and Jew-centric globalists and regime-changers in DC, with peg on nose use him as bait and pawn inside the Lebanon.  And we know that the Mossad found his father, well, very ‘disposable’.

Therefore, he too, Saad Hariri is disposable.

At this stage of the game between Hezbollah and the Mossad, and after all of the Mossad’s plans against the Hezbollah have failed over the decades, only one single ploy that may have some measure of success in turning the Lebanon theater into a pit of civil war that would weaken Hezbollah internally remains: it is the assassination of Saad Hariri.  To be pinned on Hezbollah.  Exactly as they did with his father.

This is the only card left in Jewish hands.

And they are already ready for it – by god the Jews are ready for it but… for Trump’s permission.

Will Trump ever give Tel Aviv the green light to assassinate Saad Hariri, thus triggering civil war in the Lebanon?  A war that may spill over into both a recovering Syria and an insecure Israel, thus raising with it the specter of a dreaded regional war?

The American embassy in Beirut is not behaving as if an engineered civil war is about to break out in the Lebanon.  They are more than happy for now to just engineer a hijacking of Lebanon’s genuine protests to bring the small nation to the brink of a ‘Trumpian’ bankruptcy, but, they’ve not been given orders by the White House to prepare for a dangerous, uncontrollable civil war.  Yet.

One thing we can be sure of is this: should the ‘nod’ to assassinate Saad Hariri be given to the Mossad and his murder plunges the country of Lebanon into civil war overnight, Tel Aviv will not be left unmolested by Hezbollah’s weapons, especially if Hezbollah’s Intelligence Unit (the best in the country and one of the best in the region) can provide evidence of Jewish hands in the assassination of Saad Hariri to the public.

Two years ago, a Mossad operative in Lebanon was caught planning the assassination of Rafik Hariri’s sister, Bahia Hariri – Saad Hariri’s aunt.  Report of this was denied by the Lebanese Ministry of Interior, but it was understood in Lebanon that this denial was to preserve the security of the nation.  Secular, Lebanese Al-Mayadeen TV, who were first to report this story, have access to both Hezbollah and Lebanese Intelligence information.  They are not known for spreading fake news, or for sectarian incitement.  Moreover, Hariri’s aunt traveled to Paris the day after the attempted assassination on her and remained there for months, after adamantly refusing to comment on the story while still in Beirut packing her bags.

In classic mafia style, assassinating Saad Hariri’s aunt (successful or not) was intended to send a message to Hariri, the pawn: ‘fight Hezbollah dirtier, or else!’.

And who, pray tell, is sending this menacing message to him?  Why, it’s no other than the Israeli and Saudi intelligence, with support from the CIA.

If Israel finds no other way to diminish Hezbollah’s growing might and power domestically and regionally,  it will indeed call upon its DC brigade to pressure Trump into green-lighting the assassination of Saad Hariri.

After all, who is Saad Hariri to the racist Jews except yet another disposable, Gentile pawn?  A worthless Arab!

Ideally, Tel Aviv would much prefer to assassinate Hassan Nasrallah himself.  But all their attempts at getting intelligence on his whereabouts have so far been futile.  Therefore, for Tel Aviv to create the deeply desired sectarian war between Lebanese Shia and Sunnis, the next best way forward would be the assassination of Saad Hariri.

His life now rests in the small hands of President Donald J. Trump.

CIA Sets US Foreign Policy…Proxy Terrorism For Everyone, Including Best Friends

CIA’s Phoenix Terror Program: Vietnam, Latin Am, Africa, Middle East. British Court: NATO is Behind ISIS, Al Qaeda

There is another type of warfare – new in its intensity, ancient in its origin – war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It preys on unrest.” – John F. Kennedy

“They called the tactic ‘counter terror’ ironically since what they were doing was terrorism. In fact throughout the Vietnam war the CIA staged false flag terror attacks even bombing theaters and blamed them on Viet Cong “Terrorists”.. (..) Death Squads made up a major element in these programs. In Nicaragua they trained the contras to engage in terror and assassination that often targeted Nicaraguan health workers and teachers or any government member they could get their hands on doubtless in an attempt to eliminate the Sandinista “Infrastructure” Of course they also terrorized anyone else who fell into their hands men, women and children. The Phoenix program would rise once again after the wars in central America ended this time in Iraq and Afghanistan.” – Turner reviews the book

“The CIA has corrupted not only the military, but America’s political and judicial systems; and that, through its secret control of the media, the CIA’s power to create the official version of history has left veterans of the Vietnam War, as well as every subsequent generation of Americans as well, in a state of neurotic delusion.” — Douglas Valentine, 2017

“The Phoenix Program in Vietnam in many ways provides a blue print for our own times. Assassinations and torture are the essence of the war on terror. As are death squads and false flag terror attacks. As are mass surveillance of the populace.” – Review of Douglas Valentine’s The Phoenix Program

Harold Pinter’s Nobel Prize Speech corroborates Doug Valentine’s Research on CIA (Vietnam, Nicarague, Syria.. link)

“.. my contention here is that the US crimes [since 1945]  have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now.
Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America’s favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as ‘low intensity conflict’. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer. (..)
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven. Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn’t know it. (..) The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.” Harold Pinter, Nobel Prize Speech, 2005
“Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime. Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases.” ‘Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq’, 2015, Seumas Milne, The Guardian
“Let me just briefly revise the history of American so-called blunders over the last couple of years with regard to weapons ending up in the hands of Islamic State.” ‘US is using ISIS like an attack dog’, 2015, RT, Jeremy Salt. See his important The Unmaking of the Middle East: A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands, here
“The examples that will be presented here, of contemporaneous news-reports from 2012, which covered America’s backing of Al Qaeda, and America’s heavy dependence upon Al Qaeda, were reported by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which itself is funded by the U.S. and Israeli Governments and supports the overthrow of Assad, so that no one can reasonably consider their reports to be slanted in favor of Syria’s Government.” America’s ‘Boots-On-The-Ground’ Fighters in Syria are Kurds and Al Qaeda, 2018, by Eric Zuesse for the Saker Blog
Lost peace and fake news, 2017, Scandinavian Peace Researcher Jan Øberg

“Simply stated, black propaganda is one of many criminal but legally deniable things the CIA does. It often involves committing a heinous crime and blaming it on an enemy by planting false evidence, and then getting a foreign newspaper to print the CIA’s scripted version of events, which sympathetic journalists in America broadcast to the gullible public. (..) Left paterfamilias Noam Chomsky, who generally shows an appreciation for the subtleties of covert action, claimed that America is not supplying its Al Qaeda mercenary army with arms – even though Eric Schmidt at The New York Times reported over a year ago that CIA officers in Turkey were “helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arm”” The CIA, the Press and Black Propaganda, 2013, by Douglas Valentine

“Both Obama and Trump have pointed out their badass nature on numerous occasions, not so much in sympathy for those they oppress but to raise fear levels of ISIS-inspired badassery here at home. And yet, both regimes have actively, secretly, and materially supported the advance of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, fully aware of who they were and what they were up to. Say what?”  ‘America Loves Islamic Terrorists (Abroad): ISIS as Proxy US Mercenaries’, 2018, G. Dutton, CounterPunch

CIA preys on states via intel, media, terror proxies & torture   

To get the necessary historical perspective on the nazi methods in US foreign policy after WW2 including similarity in corporate power relations’ ambitions of world dominance, see HS page: Big Business Behind WWI & II. After WW2 the US Imported Nazis and their methods to Continue the Nazi Policy (CIA)
“The postwar recruitment of Nazis and collaborators by agencies of the U.S. government stemmed, the author illustrates, from intense East-West competition after the German surrender, prodded by the prospect of war between the superpowers. Simpson, a freelance journalist, reveals that many covert operations of the early Cold War era involved the use of operatives known to have committed crimes against humanity during the Second World War. The underlying theme here is the corruption of American ideals in connection with this hushed-up recruitment policy in the name of anticommunism. In elaborating the policy’s “negative blowback,” Simpson emphasizes the long-term corrosive effect on American intelligence agencies in particular.” Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Destructive Impact on Our Domestic and Foreign Policy, 1988/2014, C. Simpson
“Designed to destroy the Vietcong infrastructure and ostensibly run by the South Vietnamese government, the Phoenix Program–in fact directed by the United States–developed a variety of counterinsurgency activities including, at its worst, torture and assassination. For Valentine ( The Hotel Tacloban , LJ 9/15/84), the program epitomizes all that was wrong with the Vietnam War; its evils are still present wherever there are “ideologues obsessed with security, who seek to impose their way of thinking on everyone else.” Exhaustive detail and extensive use of interviews with and writings by Phoenix participants make up the book’s principal strengths” The Phoenix Program: America’s Use of Terror in Vietnam, 1990/2014 Douglas Valentine
“According to those who formulated it [The Phoenix Program], this monster child with its computer brain and assassin’s instinct would make the Vietcong wither from within. Not by attacking guerrillas in the field, but by destroying infrastructure – a term, as Mr. Valentine explains, used to refer to ”those civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers….” Body Count Was Their Most Important Product, M Safer, 1990 review The Phoenix Program
When CIA’s true nature was almost revealed: “… in June 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the aptly named Pentagon Papers, shifting blame for the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War from the CIA to the military, while distracting public attention from the investigations of the CIA’s Phoenix Program and the CIA’s involvement in drug smuggling.” Will the Real Daniel Ellsberg Please Stand Up!, 2003, Douglas Valentine
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam in many ways provides a blue print for our own times. Assassinations and torture are the essence of the war on terror. As are death squads and false flag terror attacks. As are mass surveillance of the populace. (..) From the perspective of a Bureaucrat like Bill Colby it was merely an attempt to coordinate a number of pre-existing programs. Sort of like the Department of HomeLand Security or more precisely it’s fusion centers where military, police, and intelligence agencies pool information on their enemies the American people. Phoenix sought to provide cooperation between various Vietnamese and American agencies (..) A massive campaign of torture and assassination aimed at destroying what the CIA called the VCI the Viet Cong Infrastructure. (..) They called the tactic ‘counter terror’ ironically since what they were doing was terrorism. In fact throughout the Vietnam war the CIA staged false flag terror attacks even bombing theaters and blamed them on Viet Cong “Terrorists”.. (..) Death Squads made up a major element in these programs. In Nicaragua they trained the contras to engage in terror and assassination that often targeted Nicaraguan health workers and teachers or any government member they could get their hands on doubtless in an attempt to eliminate the Sandinista “Infrastructure” Of course they also terrorized anyone else who fell into their hands men, women and children. The Phoenix program would rise once again after the wars in central America ended this time in Iraq and Afghanistan. (..) Using a CIA Front company Pacific Architects and Engineers the CIA built prisons all over the country to be used to torture political prisoners. They are exact forerunners of todays CIA black sites which now dot the world aiming to torture people to produce real or fabricated intelligence, recruit double agents, break people’s spirits and terrify the rest of the planet into submission. (..) Through a special program USAID the infamous CIA front that pretends to dole out charity sent out telephone generators across the world used by the CIA trained secret police around the world to torture their people. Vietnam was only one example. People would be held for months and there were few survivors. These PICs in return would obtain names for further targets who would be either killed or sent to the PICs to be tortured to generate even more names. An endless cycle of horror. (..) Of course many US Contractors, Military officers and CIA Officers also managed to earn fortunes in various corrupt schemes. (..) Another element of the Phoenix Program involved what were called census grievance teams. In every village the CIA appointed an official who was responsible for interviewing the head of each household every month. (..) The legacy of the Phoenix program is a legacy of terror, torture, and death. With all the carnage of the Vietnam War it was little noticed although there was a brief scandal about it  (..) Perhaps the latest site for the rebirth of the Phoenix program is Ukraine where Fascist Death Squads have been unleashed to terrorize the populace although after a recent power struggle the government plans to bring them into the regular army.” ‘CIA’s “Phoenix Program” and the “War on Terror”, 2016, Turner, Reviews Doug Valentine
Long hidden from public view, Operation Condor was a military network created in the 1970s to eliminate political opponents of Latin American regimes. Its key members were the anticommunist dictatorships of Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Brazil, later joined by Peru and Ecuador, with covert support from the U.S. government.” Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America, 2012 J. Patrice McSherry
The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability“reveals a formerly secret record of complicity with atrocity on the part of US government”, 2. ed, 2013 Kornbluh
“Michael Maclear’s 1975 doc., Spooks and Cowboys, Gooks and Grunts is more relevant now than ever. Forty-two years after its release, it exposes the suppressed, shameful truths that have corrupted America since the Vietnam War. The documentary makes it perfectly clear that “we” have always known what was going on – and that “we” have perfected the means of denying and obfuscating it.(…) Maclear’s documentary is straightforward in stating several shameful truths. Foremost, that the CIA has corrupted not only the military, but America’s political and judicial systems; and that, through its secret control of the media, the CIA’s power to create the official version of history has left veterans of the Vietnam War, as well as every subsequent generation of Americans as well, in a state of neurotic delusion.” The Vietnam War and the Phoenix Program: “A Computerized Genocide”, Doug Valentine, Oct 2017 [see HS Vietnam]
Who are ‘we’: “Hundreds of thousands travel freely among us, some even live as our neighbors, teach in our schools, borrow from our banks. They are war criminals, they have murdered, raped, run narcotics, been involved in arms and sex trafficking and are, in some cases, honored as heroes.”‘ Blacklist, Monsters Among US’, Oct 2017, Gordon Duff
US want Chaos: “The US is not looking to reverse progressive governments (Libya and Syria), nor to steal the region’s oil and gas. Its intent is to decimate States, to send people of these countries back to a pre-historic time where “man did not love his neighbour as God loved him but would pounce like a wolf upon his neighbour. () Has toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and the regime of Gaddafi brought peace back to these states? No! () It is a basic observation that rocks our understanding of contemporary imperialism. This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-Sept. 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq— in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon’s New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented.” ‘The anti-imperialist camp: splintered in thought’, Aug 2017, Thierry Meyssan / Part 2 The US military project for the world
“An avalanche of spies, lies, covert actions and overt aggression; Davidson shows how many of the West’s troubles in the Middle East have emerged from its relentless search for resources.” ―Leif Wenar, Professor and Chair in Philosophy and Law, King’s College London. “This is an outstanding book, bracing in its understanding of the rapacious forces that set upon the Middle East and meticulous in weaving the historical threads that explain why.” — John Pilger
UK want Chaos: “What we want is not a united Arabia: but a weak and disunited Arabia split up into little principalities so far as possible under our suzerainty, but incapable of coordinated action against us” – so claimed a memorandum written by the Foreign Department of the British Government of India in 1915. – A more succinct summary of British policy towards the Arab world – both then and now – would be hard to find.” ‘British collusion with sectarian violence: Part two’, 2016, Dan Glazebrook

Some US history of creating, funding, training, leading and arming jihadist mercenaries. Mujahideen, Al Qaeda to ISIS

“The CIA recruited the Muslim Brotherhood to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which led to the withdrawal of the Soviets from the Hindu Kush. Since then, the CIA used the mercenaries to fight more proxy wars in the Balkans, Chechnya, and Azerbaijan. Due to the wars of aggression against Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen the US and its vassal states created sectarian violence that led to civil wars. Right now, the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood are present in the form of ISIS in Syria and Iraq.” ‘US Empire, CIA, and the NGO’s, Watzal & Engdahl, 2017
“We know that al-Qaeda emerged because Western powers–in particular the United States–funded and trained radical Islamic groups in order to use them for their own purposes. This book shows that this is not an isolated incident. Journalist Brendan O’Neill argues that it’s part of a worldwide strategy, the results of which can now be seen from Afghanistan to Kosovo, Beslan and beyond. All over the world, so-called “humanitarian” interventions, while dressed up in terms of human rights, have weakened states, creating vacuums that encourage the movement of groups across borders–allowing terrorists like al-Qaeda to thrive. O’Neill makes links across all major conflicts of the late twentieth century, concentrating his analysis on the “humanitarian” interventions of the 1990s, in particular Bosnia and Kosovo. He shows how–the war having been won in Afghanistan–the United States and Britain helped arm and move thousands of Mujahideen fighters from Central Asia into the former Yugoslavia where they played a key role in the resistance of the Bosnian Muslims. Their continuing presence in the region now undermines efforts to stabilize Kosovo and turn Bosnia into a viable state. – O’Neill’s distinctive analysis will be of interest to all students of international studies, and anyone who wants to know more about the destabilising effect of recent western interventions and the rise of global terrorism.” Amazone Description of From Bosnia to Beslan: How the West Spread Al-Qaeda, by Brendan O’Neilll, 2010, Pluto Press This book is sold out. CIA probably bought all of them.
“The Politburo discussions show that the Soviet leaders were very reluctant to send troops, and responded to the Afghan requests with shipments of military equipment, but not troops, throughout the spring and summer of 1979.” THE SOVIET EXPERIENCE IN AFGHANISTAN: RUSSIAN DOCUMENTS AND MEMOIRS Edited by Svetlana Savranskaya, October 9, 2001
“The U.S. neoconservatives have long been talking about a policy of “creative chaos” in the Middle East. The “creativity” of this chaos consists of the consolidation of U.S. hegemony in the region by causing area-wide instability and generating more “failed states”. Indeed, ethnic, religious, civil and cross-national wars carry the Middle East in that direction.” – “The Virtual Inventor of the “IS” is none other than Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice” ‘The Fiction of “Fighting the Islamic State”, An Entity Created and Financed by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia’, 2014, Dr. M Massarrat, prof emeritus Univ Osnabrück, Germany
“In Syria, as was the case in Afghanistan, the most bloodthirsty Islamists are deemed by the imperialist intelligence agencies as the most effective in terrorising their armed opponents and the general population. Therefore, groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, who daily engage in extortion, kidnapping, rape and bloody mass executions of their Shia and Alawite enemies and even one-time Sunni allies, are widely supported by the West. sec. services.” Trial collapses after threatened exposure of UK backing of Syrian terror groups, 2015, WSW
“A dozen nations armed ISIS, protected them, some provided air support, others funneled jihadists from the far reaches of the Pacific to battle fields in Iraq and Syria. (…) Most involved aren’t Muslims. Many are Americans, the same corporations that profited from the War on Terror, backed ISIS as well. Every NATO nation was involved as was Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. This was a war of corporations and banks, a commercial venture building on the real lessons learned after 9/11.” ‘A Nuremberg Tribunal for ISIS and Friends’, Sep 2017, NEO
“No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort”, a former Green Beret writes of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian insurgents, “they know we are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’”. “I don’t want to be responsible for Nusra guys saying they were trained by Americans,” the Green Beret added.” Disobeying Obama, 2016
“Furthermore, one day before Prime Minister Thani’s interview, The Intercept released a new top-secret NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which show in stunning clarity that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives.” ‘In Shocking, Viral Interview, Qatar Confesses Secrets Behind Syrian War’, Oct 2017, Zero Hedge
“In other words, when the US and Britain offer “support” for Nigeria against Boko Haram, or for Iraq against ISIL, they are offering protection against a threat which they themselves are responsible for [in control of]. The flooding of North Africa and the Middle East with armed militias – the overt and predictable consequence of NATO’s actions in Libya and Syria – aims to make Africa and the Arab world dependent on the West for its security needs. – African and Arab governments should not fall into the trap. The West aims to destabilise countries like Nigeria and Iraq not stabilise them.” Western foreign policy as a protection racket, 2014, By Dan Glazebrook
“It is no coincidence that almost all of the recent terror attacks in North Africa – not to mention Manchester – have been either prepared in Libya or perpetrated by fighters trained in Libya. Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, ISIS, Mali’s Ansar Dine, and literally dozens of others, have all greatly benefited from the destruction of Libya. By ensuring the spread of terror groups across the region, the Western powers had magically created a demand for their military assistance which hitherto did not exist. They had literally created a protection racket for Africa.” – ‘West eyes recolonization of Africa by endless war; removing Gaddafi was just first step’, Oct 2017, Dan Glazebrook / NB. NATO goes to Asia
Flash-Back: Beginning 70’ties – 1979 & 1980’ties: President Carter funds Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Shortly after Reagan & Thatcher publicly support the Mujahideen. Later US re-brands and distances itself from link to (now) ‘Al Qaeda’. Next is 9/11, Declaring War on Terror and Proclaiming al Qaeda “The World’s Greatest Terror Organization”. Latest rebrand al Qaeda to ISIS (in Iraq) and al Nusra, Free Syrian Army etc. in Syria. 
(1) more will come here…
(2) “GOULD: Well, I think you really have to go back to the early 1970s, when Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who we already mentioned, has been an active Afghan fighter, who really started, in the early ’70s, separating from Afghanistan. (..) The United States, the Saudis, were already funding this kind of activity. Ahmad Shah Massoud was another one who was a part of the attempt to start the destabilization of Afghanistan from the Pakistani side.” CIA and ISI Nurtured Mujahideen and Taliban, 2010, The Real News
[Our] “book’s purpose is — as stated by Afghan expert Selig Harrison — to correct five decades of biased journalistic and academic writing about Afghanistan. (…) Kenneth J. Cooper’s review is a perfect example of what American journalism has become and what it can no longer be in order to be called journalism.” Invisible History, Afghanistan’s Untold Story Is no Conspiracy Theory!, 2009, Fitzgerald & Gould
Wikileaks: The Pakistan Connection: Gould, Fitzgerald, authors of “Afghanistan’s Untold Story” discuss WikiLeaks Pakistan Taliban connection, 2010, The Real News
“Afghanistan in the 1980s and 90s …, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s … Libya 2011 … Syria 2012 …”, 2012, The United States and its Comrade-in-arms, Al Qaeda. W. Blum
“In 1981 Margaret Thatcher travelled to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and addressed the Mujahideen. She told them “the hearts of the free world are with you and that “we in Britain will continue to help you in every way we can”. (..) Abdul Haq was welcomed to Britain by Thatcher in 1986. Haq had ordered a bombing in Kabul which killed 28 people, most of them students. Thatcher also invited Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to London the same year and hailed him a “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar gained status after throwing acid in a woman’s face. – Thatcher’s collusion with the Mujahideen was extensive. It highlights the hypocrisy of the British regime.” Brief overview of Thatcher’s collusion with Mujahideen, CRIMES OF BRITAIN
“Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today? – Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.” How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen, 1998, St. Clair and Cockburn
“CIA’s Chechen Wars: Not long after the CIA and Saudi Intelligence-financed Mujahideen had devastated Afghanistan at the end of the 1980’s, forcing the exit of the Soviet Army in 1989, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself some months later, the CIA began to look at possible places in the collapsing Soviet Union where their trained “Afghan Arabs” could be redeployed to further destabilize Russian influence over the post-Soviet Eurasian space.” What if Putin is Telling the Truth?, 2015 Engdahl
Wikispooks: “In an article in The Guardian the day after the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and four weeks before his untimely death, Robin Cook caused a stir by describing Al-Qaida as a product of Western intelligence and insisting that ‘The Struggle on terror” could not be won by military means’, 2005, The Guardian
NB. The more blunt quote above is disputed (of course). But it may very well be accurate – as it states the truth. And as Cook was a man of integrity. Brzezinski corrobates this bragging that he and US President Carter created the Mujahideen to lure Soviet Union into war in Afghanistan. Robin Cook resigned from Blair’s government over the decision to go to war in Iraq. “Robin Cook [also] once observed that he never knew Downing Street make any decision that displeased BAE Systems
Bunel, who is the source of the blunt Coook quote is a former French NATO officer and whistleblower, actually a hero against NATO’s lies and illegal bombing of Serbia. Bunel was imprisoned for ‘state treason’ for sharing NATO info with the Serbs and later wrote books on his Memoirs as a French agentNATO’s War Crimes etc. To corroborate Bunel’s NATO critique see also HS page on Yugoslavia

‘Islamic Terrorism: Our Ally For 38 Years’, June 2017, Kanthan, ICH:

“Islamic terrorists are wonderful instruments for proxy wars – they cost very little but fight fearlessly. They are a global resource that can be brought into any local conflict. They are also expendable – we use them when convenient and kill them when inconvenient. If this shocks the conscience of people, it just means they haven’t been paying keen attention. Consider the following examples: (…) Ever wonder why we never go to war against or impose sanctions on these sponsors of terrorism? Heck we don’t even condemn them!” Read the full article here

A few more links on US/NATO, Saudi Arabia etc. create & work with ISIS, Al Nusra etc. – Many, many more links could be added.

US and Saudi Arabia arms significantly enhanced Isis’ military capabilities, report reveals. The Number of US and Saudi supplied weapons in Isis’ hands goes ‘far beyond those that would have been available through battle capture alone’, Dec. 2017, The Independent
“The BBC has uncovered details of a secret deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa, under the gaze of the US and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city.” Raqqa’sdirty secret, Nov. 2017, BBC
“The idea is simple: Deploy US-backed “jihadi” proxies to capture-and-hold vast sections of the country thereby making it impossible for the central government to control the state. This is how the Obama administration plans to deal with Assad, by making him irrelevant. The strategy is explained in great detail in a piece by Michael E. O’Hanlon at the Brookings Institute titled “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”. Here’s an excerpt:..” The Brookings Institute Plan to Liquidate Syria, 2015, Mike Whitney
“Currently there are three main jihadist coalitions in Syria:
– the pro-Turks (Free Syrian Army);
– the pro-Qatari (Hayat Tahrir al-Cham / Al-Qaeda); and
– the pro-Deep State (Daesh).”
An Overview Of The Overwhelming Evidence, 2015, Glen Swart

Much, much more can be added to back the claims on this page. Perhaps later… Enough for now – (October, 2017, LJ) – See also HS (on nations involved in) Syria

Israel – al Qaeda, al Nusra & ISIS Cooperation

“New York, SANA – A report by the United Nations Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the occupied Syrian Golan confirmed Israel’s support for armed terrorist organizations in Syria, including Jabhat al-Nusra terror organization. The report was published on 6 December and it covers the period from September 10th to November 24th 2017.” Dec. 20, 2017, UN report uncovers Israel’s support for terrorist organizations in Syria, SANA
“The fact that the Israeli attacks coincided with those that their terrorist allies carried out is incontrovertible proof of the coordination, partnership and alliance that exists between Israel, which practices terrorism, and Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the Nusrah Front and other terrorist groups. Moreover, the Israeli occupying authorities’ continued aggressions against the Syrian Arab Republic are a blatant violation of Security Council resolution 350 (1974)…” Dec. 2017, Syria denounces Israeli-jihadist coordination, Voltaire
“The available information indicates that the United States of America launched the attack in a deliberate and premeditated manner, in an effort to pursue its strategy of perpetuating the terrorists’ war against the Syrian Arab Army, which has stood firm against the terrorist organizations and all their backers. That theory is borne out by the fact that ISIL attacked and gained control of that location immediately after the American aggression.”, 2016, US bombing against the Syrian Arab Army, Voltaire

Saudi Arabia 

Read more on: HS Saudi Arabia

Hardcore Zionist President Trump Called “Antisemite” For Honest Assessment of Jews Protecting Their Wealth

“Proving once again that no one hates liberal Jews like non-liberal Jews, Trump garnered another round of applause and chants of ‘Four more years’ by equating a vote for his rivals with disloyalty to Israel…Under any other circumstances, the sight of a U.S. president serving as speaker, host and standup comedian at a gala funded and orchestrated by a gambling magnate who just happens to be the top Republican donor – and, who, by sheer coincidence, approved of Trump’s every word – could have been added as an appendix to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Haaretz

Jewish groups slam Trump for ‘antisemitic tropes in speech’ – here are all the other awful things he’s said over the years

Donald Trump, not for the first time, decided to dabble in antisemitic tropes over the weekend while delivering a speech to the Israeli American Council advocacy group in Florida.

The President began by acknowledging the profession of many assembled and throwing in his favoured “Pocahontas” slur in reference to Elizabeth Warren for good measure:

“A lot of you are in the real estate business because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers. Not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me. You have no choice. You’re not going to vote for Pocahontas, I can tell you that.”

Having warmed up his audience by telling them they’re “not nice people at all”, Trump added:

You’re not going to vote for the wealth tax. ’Yeah, let’s take 100 percent of your wealth away.’

The implication that Jews wouldn’t possibly vote for Warren’s wealth tax reinforces centuries old stereotypes relating to Jews and money. Remarkably, the president wasn’t finished yet and even went on to claim Jewish Americans do not “love Israel enough”, invoking a dual loyalty trope generally viewed as antisemitic.

The idea that Jewish Americans are as loyal to Israel as their own country is an antisemitic trope Trump seems particularly keen on. In August of this year he claimed:

In my opinion, you vote for a Democrat, you’re being very disloyal to Jewish people and very disloyal to Israel.

In 2017, of course, there was the Charlottesville Rally that involved, amongst other horrors, neo-Nazis and Klansman chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans. How did Trump respond to this clash between literal Nazis and those protesting against them? Naturally he condemned the “hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides”.

In a 1991 book, John O’Donnell, the former president of the Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, said Trump told him: “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day” and later confirmed in an interview with Playboy (which he no doubt reads for the articles) that what was written was “probably true”.

In 2015, he told a room of Republican Jews: “I’m a negotiator, like you folks“. When all these comments are collected, it feels like the president seems to think that Jews are obsessed with money.

Perhaps the most troubling of the myriad ways in which Trump has engaged in antisemitism over the years relates to conspiracy theories. In the closing stages of his 2016 campaign, he unveiled an ad featuring three prominent Jews, Janet Yellen, Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros, accompanied by narration saying “those who control the levers of power in Washington” who “partner with these people who don’t have your good in mind”. Linking Hillary Clinton to a global Jewish conspiracy is undoubtedly sinister and speaks for itself.

Trump’s latest comments about Jews are nothing new, but they must be called out on each and every occasion. As with most of the president’s rhetoric, we can’t allow this stuff to be normalised.