Saturday, 31 December 2011

Israeli Hasbara's Satire (must watch)

DateSaturday, December 31, 2011 at 12:36AM AuthorGilad Atzmon
This is how it looks when the Jews Only State's Satire Unit attempts to communicate with Goyim's fear.


I am obliged to mention here that the Hebrew word for Jesus- Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew) is actually an acronym for the formula (ימח שמו וזכרו ) meaning "may his name and memory be obliterated". This acronym is reserved to Jews' most hated people such as Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. I guess that someone should remind the Israeli 'comedians' that they are stepping here into a very dangerous territory.

Gilad Atzmon's New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

A Glimpse Into Israeli Barbarism

DateSaturday, December 31, 2011 at 12:30AM AuthorGilad Atzmon


Gilad Atzmon's New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Israeli collective madness Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Haniyeh in Egypt: Hamas Presence with Brotherhood Threatens Israel

 Comment:
Haniyeh described Hamas as the
"jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face."
I don't think heniya did well in describing Hamas as the "jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face." because its a known fact and will neither confuse or frieghten Israel.

Haniya statement may have pleased his guide but shall backfire and and will hurt the image of Hamas, who staved all the time to pose as an independent Palestinian resisrance movement with an Isalmic face, not as a MB's tool. It will justify and give credibilety to Mubarak's accusations and actions, that Hamas is not threatening Egypt's security, and not interfering in Egypt's matters.
In a speech marking the first anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, Ismail Haniyyeh turned to "the air force hero" (Mubarak was the commander of the Egyptian Air Force during the Yom Kippur War) and told him, "We are not threatening Egypt's security, we are not interfering in Egypt's matters, and we were forced to use the tunnels as an exceptional default option due to the situation we were pushed into."  
Moreover, if i am in Mr. Haniya's shoes,
  • I should have remmebered that, on ground and during the hard time, the real supporters of Hamas were Iranian brothers and Syrian SECULAR brothers.
  • I should consider, MB are not Egypt, and if MB's support is Guranteed, what's the wisdom in losing the support of MB's rivals, Copts, lefts, nationalist, and librals?
  • I should consider that such statement, though its true, shall cast real doubts on Hamas claining that Palestinian reconciliation is a stratigic aim.
  • I should have considered, the impact of such statement on Hamas relations with Syria, unless Hamas is so sure that their Syrian brothers are comming, and that their brothers in Egypt, Tunis and Libya shall stay in power until judgement day.
  • I should consider its impact on people supporting Hamas as an armed resintance movement devoted for liberation of all palestine.
Haniyeh in Egypt: Hamas Presence with Brotherhood Threatens Israel

Head of Hamas in Gaza Ismail Haniyeh discussed Mideast politics with the Leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which is emerging as the biggest winner in the first parliamentary elections after Mubarak’s ouster.

Haniyeh is on a first trip to Egypt outside the blockaded strip since Hamas came to power in 2007.

“The Brotherhood centre has always embraced issues of liberation, foremost the Palestinian issue,” Mohammed Badie, brotherhood leader, said on Monday after meeting the Hamas leader at the group's newly inaugurated headquarters in a Cairo suburb, according to Egypt's state news agency MENA.

He added that Hamas has served as a role model to the Brotherhood in its reconciliation with the Fatah movement and in closing the recent prisoner swap deal with the Israeli enemy.

Hamas presence with brotherhood threatens Israel

Haniyeh described Hamas as the "jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face." He said his visit to the Brotherhood center would confuse and frighten ‘Israel’.

Haniyeh said during his visit to the Arab League that reconciliation with Fatah is a "strategic" matter that should not be hindered by American and Israeli objections. Israel has said the closer Fatah gets to Hamas, the further it moves from a so-called failed “peace deal”.

Mashaal: The internal division is a burden on all Palestinian factions

[ 27/12/2011 - 11:07 AM ]

DOHA, (PIC)-- Head of Hamas's political bureau Khaled Mashaal said the inter-Palestinian division has become a heavy burden on everyone and there is real need for the national reconciliation.

In a political TV show on Al-Jazeera channel on Monday, Mashaal stated that some regional circumstances like the persistent US bias in favor of Israel and the preoccupation of Arabs with their uprisings and political changes prompted the Palestinian parties to necessarily rearrange their internal situation and move to end the national rift.

He noted that a kind of harmony and understanding started to emerge between him and de facto president Mahmoud Abbas when they met currently and last month and discussed many issues related to the national reconciliation.

Stating his opinion on the Arab spring, Mashaal said the great Arab awakening is certainly a gain for All Arab nations especially the Palestinians.

With regard to the popular resistance, Mashaal stated that this kind of resistance was approved unanimously by all Hamas leaders, but he said his Movement keeps all options open.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

"It's a Trick, We Always Use It." (calling people "anti-Semitic")

DateSaturday, December 31, 2011 at 12:16AM AuthorGilad Atzmon
An old video of an old trick...



Gilad Atzmon's New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics and other Zionist 'tricks' Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

1948 IDF veteran soldier tells the truth about the Nakba (must watch)

DateFriday, December 30, 2011 at 11:35PM AuthorGilad Atzmon
Ethnic cleansing, battle, massacre and more..




Gilad Atzmon's New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics and Zionist Barbarism Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Via FLC

"The American people hear from government officials and presidential candidates nearly every day about military action against Iran. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently said that the United States and Israel would not allow Iran to get a bomb. Are these words standard fare for an election year? A strategy to restrain Israel from unilateral action? Or do these threats signify that war is in the “minds of men”?
Conservative ideologues taste the possibility that a leader whom they might influence may return to the White House. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich has already pledged to appoint John Bolton, a neoconservative superstar, as his secretary of state. Is it surprising that Gingrich, who has said he would rather plan a joint operation with Israel against Iran than force the Israelis to go it alone, is the candidate with the strongest commitment to military action?
Have we forgotten what Iraq and the United States have been through since 2002? Were it not for that ill-begotten war, thousands of Americans (and Iraqis) might still be living. America would be a trillion dollars richer and still be the proud, respected and economically healthy nation the world had known. ..."

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

"Neither the Arab League nor Western governments care about the Syrian people..."

"Via FLC

"... It called – nay pleaded – for Arab League intervention while ruling out Western intervention (under the title of UN or “international community” and various other code words that are used to disguise – in theory – the US/Israeli role). The SNC then changed its tune again and started calling for a no-fly zone (as if the war on Iraq and on Libya did not start with “no-fly zone” rhetoric). The council then accepted international intervention but only “to protect civilians.” The folks of the Syrian National Council assumed that we forgot the NATO bombing campaign in Libya (which included the deployment of ground troops and special forces) was undertaken under the UN pretext of “protecting civilians.” So NATO killed Libyan civilians (as the New York Times revealed in an extensive report) in order to protect Libyan civilians. Such are the rules of the US-dominated UN.
Sheikh Adnan al-Arur (the fanatical cleric based in Saudi Arabia who holds sway among at least some of the protesters and whose name is often chanted in some protests went further. He threatened this week to cut off the tongues of any member of the SNC who does not call for international intervention in Syria. No one from the SNC protested the words of Arur. The alliance between Ikhwan and their liberal lackeys is too delicate to bother with reactions to the likes of Arur.
But the goal of calling for international intervention is now clear: on the very first day of the Arab League Monitor’s mission, the SNC declared its failure to undertake its mission. Western media (which now are reduced to publishing the pronouncements and claims of the pro-Saudi Syrian Monitor for Human Rights) quickly echoed the opinion of the council.
The criticisms of the SNC are correct but come very late in the game. They should have been raised earlier and those criticisms apply to (potential) Western intervention in Syria. Neither the Arab League nor Western governments care about the Syrian people. The notion that the league of Arab tyrants are in a position to monitor human rights violations in a sister country is ridiculous. To make the exercise of the Arab League mission more absurd, Qatar selected an intelligence commander from the tyrannical regime of Omar al-Bashir of Sudan to head the Arab League monitoring mission. ... Qatar is implementing a plan on behalf of the US/Israel, but the public has not been informed of the exact features of the plan..... Clearly, Saudi/Turkish/US/Qatari/Jordanian/Israeli/Hariri intervention in Syrian affairs is only increasing the suffering of the Syrian people but the primary responsibility of the suffering should be blamed on the Syrian regime, which is obligated to protect its population....
The mission of the Arab League is not serious. It has so far failed to stop the killing and will not stop the killing. It is merely a phase to camouflage another more dangerous phase that Western governments and their clients in the region have in store for Syria."

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Did US give South American leaders cancer?

Remember the good-old Jewish scientist Dr. Phlip Zack who was behind the Anthrax conspiracy to demonize Muslims. Yesterday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that he suspects US has developed a cancer producing deadly virus. Addressing a rally Yesterday, he said that odds were too high to believe that four of Latin American Presidents to be striken with cancer in same span of time – to be a natural phenomenon. Chavez came to that conclusion after Argentina’s Cristina Fernandez joined the list of presidents diagnosed with the disease.

It would not be strange if they had developed the technology to induce cancer and nobody knew about it until now … I don’t know. I’m just reflecting,” he said in a televised speech to troops at a military base. Watch a video below.
Hugo Chavez underwent surgery in June to remove a tumor from his pelvis. The other Latin Presidents who are diagnosed with cancer include Fernandez, Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo, Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff – plus former Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva have all been diagnosed recently with cancer. They’re all anti-American imperialism and friendly toward Islamic Iran and Palestinians.
Chavez said he was warned by Fidel Castro of such US deadly virus. “Fidel always told me, Chavez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat – a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what,” he said.
We must take good care of Evo Morales (President of Bolivia) and Rafael Correa (Ecuador),” he added
Chavez also slammed Washington and its western poodles for calling the recent Russian elections ‘Fraud’.
Barack Obama in a recent interview with Venezuelan paper El Universal showed his anger at Venezuela’s friendly relations with Islamic Iran and Cuba.
The United States does not pretend to dictate its foreign affairs. I would argue, however, that the Venezuelan government’s ties to Iran and Cuba have not served the interests of Venezuela or the Venezuelan people. With regard to Iran, the international community’s concerns are well known. Ultimately, it is up to the Venezuelan people to determine what they gain from a relationship with a country that violates universal human rights and is isolated from much of the world. The Iranian government has consistently supported international terrorism that has killed innocent men, women and children around the world – including in the Americas. It has brutally suppressed the Iranian people simply for demanding their universal rights. And Tehran continues to pursue a nuclear program that threatens the security of the Middle East. Here in the Americas, we take Iranian activities, including in Venezuela, very seriously and we will continue to monitor them closely,” said Obama.
Yep, Obongo, it was Iran which invaded Libya with the help of CIA-Mossad sponsored Al-Qaeda and now is using it against Bashar al-Assad in Syria!

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Genocide and International Law

Nahida- exiled Palestinian

Strangling Life is GENOCIDE

Ali’s tale is that of many Palestinians, a life-long struggle under Israeli occupation; their "crime" is attempting to sell THEIR produce abroad, and having the "chutzpa" to water their crops with water belonging to THEM




More than six decades of this, when will the world stand up and say ENOUGH is ENOUGH



====================================


The Genocide Convention

Article 2 of the United Nations issued Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states:
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:
1. Killing members of the group; [Israel ...guilty]

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; [Israel ...guilty]
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [Israel ...guilty]
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [Israel ...guilty]
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Article 4 states:
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
***********
The Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed, and undergoing GENOCIDE since over six decades.
Please raise the issues with those around you, and complain to:

UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/contactform.asp?address=1
The International Criminal Court
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Telephone: +41 22 917 9220
Email: InfoDesk@ohchr.org
The US Department of State
http://contact-us.state.gov/app/ask
***********
Nuremberg Principles,

Principle VI. states,
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

There should be no impunity for war criminals.
***********

The Sanhedrin principles:



"A king should not wage other wars before a milchemet mitzvah. What is considered as milchemet mitzvah? The war against the seven nations who occupied Eretz Yisrael, the war against Amalek, and a war fought to assist Israel from an enemy which attacks them.

Afterwards, he may wage a milchemet hareshut, (war of aggression) i.e. a war fought with other nations in order to expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatness and reputation."



Mishneh Torah, Chapter 1, Halacha 2:

Amalek’s seed should be annihilated before the construction of the Temple

THE LAWS OF KINGS AND THEIR WARS

6) The obligation to destroy the seven nations living in the Land of Canaan;
7) The prohibition against allowing any one of them to remain alive;
8) The obligation to destroy the descendents of Amalek;
9) The obligation to remember what Amalek did;


If the enemy accepts the offer of peace and commits itself to the fulfillment of the seven mitzvot that were commanded to Noah's descendents, none of them should be killed. Rather, they should be subjugated as ibid.:11 states: 'They shall be your subjects and serve you.'
If they agree to tribute, but do not accept subjugation or if they accept subjugation, but do not agree to tribute, their offer should not be heeded. They must accept both.
The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower level, scorned and humble. They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever.

***********













super jew.jpg

Operation Cast Lead and a 2012 Deja Vu

C:\Documents and Settings\Kenneth Larson\My Documents\My Pictures\Arabisto Images\Bloggers\Eileen CroppedEileen Fleming
                                     
Exactly three years after Operation Cast Lead, Israel is threatening another invasion on Gaza while Hamas leaders order a halt to all attacks on Israel.
This year's week between Christmas and New Years reaped at least three Palestinians killed by Israeli air strikes on Gaza and several rockets fired from Gaza into Israel without reports of damage.
Israeli military chief Benny Gantz said a new offensive would be "Swift and painful. Sooner or later, there will be no escape from conducting a significant operation.” [1]
An Israeli army commander in the Gaza Division said, "We are preparing and in fact are ready for another campaign…to renew our deterrence, if we are called on to restore full quiet to the communities [in the south]." [Ibid]
Haaretz reported that the Israeli plan calls for the next Gaza operation to be shorter then Operation Cast Leads three-week onslaught and will employ even greater firepower.
Haaretz also reported that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal ordered the movement's military wing to cease its operations against Israel and quoted unidentified sources from Fatah who said the instructions were issued as part of the reconciliation talks between the two factions in Cairo. The Cairo meet-up managed to focus the two groups on the people powered popular struggle against the Israeli occupation in the spirit of the pro-democracy demonstrations that spontaneously erupted in the Arab world this past year.
A Little History:
On April 3, 2009 the President of the United Nations Human Rights Council commissioned a fact-finding mission "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after."

The Council appointed the Jewish Justice Richard Goldstone, a South African Constitutional Court judge and the former chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Justice Goldstone issued the 575-page report on September 29, 2009 and the Goldstone Report accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes perpetuated during the 22 days of assault on Gaza which began two days after last Christmas day, when the Israeli military launched Operation Cast Lead; a full-scale attack on Gaza that killed 13 Israelis and 1,400 Palestinians.
Over 5,000 Palestinians were injured, 400,000 were left without running water, 4,000 homes were destroyed, rendering tens of thousands who are still homeless because of Israel's targeted attacks upon them, their schools, hospitals, streets, water wells, sewage system, farms, police stations and UN buildings.

US-supplied weapons enabled the 22 days of Israel’s attack on the people of Gaza and we the people of the US who pay taxes provide over $3 billion annually to Israel although Israel has consistently misused U.S. weapons in violation of America's Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts.

America is the worlds largest arms supplier to Israel and under a Bush negotiated deal with Israel, we the people who pay taxes in America will also provide another $30 billion in military aid to Israel over the next decade.

During the 22 days of Israeli assault on Gaza, "Washington provided F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters, tactical missiles, and a wide array of munitions, including white phosphorus and DIME. The weapons required for the Israeli assault was decided upon in June 2008, and the transfer of 1,000 bunker-buster GPS-guided Small Diameter Guided Bomb Units 39 (GBU-39) were approved by Congress in September. The GBU 39 bombs were delivered to Israel in November (prior to any claims of Hamas cease fire violation!) for use in the initial air raids on Gaza." [2]

In a 71-page report released March 25, 2009, by Human Rights Watch, Israel’s repeated firing of US-made white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes.

"Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza," provides eye witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza.

"Human Rights Watch researchers found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended in January.

"Militaries officially use white phosphorus to obscure their operations on the ground by creating thick smoke. It has also been used as an incendiary weapon, though such use constitutes a war crime.
"In Gaza, the Israeli military didn’t just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops," said Fred Abrahams, senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. "It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren't in the area and safer smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died." [Ibid]

In November 2006, Father Manuel, the parish priest at the Latin Church and school in Gaza warned the world:

"Gaza cannot sleep! The people are suffering unbelievably. They are hungry, thirsty, have no electricity or clean water. They are suffering constant bombardments and sonic booms from low flying aircraft. They need food: bread and water. Children and babies are hungry...people have no money to buy food. The price of food has doubled and tripled due to the situation. We cannot drink water from the ground here as it is salty and not hygienic. People must buy water to drink. They have no income, no opportunities to get food and water from outside and no opportunities to secure money inside of Gaza. They have no hope.

"Without electricity children are afraid. No light at night. No oil or candles...Thirsty children are crying, afraid and desperate...Many children have been violently thrown from their beds at night from the sonic booms. Many arms and legs have been broken. These planes fly low over Gaza and then reach the speed of sound. This shakes the ground and creates shock waves like an earthquake that causes people to be thrown from their bed. I, myself weigh 120 kilos and was almost thrown from my bed due to the shock wave produced by a low flying jet that made a sonic boom.

"Gaza cannot sleep...the cries of hungry children, the sullen faces of broken men and women who are just sitting in their hungry emptiness with no light, no hope, no love. These actions are War Crimes!"
During Operation Cast Lead, the UN Security Council, Amnesty International, International Red Cross and global voices of protest rose up and demanded a ceasefire but both houses of Congress overwhelmingly endorsed resolutions to support a continuation of Israel’s so called "self defense."
This Citizen of CONSCIENCE for House of Representatives 2012 is on the Record saying NO to another assault on Gaza and an End to the Occupation of Palestine in 2012!
Founder of WeAreWideAwake.org
Staff Member of Salem-news.com, A Feature Correspondent for Arabisto.com and Columnist for Veteranstoday.com
Producer "30 Minutes with Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu"
Author of "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory" and BEYOND NUCLEAR:Mordechai Vanunu's FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial and My Life as a Muckraker: 2005-2010
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

GLOBAL MARCH TO JERUSALEM

GLOBAL MARCH TO JERUSALEM - 30TH MARCH 2012

Spread the word... and if you can take part in this GREAT event



"O people and political forces" Wake up American Administration is the one occupying your Palestine, violating your Al-Quds, threatening your Holy mosque...

"O people and political forces, don’t be deluded by the American Administration as it is the one occupying your Palestine, violating your Al-Quds, threatening your Holy mosque, and it is the one responsible, even before the enemy, of holding thousands of Palestinians in prisons, and of displacing, torturing, and besieging them in Gaza and the West Bank.

This is America, so we should remember on the 10th of Muharram, not to err the enemy and not to err the friend. Only that with a blind insight errs the enemy and the friend.


The enemy is this American Administration and its “tool” not “ally” in the region, Israel, which it uses as a spearhead to humiliate and oppress the Arabs and the Muslims, and to impose the American desire on the Arabs and the Muslims in order to guarantee a market for its arms and steal their oil, and this should stay in mind." Sayyed Hassan Nasralla

After six decades,  on 10th Moharam, Sayyed Hassan  addressed the short-sighted political powers riding the arab awakening and linning up to please the American Imperial adminstration.  He remineded Arabs and Muslems,and political Forces (mainly Islamists) that the Zionist entity is nothing but an imperial project designed and excuted to serve as a buffer against any kind of Arab unity

History is repeating itself , below is Part 1 of the upcoming book ‘Origins of Imperial Israel’  by Andrew Gavin Marshall,

In this part the author tells how and why "the zionist entity was created.

In the early 20th century the Imperial strategists were increasingly frightened with the growing "Arab awakening", the Zionists knew how to convince London of the value of a British-controlled Jewish buffer-state in Palestine for the protection of the Suez Canal and imperial communications to India." At the 1907 Colonial Conference British Prime Minister Campbell Bannerma stated:
"Empires are formed, enlarged and stabilized so very little before they disintegrate and disappear… Do we have the means of preventing this fall, this crumbling, is it possible for us to put a halt to the destiny of European colonialism which at present is at a critical stage?"
The answer Bannerman received from the commission he established to look at the question, was that it was necessary
[to fight] against the Union of popular masses in the Arab region or the establishment of any intellectual, spiritual or historical link between them… [and thus recommended] all practical ways of dividing them as such as possible should be taught, and one way of doing so would be to construct a powerful, human ‘barrier’ foreign to the region – a bridge linking Asia and Africa – thus creating in this part of the world, and near the Suez Canal, a force friendly towards imperialism and hostile towards the inhabitants of the region.[4]
The report submitted to Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman recommended the following actions:
1) To promote disintegration, division and separation in the region.
2) To establish artificial political entities that would be under the authority of the imperialist countries.
3) To fight any kind of unity – whether intellectual, religious or historical – and taking practical measures to divide the region’s inhabitants.
4) To achieve this, it was proposed that a “buffer state” be established in Palestine, populated by a strong, foreign presence which would be hostile to its neighbors and friendly to European countries and their interests.[5] 
Almost the same is happening today. Surprised by the "Arab awakening", the Imperial strategists are facing the same question, how to prevent the fall, and crumbling of the American Empire and the rest of its ME puppets, how to save its Zionist tool. 
President Eisenhower in the Oval Office with Muslim delegates,
1953, after July revolution.
Said Ramadan, the Son in-law of Hassan Al-Bana the founder of
Brotherhood, is second from the right.
في أقصي اليمين سعيد رمضان في ضيافة أيزنهاور داخل البيت الأبيض

The only option they have is ride the so-called "Arab spring" to ensure that the new regimes would be under the authority of the imperialist countries, and use the golden imperialist rule: divide to conquer, to fight any kind of unity whether national, intellectual, religious or historical, divide the region’s inhabitants, and use the same tool used half cencury ago to destroy the Arab Nationalist movement and turn the so-called "Arab spring" into an opportunity to destroy Arabism again and divide Syria being the Last Arab fort and the corner stone of the axis of arabic and Islamic resistance.

Hopefully, the global landscape and power balance has changed, and the conspiracy will fail. Thanks to the resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, and to the great Syrian people bleeding to lit the resistance candle.


The Origins of Imperial Israel: A Buffer Against Arab Nationalism


By Andrew Gavin Marshall

December 29, 2011

NOTE: The following is Part 1 of a 2-part sample on the ‘Origins of Imperial Israel’ from a chapter on the American Empire in an upcoming book by Andrew Gavin Marshall, supported through The People’s Book Project. Please support the Project to help the book come into being.

Part 1

Israel emerged in the post-War period due to a great many complex domestic and international political reasons: to provide a place to direct the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, to allow the British to formally end the Mandate over Palestine which they held as their empire was crumbling, and to serve as a ‘buffer state’ for Western nations in the Middle East, a region of the world which was identified as a necessity to control in order to secure its vast oil resources and strategic position in relation to the East.

America in the post-War period, however, was deeply divided in its strategic-imperial circles on whether or not to support the State of Israel, which did not become a stated and strong policy until the later 1950s.

The State Department, in particular, full of individuals who were familiar with the politics and changes in the Middle East, were worried that support for Israel would threaten America’s interests in the region by antagonizing the Arab states and ruining America’s good reputation following the War.
Others, however, won out in the end, largely by arguing that such a state in the Middle East would be a significant support to American interests, acting as a powerful ‘buffer’ against the spread of Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism. In its first years, Israel walked a balance of receiving support from both the United States and the Soviet Union. With the rise of Nasser in Egypt, however, America saw its imperial interest in supporting Israel.
Nasser Declaring nationalizing Suez canal
The notion of a “Jewish State” as a ‘buffer’ for the West had been a long-held desire among imperial strategists and was even a popular means of promoting the Zionist cause from leaders within the Zionist movement.

In the early 20th century, the Zionists, keenly aware of the British and French imperial rivalry in the Arab East, “knew how to convince London of the value of a British-controlled Jewish buffer-state in Palestine for the protection of the Suez Canal and imperial communications to India.”[1]
In 1907, the London Colonial Conference emphasized the increasing interest in establishing a ‘buffer state’ for British imperial interests in the Near East. The Conference agreed “to establish a strong but alien human bridge in the land that links Europe with the Old World which would constitute, near the Suez Canal, a hostile power to the people of the area and a friendly power to Europe and its interests.”[2]

British imperial strategists were increasingly alarmed with the growing “Arab Awakening” emerging in the context of Arab indigenous nationalism. These fears of a growing and developing Arab nationalism informed British Prime Minister Campbell Bannerman when he stated at the 1907 Colonial Conference:

Empires are formed, enlarged and stabilized so very little before they disintegrate and disappear… Do we have the means of preventing this fall, this crumbling, is it possible for us to put a halt to the destiny of European colonialism which at present is at a critical stage?[3]

The answer Bannerman received from the commission he established to look at the question, was that it was necessary
[to fight] against the Union of popular masses in the Arab region or the establishment of any intellectual, spiritual or historical link between them… [and thus recommended] all practical ways of dividing them as such as possible should be taught, and one way of doing so would be to construct a powerful, human ‘barrier’ foreign to the region – a bridge linking Asia and Africa – thus creating in this part of the world, and near the Suez Canal, a force friendly towards imperialism and hostile towards the inhabitants of the region.[4]
The report submitted to Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman recommended the following actions:
1) To promote disintegration, division and separation in the region.
2) To establish artificial political entities that would be under the authority of the imperialist countries.
3) To fight any kind of unity – whether intellectual, religious or historical – and taking practical measures to divide the region’s inhabitants.
4) To achieve this, it was proposed that a “buffer state” be established in Palestine, populated by a strong, foreign presence which would be hostile to its neighbors and friendly to European countries and their interests.[5]
In 1917, the British issued the Balfour Declaration as a statement of support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (though it also stipulated that it was not to disadvantage or remove the Arab inhabitants of the land).

In 1922, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution endorsing the Balfour Declaration, though the State Department subsequently issued a notice stating that the resolution “did not constitute a commitment to any foreign obligation or entanglement.”[6] In 1936, the Arabs resorted to armed resistance within Palestine, and the British responded by crushing them.

During World War II, under the British Mandate of Palestine, the Zionists were “forming, training and arming their forces under the ‘British Shield’.” At the same time, during the War, Zionists increasingly focused on promoting their cause in America, taking note of the declining influence of Britain and rising dominance of America.[7]

It was during the 1940s that America increasingly recognized the importance of the oil resources of the Middle East to the developing plans and concepts of American global hegemony following the War. Thus, American approaches to the region were “developed within an anti-Arab nationalist and hegemonic framework designed to protect American access to oil.”[8]

The Zionist leadership recognized this vital interest to the United States, and thus began to promote the Zionist cause along similar lines of securing American access to Middle Eastern oil. In the 1940s, American oil companies were largely against the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, which they viewed as inimical to their interests in the region.

In 1933, the Saudi King had granted the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil exclusive rights over Saudi oil prospecting and extraction in the east of the country. The eventual formation of the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) as a joint venture between the House of Saud and Standard Oil (the House of Rockefeller) took place in 1943.

The oil companies stressed the importance of American security over and for Saudi Arabia. Zionist leaders in America held several meetings with oil company executives in an attempt to secure their support for a Jewish state, but to little avail. In fact, an oil industry publication, Oil Weekly, editorialized in 1946 that, “a Jewish state established with American support might endanger the ability of the US to assure a steady supply of oil from the Middle East.”[9]

In 1946, an agreement was established between the American government and Aramco to build a pipeline between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean coast, though this ran into problems with the U.S. Congress blocking such efforts, leading Aramco to decide to build the pipeline separate from U.S. involvement.

As it was deduced, “the best place to offload the oil would be Haifa bay in the north of Palestine, and an agreement to this effect was signed with Sir Allan Jordan Cunningham, the British High Commissioner for Palestine.”

Zionists, simultaneously, sought to advocate the pipeline project as necessarily transporting through areas of Jewish settlement in Palestine, and thus, the promotion of a Jewish state along the pipeline route “would introduce a stable element loyal to the United States into the project,” and reduce security costs for America.[10]

A confidential memo produced for the Jewish Agency in Palestine in 1947, in close proximity of the United Nations partition of Palestine, was titled, “The Jewish National Home and American Oil in the Middle East,” which stated that the purpose of the Zionist movement:
was to establish in Palestine a democratic society whose citizens would enjoy the living standard of advanced western states, in an economy based on modern agriculture, industry and scientific development.[11]
In 1945, a profoundly prophetic article was written by an American philosopher, William Ernest Hocking, in the journal The Muslim World, in which he explained the emerging conflict of “Arab Nationalism and Political Zionism.”

Hocking stressed that with the increased pressures in the U.S. Congress to support the Zionist cause, America may be rushing into a situation which it does not fully understand, stressing the need to weigh humanitarian concerns for the remaining European Jews following the Holocaust with the political objectives that exist in the complex circumstances of the Middle East, “and consider to what extent the proposed means will serve the humanitarian end, and to what extent it will serve other ends.” While acknowledging that “a place or places of refuge for Jews driven from Europe must be provided,” the question of Palestine needs a wider context.[12]

In examining the economic conditions upon which the Jews would find themselves thrust into within Palestine, Hocking explained that for a country roughly the size of New Hampshire, only half of the land is cultivable, and yet, planners desired “a program of intensive industrialization” to be undertaken.
Hocking questioned the viability of imposing a “forced industrialization” on a location with little rainfall, requiring imported fuel, and few water resources as “an appropriate center for an industry based on the resources of the wider Near East.”

Further, Hocking noted that while the notion of Palestine as the natural home for the Jewish people is based upon religious principles, “a Palestine heavily industrialized is a Palestine defaced from this point of view for Jew, Moslem, and Christian alike,”[13] as industrialization would be an affront to the spiritual significance of the location for all peoples.

Asserting that the reasons for the support of a Jewish state are not humanitarian, but political, Hocking examined how the Jewish National Fund in Palestine had increasingly deprived land from Arab labourers, as land granted to Jewish settlers was, by law, only allowed to be cultivated by Jewish labourers, and thus, it “cease[d] automatically to be a place of possible residence or work to those [Arab] laborers.” As Sir John Simpson reported on that matter:
It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either nor or at any time in the future… He is deprived forever from employment on that land… Nor can anyone help him by purchasing the land and restoring it to common use. The land is in mortmain and inalienable.[14]
Thus, wrote Hocking, “the Arab masses as a whole have felt their relative position deteriorating,” and the true question, then, was “of the attitude of the slowly advancing power,” that is, the Zionist power.
“Its strength, intelligence, cash backing, splendid equipment, render it in Arab eyes the more formidable” because of this exclusionary and discriminatory attitude: “Hence they have come to face the future with concern.” As to the question, increasingly discussed within the West, as to why the Arabs and Muslims cannot simply grant this small piece of land to the Jews and go elsewhere, Hocking explained:
Those who are promoting this view do not explain what they propose to do with the extensive religious establishments of Islam in Palestine, including the great mosques and various schools. These establishments are not, like those of the Christians, primarily of a memorial nature: they are important educational and devotional centers for a living religion, within the region of its central activity. To maintain such establishments a considerable local population is required and assumed: to deport the million Arabs to Iraq would be another way of strangling these institutions.[15]
Further, in terms of those arguments which favour deportation due to the “immense domain” of the Arab people, Hocking explained that the domain, in fact, is mostly desert, with the “cultivable portions” being strewn around the rim, “whose northern arch is known as the Fertile Crescent.” Thus, the advantages of Palestine for Jew and Arab alike come from its position on the Mediterranean coast:
Commercially it belongs to the European Area. Palestine stands in an important strategic position between Europe and the budding industrial development, not so much of Palestine itself as of the lands behind Palestine, Arab lands which are entering on a new economic era… If the future economic importance of Palestine is to be, as I surmise, commercial rather than agricultural or industrial, its prosperity will depend to a large extent on its relations to this growingly important hinterland. And vice versa, the prosperity of that hinterland might depend to a considerable extent on its relations with the financial powers, the warehouses, and the commercial lanes centering in Palestine and vicinity.[16]
This emphasizes the notion of a Jewish state in Palestine as a buffer between the West and the Near East, between the imperial powers and the growing spread of Arab nationalism.

Thus for the Arabs, leaving Palestine to exclusive Zionist control would “amount to acceptance of a barrier between them and Europe at the outset of their newer national career.” Yet, even with all of the Palestinian and Arab desires for, like the Jews themselves, a “new beginning,” they are increasingly portrayed as “nomadic,” “backward,” and “half-civilized,” ignoring the fact that “it was the Arabs who for six hundred years preserved the classical culture of Greece for a dark Europe,” or that they are still emanating out of the oppressive domination of four centuries of Turkish rule.

Thus, what was being asked of the Arabs was to accept their entire potential for progress as being entirely dependent upon the political state of Zionism, which had thus far shown enormous animosity and disregard for the Arab peoples within Palestine. Hocking concluded by writing:
I believe the political Zionists at this moment as distinct from the cultural Zionists who have built the noble Hebrew University and who know what a National Home must be, – I believe the political Zionists to be the chief enemies of the cause of Zionism as well as of the Jewish interests in the world of tomorrow. What can they hope to gain by extricating their brethren from the prejudices of Europe only to build a community in Palestine which has to be protected by Western force (and if we intervene, then by American force also) because it is cradled in an environment of distrust and fear cultivated by their own methods of realizing a misplaced nationalistic ambition?[17]
In the Truman administration in 1947, as the United Nations recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, the CIA released an assessment of the situation in one of its first major reports, which predicted that if a Jewish state were created, “war would break out between Arabs and Jews, and the Arabs would win.”

While the former turned out to be true, the latter, of course, did not. However, without stating it outright, the CIA report essentially led to the assumed conclusion that, as Thomas Lippman wrote, “partition would be detrimental to the long-term interests of the United States and would ultimately augment rather than alleviate the suffering of the world’s Jews.”[18]

The United States, in 1947, had reached a point where a decision finally had to be made on the issue of a Jewish state in Palestine. Within Palestine itself, Jewish gangs (such as the Hagana, the Irgun, and the Stern Gang), “were waging a guerrilla war against the British,” and thus, the issue became central to the United Nations and global politics.

In the White House, some of Truman’s closest advisers supported the Zionists, though his national security and foreign policy advisers, especially within the State Department, had opposed partition and the formation of a Jewish state, arguing that, “such an outcome would alienate the Arabs, jeopardize American strategic and economic interests throughout the Middle East, open the door to the political penetration of the Arab world by the Soviet Union, and possibly lead to the loss of the American oil bonanza in Saudi Arabia.”

As the State Department chief for the Bureau of Near East and Africa Affairs, Loy Henderson, wrote to Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1945:
In case the government of the United States should continue to press for the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine at this time, on humanitarian or other grounds, much of the work done in the Near East in recent years in building up respect for, and confidence in, the United States and in increasing American prestige, will be undone… The mere resentment of the Near Eastern peoples towards the United States on the ground that we have decided to disregard the Arab viewpoint with regard to Palestine would be unpleasant… It would be much more serious, however, if we should give them ground to believe that we do not live up to our firm promises already given.[19]
Henderson here was referring to the promise from the United States to engage in “full consultation” with the Arab states, primarily Saudi Arabia, in the lead up to any potential decision the United States would make on the issue.

As the CIA report emphasized, partition would “solve nothing and would only intensify support for Zionist expansion,” and the report further stressed the importance of regional implications for the Arab states:
Arab nationalism is the strongest political force in the Arab world. It grew up in secret societies under Ottoman rule, came out into the open in the Arab Revolt of World War I, and has been the major factor in the independence movement in the Arab world ever since. Because of the strong ties between the various Arab states, political developments in any one country are of vital concern to Arabs everywhere. Palestinian independence is, consequently, the major aim not only of the Palestinian Arabs but also of Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Transjordanians, Egyptians and Saudi Arabians. It would be political suicide for any Arab government to ignore this situation.[20]
Tellingly, the report also predicted that the Arabs “fear that the Jews will consolidate their position through unlimited immigration and that they will attempt to expand until they become a threat to the newly won independence of each of the other Arab countries.”

The CIA felt that this perception was, indeed, correct: “In the long run no Zionists in Palestine will be satisfied with the territorial arrangements of the partition settlement.” The CIA felt that such a partition would inevitably create “instability and hostility” in the Arab world.[21]

In the immediate aftermath of partition, the CIA report predicted that “war would break out” between the Arabs and the Jews, that the Jewish populations in other Arab nations would be in danger, “American oil interests would be damaged,” and that the Zionists would “continue to wage a strong propaganda campaign in the US and Europe,” and that, “whatever the actual circumstances may be,” the Arabs would, said the report, “be accused of aggression,” which would “doubtless continue to influence the US public, and the US government [could], consequently, be forced into actions which [would] further complicate and embitter its relations with the entire Arab world,” and finally, the Soviet Union could make considerable political gains in the region as a result. Further, the report stated that eventually the Arabs could turn to “religious fanaticism,” which could become “an extremely powerful force.”[22]

Where the report was wrong, however, was in predicting that the Jewish state would fail in a war with the Arab states, having mistakenly underestimated the organizational capabilities of the military Zionist groups in Palestine, as well as over-estimating the cooperation of the Arab states, which actually had many suspicions of one another.

As early as 1943, a special envoy dispatched by President Roosevelt to the Arab leaders to discuss Palestine, Colonel Harold Hoskins, stated that, “only by military force can a Zionist state be imposed upon the Arabs.”[23] This logic, of course, was not lost upon the Zionist military and strategic leaders, who had immense national ambitions.

These ambitions, however, were not merely political, but racial. In a disturbing parallel with the Nazi German state from which many European Jews would later escape to the Holy Land, several Zionist leaders were themselves drawing up plans for a program of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Palestine.

As Israeli historian Ilan Pappé documented, Plan D, as it was called, “was the fourth and final version of vaguer plans outlining the fate that was in store for the native population of Palestine.” The first three plans involved obscure and vague means for dealing with the Palestinians, whereas the fourth plan – the final plan – was a detailed military document written and plotted out by less than a dozen Zionist leaders, led by David Ben-Gurion.

Plan D was emphatic and adamantine in its purpose: to remove the Palestinian population from the land. Ethnic cleansing, as defined by the U.S. State Department, is “the systematic and forced removal of the members of an ethnic group from communities in order to change the ethnic composition of a given region.”[24] By definition, then, the Zionist leaders were preparing a plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is an independent researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada, writing on a number of social, political, economic, and historical issues. He is also Project Manager of The People’s Book Project.
Please help spread the word about the Project and the book by joining the Facebook Page.

See some other samples from the book, and if you like what you see, please donate:
- The American Empire in Latin America: “Democracy” is a Threat to “National Security”
- The Council on Foreign Relations and the “Grand Area” of the American Empire
- The Rockefeller World: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission
- Education or Domination? The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations Developing Knowledge for the Developing World
- An Education for Empire: The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations in the Construction of Knowledge

Notes

[1] Ibrahim Ibrahimi, “Review: The Making of the Jewish State,” Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 1, No. 1, Autumn 1971), page 122.
[2] Adnan Amad, “History and Fiction in Boasson’s Comments on Galtung,” Journal of Peace Research (Vol. 10, No ½, 1973), page 151.
[3] Anwarul Haque Haqqi, West Asia Since Camp David (Mittal Publications, 1988), pages 104-105.
[4] Ibid, page 105.
[5] Robert I. Rotberg, Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History’s Double Helix (Indiana University Press, 2006), page 220.
[6] Michael C. Hudson, “To Play the Hegemon: Fifty Years of US Policy Toward the Middle East,” Middle East Journal (Vol. 50, No. 3, Summer 1996), pages 333-334.
[7] Ibrahim Ibrahimi, “Review: The Making of the Jewish State,” Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 1, No. 1, Autumn 1971), pages 124-125.
[8] Ibrahim I. Ibrahim, “The American-Israeli Alliance: Raison d’etat Revisited,” Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 15, No. 3, Spring 1986), page 23.
[9] Zohar Segev, “Struggle for Cooperation and Integration: American Zionists and Arab Oil, 1940s,” Middle Eastern Studies (Vol. 42, No. 5, September 2006), pages 820-821.
[10] Ibid, pages 822-823.
[11] Ibid, pages 824-825.
[12] William Ernest Hocking, “Arab Nationalism and Political Zionism,” The Muslim World (Vol. 35, No. 3, July 1945), page 216.
[13] Ibid, pages 216-217.
[14] Ibid, pages 219-220.
[15] Ibid, page 220.
[16] Ibid, pages 220-222.
[17] Ibid, pages 222-223.
[18] Thomas W. Lippman, “The View From 1947: The CIA and the Parititon of Palestine,” Middle East Journal (Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter 2007), page 17.
[19] Ibid, pages 18-19.
[20] Ibid, pages 19-21.
[21] Ibid, pages 21-22.
[22] Ibid, pages 22-23.
[23] Ibid, pages 25-26.
[24] Ilan Pappé, “The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 36, No. 1, Autumn 2006), pages 6-7.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!