Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:15 pm Post subject: Zionist apartheid Israel mimicking Nazi German evil ways
Immortalizing the Myth
Comparing Zionist Apartheid Israel to Nazi Germany
By Anthony Lawson.....well worth a read
I'm not ready to take on another video project, at the moment, but I get incensed when so many people—even intelligent commentators like Paul Craig Roberts and Man of the People, Roger Waters—insist on comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, when the comparison is quite absurd. Israel's policies are far worse than Nazi Germany's ever were.
Paul Craig Roberts wrote:
A person might wonder what is exceptional and indispensable about a government that is a reincarnation of Nazi Germany in every respect.
Roger Waters said:
The parallels with what went on in the 30’s in Germany are so crushingly obvious that it doesn’t surprise me that the movement that both you and I are involved in is growing every day.
It has been said that comparisons are odious, and they are even more so when the comparison is biased in the wrong direction.
Zionism's stated aim, as propounded by Theodore Herzl at the First Zionist Congress in Basel, August 1897, was to steal a land already occupied by others in order to create the Zionist Jewish State of Israel. And, ironically, it was not Adolph Hitler but Herzl who first coined the phrase “the final solution of the Jewish question” in a communication with the Czar of Russia.
The unification of Germany took place in 1871. However, as it was with many European nations at the time, there were many areas of conflict and dissent with local populations who spoke different languages and many German-speaking people were left out of the unified nation who, in troubled times, were at the mercy of opposing political forces in countries such as France, Poland and the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia.
But one factor was reasonably constant within these populations: their forbears had all been living in these territories for hundreds of years, no matter which language or dialect they spoke, or how they got pushed around on the political chessboard.
The Gathering Storm
On the front page of the March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London it was announced that Judea—also referred to as International Jewry—declared economic war on Germany.
This date can be taken as the true beginning of the Second World War, and it should also be noted that Germany’s influential Jewish population—industrialists and media owners—warned the instigators against this economic attack, but they were ignored. This then, is why Jews became The Enemies Inside the Gates of Germany and why many of them were later herded into concentration camps when it was clear that a shooting war was more or less inevitable. A parallel can be drawn with the internment of large numbers of ethnic Japanese living in the United States following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.
In 1933, the German people had just elected a new leader, Adolf Hitler. The political infighting that preceded this is a vast story, but Hitler's election presaged the end to a long period of turmoil and economic woe in Germany and offered its people hope for a degree of stability and growth after they had been treated abominably, both territorially and economically, by the triumphant Allies at the end of the Great War, as manifested in the appallingly biased terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
After this, dare it be said, the Germans began to develop some of their long-lost pride as human beings, following the humiliation at Versailles, and much has been written and said about the concept of a superior race of people—an Aryan or Master Race—as propagandised by Hitler and its leaders.
The Aryan concept, despite claims to the contrary, pre-dates the Nazi era. The word originates from the Sanskrit word a–rya, in origin an ethnic self-designation, in Classical Sanskrit meaning honourable, respectable, noble. Nothing too wrong with aspiring to those qualities, even as a nation, I wouldn’t have thought. Compare that concept with the constantly reiterated claim of the Jews to be God’s Chosen People.
These feelings were epitomised in the aftermath of the assassination of a minor member of the Nazi party, Horst Wessel, in 1930. The famous, some insist on calling it infamous, Horst Wessel Lied, also known as Die Fahne hoch; The Flag is High—named after a minor member of the Nazi party who was shot by a member of the opposition Communist party, in 1930—had far more to do with pride and anti-Communism than an aggressive attitude towards any particular nation or religious group. It certainly had nothing to do with Jews, per se, although it is well known that Jews were prominent and very active in the rise of Communism in Russia, less than two decades earlier.
As an aside, Senator Joseph McCarthy would have applauded the sentiments of the lyrics in the early 1950s, because they can easily be related to his Reds-Under-the-Beds fears, but that was neither here nor there to those who were determined to blame Germany for absolutely anything and everything at the end of WW II, in 1945. Even today the Horst Wessel Lied is banned in Germany and Austria, and Amazon and Apple have been investigated for selling the song to German users. How dreadful!
One can only wonder what might have happened to the jingoistic songs of some of the Allies had they been the losers; for example: Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves . . . or the U.S. Marine Corps Hymn.
But no, it was only Germany's Horst Wessel Lied that got banned. What a pathetic way to attempt to skew history. Where do they come from, these petty-minded nit-picking people who think up such things? One of Abe Foxman’s ADL predecessors seems a likely culprit.
So, where was I? Oh yes, describing Germany's situation in early 1933. It is important to keep in mind that the vast majority of Germans were people whose forebears had been living in that general area of Europe for generation upon generation, so why shouldn't they have stood behind a leader who was prepared to stand up for them against the dual threats of International Jewry ganging up on one side and the Soviet Union, led by a preponderance of Jews on the other?
What would any sensible leader have done, under the circumstances? Prepare for the worst wouldn't have been a bad choice. Train up some battalions of crack troops, like other nations are wont to do these days. The British call theirs the SAS (Special Air Services) and the Americans have their Navy SEALs (Sea, Air, Land Teams) some of whom, not so long ago, formed a team that was sent off to murder an already-dead Osama bin Laden, and who appear to have been off'ed themselves on the orders of their commander-in-chief.
The big mistake that the Germans seem to have made was to give their specialist units such names as Waffen SS, far more aggressive-sounding than the cuddly SEALs, one has to admit, although it merely means Weapons Protective Squad (bodyguards).
Then you have the ominous-sounding sturm—in a military sense meaning assault—thus SS-Sturmbannführer equals Protective Squad-Assault Command Leader, but Hollywood and the BBC have a habit of making these names sound something like Baby Bayoneting Battalions when spoken by actors or documentary voiceovers.
So there was Europe, on the brink of what had all the makings of an international conflict and—despite popular belief—Germany was not the nation to cast the first stone. In fact it was not even a nation that did the casting, it was a religious organisation with territorial aims in mind, but not in Europe. It was Jewish Zionists, and the first stone was cast in March, 1933.
Now we come to what led to the creation of Israel. Remember that the so-called holocaust, whatever that really entailed, was not to occur for about 40 years when the Zionist plot—for the takeover of a large part of the territory surrounding Jerusalem; the so-called Promised Land—was first hatched, in 1897.
The Zionists planned to take over a territory known as Palestine which was already populated by Arab Muslims and Christians far in excess, in numbers than the then indigenous Jewish population which, during the late 1930s, was being surreptitiously increased by the implementation of the Transfer Agreement, made between the Zionists and the Nazis—yes, imagine that, the Nazis actually negotiating with the Zionists about German Jews being allowed to leave Germany and settle in Palestine—and this was achieved by bribes and deals made earlier between Zionist Jews and the British and American political establishments of the time and known, quite innocuously, as the Balfour Declaration.
It was this agreement which, in the fullness of time, would result in what the Palestinians call The Nakba—The Disaster—when well-organised gangs of armed Jews rampaged through the land, dividing and conquering; destroying hundreds of Palestinian villages and herding those they didn’t kill into enclaves such as the tiny strip of coastal territory called Gaza, which is under siege 65 years later.
So please, Paul Craig Roberts, Roger Waters and others, do think twice about comparing the excesses of the Jewish Apartheid State of Israeli—both at its beginnings and continuously ever since—with what has been propagandised about the German Nazis being the cruellest bunch of SS-Sturmbahnvillains since Ghengis Khan's Mongol hordes went on the rampage.
The Inevitable Accusations
Roger Waters’s statement has, inevitably, produced the usual fits of righteous indignation from rabbis and holocaust enthusiasts. Here are some quotes from the London Guardian:
Now leading American thinker Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has raised the stakes by describing Waters' views as audacious and clearly antisemitic.
Writing in the New York Observer, the rabbi said: "Mr Waters, the Nazis were a genocidal regime that murdered six million Jews.”
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said: "Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to advocate passionately for a cause, but drawing inappropriate parallels with the Holocaust insults the memory of the six million Jews men, women and children murdered by the Nazis. These kinds of attacks are commonly used as veiled antisemitism and should be exposed as such.”
When are these people and those who pass on their drivel going to get honest? Everyone may be entitled to an opinion, but they are sure to get insulted and falsely accused by people like Boteach and Pollock who clearly have something to protect. The six-million figure has been widely questioned for many years, mainly because of its reiteration in earlier Jewish texts and it is now widely recognised as being utterly preposterous since the Polish authorities officially reduced the Jewish death toll at Auschwitz and its associated camps from four million to just over one million.
But here we have two prominent Jews, both engaged in the business of educating people—a rabbi, designated by two Guardian reporters as a leading American thinker and the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust who is also a member of the Jewish Human Rights Coalition, UK —deliberately linking this spurious claim to aid them in delivering the ultimate accusation of intolerance towards Jews in general: that of being anti-Semitic.
British taxpayers might also like to know that this educational trust was voted a parliamentary grant of £4.65 million, in 2008, when it was announced that:
More than 1,500 students have now had the opportunity to visit the concentration camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau as a result of the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust.
So how did the myth of the six million Jews murdered by Germans manage to survive for so long?
A Summation of the Sequence
On April 18, 1945, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the New York Times reported that 4 million people died at Auschwitz and this fact has been bandied about for at least 50 years. (But please note, the numbers of Jews who allegedly died are not specified.)
Got that? 4 million people died . . . And just to be clear, I checked when the Russians actually liberated Auschwitz and its satellite camps to see if there could possibly have been any authentication of this number in such a short space of time. I searched for the information I was looking for in what I hoped would be a website acceptable to those who might wish to question my research. In the end, I came across an article on the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum titled: Liberation of Auschwitz which sounded authentic enough even for the likes of Abe Foxman and Alan Dershowitz, and here is the relevant quote:
On January 27, 1945, the Soviet army entered Auschwitz and liberated more than 7,000 remaining prisoners, who were mostly ill and dying.
So the Soviets had had about two-and-a-half months to get the figures together for the New York Times report of 4 million although, as might be expected, there are reports that many documents were destroyed or carried away by the Germans as the Soviet army advanced.
But that information pales into insignificance when continuing to read the Liberation of Auschwitz article and discover the following:
It is estimated that at minimum 1.3 million people were deported to Auschwitz between 1940 and 1945; of these, at least 1.1 million were murdered.
Hello, hello, hello—as British coppers are wont to say when things don’t quite add up—what’s goin’ one ‘ere?
We’ve got a rabbi (teacher) and the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust both sticking to the six-million figure as well as bandying about the ant-Semitic accusation, which means that either they or the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum are not telling us the truth.
Clearly, if the original six-million figure was supposed to have been accurate—taking into account the number of alleged Jewish deaths at other German-run concentration camps for the not-insignificant period of half-a-century—then a reduction from four million to just over one million at the Auschwitz complex must mean that the total figure of six million Jews allegedly murdered by the nasty Nazis is out by about three million. Quite an error, one has to admit.
So, if such a huge error could have been hidden for 50 years, there is a distinct possibility that there were no planned exterminations. And it is a fact that no equipment that would have been necessary to operate the so-called death chambers has ever been discovered. Anywhere.
What were discovered were rooms equipped with machines designed to blow hot air over Zyklon B pellets, to liberate the hydrogen cyanide gas soaked into them and circulate it around clothes and bedding; Zyklon-B was an insecticide used to kill the lice that spread the deadly disease typhus. Zyklon B was used to save human beings, not to kill them. Now ask yourself. Why would so many of those pieces of equipment have survived, but none that had to do with exterminating humans? Had the Russian found such equipment, at Auschwitz, wouldn’t they have preserved it as evidence against their arch enemies?
Another reason why I am so suspicious about any information about this period is epitomised in an email I have just received, from YouTube, the text is as follows:
Regarding your account: Anthony Lawson
We have received a legal complaint regarding your video. After review, the following video: : Holocaust, Hate Speech and Were the Germans so Stupid? — Updated has been blocked from view on the following YouTube country site(s):
French Guiana, Wallis and Futuna, Switzerland, Israel, Reunion, Mayotte, French Southern Territories, New Caledonia, Czech Republic, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Poland, Austria, Martinique, Guadeloupe, France, French Polynesia, Italy, Germany
YouTube blocks content where necessary to comply with local laws.
The YouTube Team
I received a similar notification about six months ago and I replied asking them exactly what a “legal complaint” was and why wasn’t I copied with its contents. But after several repeated requests The YouTube Team failed to respond.
To me, and many others, it is quite clear that details of certain events that occurred between 1933 and 1945 are being covered up, and that it must be the Zionist establishment that is doing it. It follows, then, that the reported rise in so-called anti-Semitism is being driven by the Zionists themselves, because of their dishonest behaviour in attempting to suppress any legitimate investigation or comment on what they call the Jewish Holocaust. It is, in certain countries, the only event in history on which open discussion is illegal, and many criminal prosecutions have resulted in heavy fines and imprisonment.
This is, of course, in direct breach of Article 19 in The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Whatever arrangements were made between the Zionists, Britain and the United States that resulted in the iniquitous formulating of the Balfour Declaration, in November 1917, and whatever accusations can be made against Adolf Hitler for aiding and abetting the migration of many Jews to Palestine, the behaviour of the Zionist Jews towards the indigenous population has been nothing less than shameful.
The majority of the lands in Palestine were the properties of the Palestinian rural population, the fellahin. In the process of the creation of the state of Israel, over 418 Palestinian villages were depopulated and destroyed. Bedouin semi-nomadic tribes were displaced and 104 Palestinian populated villages remained under Israeli control. Understanding the culture of the fellahin is key to understanding the system of land ownership in Palestine. Referring to the fellahin of Palestine as peasants, as they are often referred to is an unfair misrepresentation of Palestinian society and culture to say the very least.
Just imagine that your local county council decided that they were going to divide up the place you were living in and give more than half of it to a bunch of people you’d never met and who, when they arrived, told you—at gunpoint—which part of your house and your garden they were going to occupy and if you didn’t like the arrangement you could shove off.
The Balfour Declaration was converted into The Palestine Mandate by The Council of the League of Nations, in July 24, 1922. A section of which reads as follows:
. . . adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine . . . (emphasis added)
But, as we all know, the nations involved have done next to nothing, over the years, to pay even lip service to the rights of the non-Jewish communities that had been well established on that land for hundreds of years. Furthermore, it appears that the United Nations was in error, following WW II, to order the creation of the State of Israel. The closing paragraph of The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel reads as follows:
The U.N. could not deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country…. The United Nations Organization has no power to create a new State. Such a decision can only be taken by the free will of the people of the territories in question. That condition is not fulfilled in the case of the majority proposal, as it involves the establishment of a Jewish State in complete disregard of the wishes and interests of the Arabs of Palestine.
The Principles of Evidence
People who make accusations of anti-Semitism when they really mean anti-Zionism are rabidly dishonest, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with disliking or being anti a very suspicious and disturbing political movement that is opposed to democratic principles. It is well known that Zionists control politicians in many countries because they have the funding to buy their allegiance for the price of a candidate’s next election campaign, and it really doesn’t matter which party wins, as long as the fear of losing is always present, so that the successful candidates always feel beholden to those Who Pay the Piper.
It is also dishonest to characterise the search for knowledge about what is called the Jewish holocaust as denial. To draw a parallel, nobody denies that the Titanic sank, but trying to find out why it sank has never been considered to be disrespectful to those who died or to their loved ones who survived them.
It has been estimated that around 60 million people died during World War Two. Each and every one of those deaths was a tragedy, as was the pain and suffering caused by injury and loss to those who survived. But to prevent anyone from attempting to find out why such a war could have happened should be considered a crime against humanity.
The fact that about one-quarter of a billion people in Europe are not allowed to exercise their right to free speech and research on the single issue of what happened to the Jews, and why, is a despicable misuse of power by the Zionists and clearly indicates that there is a lot that needs to be hidden.
In a properly constituted court of law, anyone found to be bringing undue influence against those who had legitimate evidence to present on any issue being adjudicated, be it a matter of grievous bodily harm, fraud or murder would be in contempt of court.
If people like Karen Pollock and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach gave evidence to such a court, knowing that it was provably wrong, they would also be held in contempt and either jailed or fined, just as those some of those who have exercised their right to free speech about the so-called holocaust have been.
But one of the most despicable uses of Zionist power has been, and continues to be the attempt to prevent people from revealing the extent of the abusive and illegal actions and crimes of Israel against the Palestinians, by using diversionary tactics such as accusing anyone who criticizes Israel’s appalling behavior towards them as being anti-Semitic.
Every year, around 700 Palestinian children are arrested and prosecuted in an Israeli military system notorious for ill-treatment and torture. We partnered with the American Friends Service Committee to create No Way to Treat a Child, a US-based campaign that seeks to challenge Israel’s prolonged military occupation of Palestinians by exposing the widespread and systematic ill-treatment of children in the Israeli military detention system.
Will you add your voice to this campaign?
Israel has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world that automatically prosecutes children in military courts that lack basic safeguards for a fair trial. We believe the US government must use all available means to pressure Israeli authorities to end the detention and abuse of Palestinian children. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Graphic video footage has emerged that purports to show an Israeli soldier shooting dead a Palestinian man as he lay injured on the ground after a stabbing attack.
Amateur footage shows the man, named as Abed al-Fattah Yusri al-Sharif, lying in the street as medical workers treat an Israeli troop who had reportedly suffered minor injuries after being stabbed.
Other Israeli soldiers can be seen surrounding Mr al-Sharif, who appears to be hurt but still alive. One of the soldiers is then seen raising his gun and apparently shooting Mr al-Sharif in the head, before blood is seen pouring from his wound.
Mr al-Sharif and another Palestinian man, Ramzi Aziz al-Qasrawi, had already reportedly been shot after allegedly stabbing a solider in Tel Rumeida, in the Hebron area of the occupied West Bank, according to rights group B’Tselem.
According to reports, both men died.
According to Ma’an news agency, the soldier was removed from the scene to receive treatment for moderate injuries.
Hebron, divided into Israeli-controlled and Palestinian-controlled areas, regularly sees clashes between residents, police and the security forces.
The incident on Thursday morning is the latest example Israeli-Palestinian violence which has been escalating since October.
A spokesperson from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) told The Independent: “The IDF views this incident as a grave breach of IDF values, conduct and standards of military operations.
“A Military Police investigation has commenced and the soldier involved has been detained.”
According to Ma’an, a witness said: “I heard gunshots, went outside my house to check what it was, and saw several Israeli soldiers yelling and two youths on the ground. A soldier approached one of the youths that was moving while yelling and opened fire at him from zero range.”
Responding to the video, Philip Luther, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International, said the shooting could amount to a war crime.
"The shooting of a wounded and incapacitated person, even if they have been involved in an attack, has absolutely no justification and must be prosecuted as a potential war crime."
“Israeli forces have a long history of carrying out unlawful killings – including extrajudicial executions – in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with impunity. Amnesty International has documented a number of similar cases during the upsurge in violence that began in October," said Mr Luther.
“While it is encouraging that the soldier in the video has reportedly been suspended and placed under investigation, previous Israeli investigations have failed to hold members of the Israeli forces accountable even when there has been clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing."
Mr Luther added: "The Israeli authorities must use this opportunity to end the culture of impunity that has made such killings increasingly commonplace.”
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has previously voiced “deep concern over reports of excessive use of force by Israeli forces”.
In December 2015, Cecile Pouilly said: “All instances of the use of force resulting in death or injury by law enforcement officers should be the subject of prompt, independent and impartial investigations.”
A right-wing, relatively hawkish figure by any other nation’s standards, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon has found himself increasingly vilified by the rest of the far-right coalition, which has lashed him for repeated calls for the Israeli military to behave in an ethical manner and not kill indiscriminately.
The defense minister in the last two governments, the right-far-right government of 2013 and the far-right government of 2015, Ya’alon was being shifted elsewhere with the installation of a new, even-farther-right government, and opted to resign today, leaving both the cabinet and the parliament in the process.
On his way out, Ya’alon cautioned that the ethical issues of the new government pose an existential threat to Israel, warning that “extremists” have effectively taken over the government, with the incoming defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, an ultra-right hawk who has publicly called for the beheading of “disloyal” members of Israel’s ethnic Arab minority.
Ya’alon’s predecessor Ehud Barak, who held the defense portfolio from 2007-2013, echoed his concerns, saying the new Netanyahu-Lieberman government “is exhibiting signs of fascism.” He added that Lieberman was “unfit” for the position of defense minister.
Ya’alon’s comparative moderacy had been fueling political rows in Israel for awhile now, with the Jewish Home Party loudly condemning him and getting in increasingly public fights with Netanyahu. While it was initially thought Netanyahu might replace Jewish Home with the center-left Zionist Union, he surprised many with his 180, shifting further right and effectively placating Jewish Home, which cheered the replacement of Ya’alon with Lieberman.
Ya’alon will be replaced by Likud rabbi Yehuda Glick, primarily known for his advocacy for the creation of a new “sacrificial altar” on the Temple Mount. His calls to allow Jews to pray on the Temple Mount will likely please a lot of the religious settlers groups in the government, but his stance that the existing al-Aqsa Mosque remain and be open for Muslims is likely to put him in the awkward position of moderate.
He’ll just be a low ranking MP, however, and the real question is, with Ya’alon previously tapped as the incoming cabinet’s foreign minister, if someone else will take that mantle. The 2015 government had no foreign minister, while Lieberman held that post in 2013, though his bellicosity effectively forced Netanyahu to run diplomacy out of the prime minister’s office with most nations.
Netanyahu may decide to keep the post empty, with no other high-profile ministers to give it to, but some reports have suggested that this spot could be dangled as an inducement to the centrist Yesh Atid party to join the coalition.
Installing Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid as foreign ministry might be a best-case scenario for the new far-right government, as it would put a well-spoken moderate and charismatic former TV news anchor forward as the public face of the government internationally. His status as a moderate, however, and his support for Palestinian statehood, are likely to put him a bit too ideologically at odds to make a comfortable fit. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Danny Danon, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations, speaks to the media before the security council meeting on the situation in the Middle East (AFP)
MEE and agencies's picture
MEE and agencies
Tuesday 14 June 2016 12:53 UTC
Last update: Wednesday 15 June 2016 8:00 UTC
168 299googleplus0 471
Tags: UN, Danny Dannon, Mansour
Palestinian and Arab representatives have heavily criticised the election of Israel to chair a UN committee for the first time in the world body's 71-year history.
Israeli ambassador to the UN Danny Danon won the chair of the legal affairs committee of the General Assembly on Monday by picking up 109 votes from the 193 member-states.
Danon's candidacy was put to a vote by secret ballot at the request of Arab countries. All of the other UN committee chairs are chosen by consensus.
Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour criticised the Western Europe regional group, which includes Israel, for putting forward Danon's candidacy, saying he was divisive and unworthy of the task.
"They should have advanced a very responsible qualified candidate and not a big violator of international law," Mansour told reporters.
Yemen's UN ambassador Khaled Alyemany, who heads the Arab group at the United Nations, said he had sent a message to all member-states to protest the election of the Israeli ambassador.
"We cannot accept that a country like Israel, violator of international law and humanitarian law and the last colonial force existing in the world, has the right to rule on all legal affairs," said Alyemany.
Danon has long been a controversial figure on the Israeli political scene.
A longtime supporter of the settlement process in the occupied West Bank - recognised as illegal under international law - he opposes a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine, stating that there was "place only for one state on the land of Israel".
His appointment as ambassador to the UN was highly criticised even within Israel at the time.
“It is hard to conceive of a more short-sighted, shameful and damaging appointment,” wrote David Horovitz, editor of the Times of Israel.
Danon said he was "very proud" to be the first Israeli to head a UN committee and declared that it was "a pitiful moment to see some of the Arab countries trying to block that nomination".
Israel's candidacy was backed by the United States and European countries.
Most of the work on resolutions adopted by the General Assembly is done by committees, which present measures that are agreed by all UN member-states.
EXCLUSIVE: Iraq says 17 civilians murdered by Shia fighter in Fallujah #IraqatWar
UAE announces 'war is over' for Emirati troops in Yemen #YemenCrisis
Israeli soldier who 'executed' Palestinian said he 'needed to die' #Occupation
Black box of EgyptAir flight 804 discovered #EgyptAir
Bulgaria takes first step to outlawing veils and headscarves #HumanRights
Follow the story
EU and Turkish leaders need courage to turn the tide of right-wing populism
Iran appeals to UN top court against US block on frozen funds
Iran condemns Canada’s $13m court ruling on attacks
Did Germany use the Armenian genocide vote to blackmail Turkey?
US apologises to Qatar over military video
On 14 June, the annual conference on Israel’s security opened at Herzliya. While work got stuck on the discussions agreed, (like those of the Frenchmen, Français Jean-François Copé and Bernard-Henri Lévy), the walls trembled at the hour of closing.
The former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, [now] withdrawn from political life, accused the government of Netanyahu of “fascism” (while taking care to clarify, not fascism as the term is understood in relation to the thirties and forties).
Warning against a policy that leads Israel to its downfall, he detailed his successor’s secret plan:
1. Israel anticipates having perpetual control over the territories it conquered in 1967.
2. Israel has no interest in a solution for both States and opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state on its border.
3. Israel expects the rest of the world to conform and accept this reality. It expects that some difficult times – such as the terrorist attacks in Europe, the situation in Syria and so forth— will divert their attention.
4. Israel accepts autonomy for Palestinians but does not accept that they have a right to a State.
5. Israel patiently constructs colonies to construct, bit by bit, an irreversible title to the land.
Today it’s a much different company. It operates a dozen subsidiaries and employs 1,200 people in over 40 countries, selling wireless infrastructure, software for public transit ticketing systems, wastewater treatment, and more. But at the ISDEF Expo, an event held last June to show off Israeli technology to potential buyers from foreign security forces, the Mer Group’s representatives were only promoting one thing: surveillance products sold by the company’s security division.
The Mer Group’s evolution from cutting metal to electronic snooping reflects a larger shift in the Israeli economy. Technology is one of the main sectors in Israeli industry. And Israeli firms with ties to intelligence, like the Mer Group, are using their expertise to market themselves internationally. The company’s CEO, Nir Lempert, is a 22-year veteran of Unit 8200, the Israeli intelligence unit often compared to the National Security Agency, and is chairman of the unit’s alumni association. The Mer Group’s ties to Unit 8200 are hardly unique in Israel, where the cyber sector has become an integral aspect of the Israeli economy, exporting $6 billion worth of products and services in 2014.
When drafted into the army, Israel’s smartest youth are steered toward the intelligence unit and taught how to spy, hack, and create offensive cyberweapons. Unit 8200 and the National Security Agency reportedly developed the cyberweapon that attacked Iranian computers running the country’s nuclear program, and Unit 8200 engages in mass surveillance in the occupied Palestinian territories, according to veterans of the military intelligence branch.
Increasingly, the skills developed by spying and waging cyberwarfare don’t stay in the military. Unit 8200 is a feeder school to the private surveillance industry in Israel, the self-proclaimed “startup nation” — and the products those intelligence veterans create are sold to governments around the world to spy on people. While the companies that Unit 8200 veterans run say their technologies are essential to keeping people safe, privacy advocates warn their products undermine civil liberties.
In August, Privacy International, a watchdog group that investigates government surveillance, released a report on the global surveillance industry. The group identified 27 Israeli surveillance companies — the highest number per capita of any country in the world. (The United States leads the world in sheer number of surveillance companies: 122.) Unit 8200 veterans either founded or occupy high-level positions in at least eight of the Israeli surveillance companies named by Privacy International, according to publicly available information. And that list doesn’t include companies like Narus, which was founded by Israeli veterans of Unit 8200 but is now owned by Boeing, the American defense contractor. (Privacy International categorized Narus as an American company because it’s headquartered in California.) Narus technology helped AT&T collect internet traffic and billions of emails and forward that information to the National Security Agency, according to reporting in Wired magazine and documents from the Snowden archive.
“It is alarming that surveillance capabilities developed in some of the world’s most advanced spying agencies are being packaged and exported around the world for profit,” said Edin Omanovic, a research officer at Privacy International. “The proliferation of such intrusive surveillance capabilities is extremely dangerous and poses a real and fundamental threat to human rights and democratization.”
A poster, calling for the destruction of CCTV cameras, is seen on a column at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, in front of the Dome of the Rock on April 8, 2016.Jordan, who administrate the site, said it will set up security cameras around Jerusalem's flashpoint Al-Aqsa mosque compound in the coming days to monitor any Israeli "violations." / AFP / AHMAD GHARABLI (Photo credit should read AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP/Getty Images) A poster calling for the destruction of CCTV cameras is posted on a column at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem in front of the Dome of the Rock, April 8, 2016. Photo: Ahmad Gharabli/AFP/Getty Images
TODAY, AMIT MEYER is a journalist, an unusual career path for a veteran of Unit 8200. Many of his colleagues have taken the skills in intelligence collection and hacking they learned in the military and monetized them in the private sector. Unit 8200 is a “brand name” in Israel, a celebrated institution that allows members easy access to tech companies after their service, said Meyer. Sometimes technology companies approach alumni of the unit; other times alumni recommend one another. There’s a secret Facebook group for alumni filled with job offers at tech companies, Meyer said. “In many cases you just put Unit 8200 in your CV, and magic happens,” he told The Intercept.
Neve Gordon, an Israeli scholar who has studied the country’s homeland security industry, explained that Israel’s prominence in the surveillance industry stems from the close links between the Israel Defense Forces and the technology sector. In 1960, the Israeli military was developing computer software — nine years before the Israeli software industry and university computer science programs even existed. Israeli military units that work with computers, including Unit 8200, have become a “conveyor belt” toward Israel’s military and homeland security industry, said Gordon.
Gordon said there are two other reasons why Israel plays such an outsize role in the global surveillance industry. One is that there are “hardly any” legal limits on veterans “taking certain research ideas they worked on in the military and developing them” in the private sector. In addition, said Gordon, Israel’s decadeslong occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, along with its periodic wars, “provides a laboratory for testing and fine tuning different commodities that are created, or different technologies.”
Those technologies are then exported around the world.
Mer Security is one of the companies exporting spy products. It is well-known in the country’s security circles; it won an Israeli police contract in 1999 to establish “Mabat 2000,” which set up hundreds of cameras in Jerusalem’s Old City, a flashpoint of tensions in the occupied area. In an interview with the Israel Gateway magazine, a trade publication, Haim Mer, chairman of the company’s board and also a Unit 8200 veteran, explained that “the police needed a system in which ‘Big Brother’ would control and would allow for an overall view of events in the Old City area.”
At the ISDEF Expo, Eyal Raz, the product director for Mer Security, told The Intercept about what “Israel’s greatest security minds,” as a company brochure puts it, have created. Raz was showcasing Open Source Collection Analysis and Response, known as OSCAR, which trawls through the internet and social media platforms and promises to uncover hidden connections from the data OSCAR collects and monitors.
Another product, called Strategic Actionable Intelligence Platform, or SAIP, takes that data in and groups it together. To pinpoint “actionable intelligence,” SAIP uses technology that can highlight words, sentences, and information that might interest intelligence officers. These types of language analysis tools are increasingly popular with intelligence services around the world as a tool for pinpointing the next threat. These products claim to “understand what it’s reading,” as Raz said. For instance, a list of chemicals included in a paragraph may seem innocuous to the layperson, but the language analysis machine can recognize that the person is talking about making an explosive device, Raz said.
Raz explained another feature of SAIP: Users can create an avatar “in order to get the credentials to closed forums and to gather information from closed forums. This is also one way you can counterfeit your activities.” Facebook does not allow people to create fake profiles, but the technology Raz and others are selling promises to blend into social networks so that profiles operated by law enforcement look authentic. Multiple news outlets this year have reported that the Israeli Police use similar tactics by creating fake Facebook profiles to befriend targets of investigations and monitor Palestinians. Though Israeli Police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld was quoted in one report as confirming the police use this tactic, he denied this claim when contacted by The Intercept.
Mer Group’s clients are in Israel and abroad. The company does “joint development” work with Unit 8200, according to Raz, and they recruit veterans from the unit to work for the company. Other clients are scattered around the world, including in Europe, though Raz refused to divulge specifics. But publicly available information shows, for instance, that in 2011 Mer inked a $42 million contract with Buenos Aires to set up a “Safe City” system, complete with 1,200 surveillance cameras, including license plate recognition technology.
Ahmed Mansoor, a Dubai-based blogger and activist, poses for a photograph in Dubai, United Arab Emirates on September 25, 2012. Ahmed Mansoor, a Dubai-based blogger and activist, poses for a portrait in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, on Sept. 25, 2012. Photo: Bloomberg/Getty Images
UNIT 8200’S TIES to the Israeli surveillance industry attracted widespread attention in late August, when digital security researchers at the University of Toronto-based Citizen Lab released a report detailing the provenance of a specific type of malware. They said it was likely that the United Arab Emirates had targeted Ahmed Mansoor, a prominent human rights activist, with sophisticated spyware that had the ability to turn his iPhone into a mobile surveillance device that could track his movement, record his phone calls, and control his phone camera and microphone.
Mansoor says he’s been targeted since 2011, the year he signed a petition demanding democratic reforms in the Emirates. “The state security authorities are basically very obsessed with the monitoring and spying on people, activists,” he said. “They are totally possessed with this kind of thinking.”
Citizen Lab analyzed the spyware after Mansoor received a text message with a link promising “new secrets about torture of Emiratis in state prison.” Rather than clicking, Mansoor sent the texts to the digital security group, which had also, in 2012, analyzed spyware created by Italian surveillance company Hacking Team that had infected Mansoor’s computer.
“We’ve never seen any exploits like this for a mobile device which operates on the very latest version,” said Bill Marczak, a senior research fellow at Citizen Lab who co-authored the report.
The culprit behind the spyware, Citizen Lab’s report concluded, was the NSO Group, a secretive Israeli surveillance company.
Details about the NSO Group are hard to come by. Their founders rarely talk to the press. They have no website. Israeli and foreign news media have reported that Omri Lavie and Shalev Hulio, the founders of the company, are veterans of Unit 8200. However, some Israeli outlets have reported that they served in other units. Still, at least three of NSO Group’s current employees served in the intelligence unit, according to their LinkedIn pages. And Unit 8200 veterans provided the company with $1.6 million in seed money to develop Pegasus, the name for the spyware, according to Defense News, a trade publication.
Zamir Dahbash, the spokesperson for the company, did not answer specific questions about the NSO Group, which was bought in 2014 for $120 million by a U.S. private equity fund. He told The Intercept in a statement that “the company sells only to authorized governmental agencies, and fully complies with strict export control laws and regulations. … The agreements signed with the company’s customers require that the company’s products only be used in a lawful manner.”
On its face, an Israeli surveillance company selling spyware to an Arab nation is striking. The United Arab Emirates and Israel do not have official diplomatic relations, and like in other parts of the Arab world, many Emiratis detest Israel’s decadeslong occupation of Arab lands. But NSO Group’s sale to the UAE is an indication of the growing ties between Israel and the Gulf state, which has a growing appetite for surveillance gear.
“These regimes are unstable in the sense that most of the people living in these regimes do not have basic rights,” said Gordon, the Israeli scholar, “and they constantly need to monitor and surveil their populations.”
In February 2015, the Middle East Eye writer Rori Donaghy reported that the UAE had signed a contract with Asia Global Technologies, a Swiss-registered company owned by an Israeli and reportedly staffed by former Israeli intelligence agents, to set up a surveillance system featuring thousands of cameras.
2017 doesn't look like being a good year for Bibi
Which means Israel will probably lash out wildly - with their craziest scheme on the shelf! Report: Netanyahu to be investigated for bribery, fraud
Police ask A-G to turn months-long secret inquiry into full-blown investigation as new documents come to light
By TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF December 26, 2016, 9:49 pm
A months-long inquiry into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s affairs took a new twist on Monday, with police reportedly convinced that they will be able to open a full-blown criminal investigation against him in the next few days.
Police recently received new documents as part of a secret inquiry that began almost nine months ago, Channel 2 reported. Based on thpse files police have already turned to Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit requesting that he allow them to open a full criminal investigation. The report stated that among the suspected offenses are bribe-taking and aggravated fraud.
A spokesperson for the prime minister said that “it’s all nonsense,” Haaretz reported. “Since Netanyahu’s victory in the last elections and even before, hostile elements have used heroic efforts to attempt to bring about [Netanyahu’s] downfall, with false accusations against him and his family. This [latest attempt] is absolutely false. There was nothing and there will be nothing.”
In June, it was reported that Israel Police Chief Roni Alsheich gave his go-ahead on the secret investigation by special police unit Lahav 433, but that he had demanded full cooperation on secrecy and that no details be leaked to the media.
Mandelblit also reportedly instructed employees in the state prosecutor’s office to look into allegations that Netanyahu accepted 1 million euros (about $1.1 million) from accused French fraudster Arnaud Mimran in 2009.
In May, Israel’s state comptroller issued a critical report on Netanyahu’s foreign trips, some of which were taken with his wife and children, from 2003 to 2005, when he was finance minister.
Earlier this month, in an apparently unrelated case, there were calls for the prime minister to be investigated for his role in a Defense Ministry deal to purchase submarines from a German company partly owned by the Iranian government.
The affair dominated public debate in the country last month, as accusations surfaced that the prime minister may have been swayed in the decision by business ties his personal counsel David Shimron had with the submarines’ builder, ThyssenKrupp. The purchase was opposed by parts of the defense establishment, including former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon.
On Sunday, police descended on the Defense Ministry to gather information relating to a ship-building contract with Germany, as part of a probe into how negotiations for multi-billion shekel naval deals were handled.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, confers with then-cabinet secretary Avichai Mandelblit during a weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, on December 20, 2015. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90) _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
'...Thanks to the lovefest between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, ignoring the Palestinian national leadership seems to be back on the front burner.
During both leaders' first meeting since the new United States administration took office, Trump repeatedly talked about the need for the Israelis and Palestinians to make peace but avoided mentioning the Palestinian leadership.
Apparently fearing the repercussions of Washington's withdrawal of both support for the two-state solution and recognition of the legitimate Palestinian leadership, the US sent CIA chief Mike Pompeo to President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on Tuesday, February 14.
By sending the CIA chief rather than a political figure to visit President Abbas, the US is prioritising security issues - including joint security cooperation with Israelis - over the need to recognise Palestinian political and national aspirations.
Trump also casually walked away from a long-standing US and international consensus on the two-state solution, which has been the foundation of Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
'Been there, tried that'
The US president's naive comment on the two or one-state solution - saying he "can live with either one" - means Washington is likely to prolong the status quo of occupation.
Ever since the 1967 occupation, the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly expressed the illegality of the occupation, as in the preamble of Resolution 242 "emphasising inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". (PDF)
By leaving the solution to the parties while, at the same time, politically bypassing the Palestinian leadership, the Trump administration is empowering the Israelis to dictate to the Palestinians any deal they want.
The sheer reality of the Israeli occupation and the absence of any political solution is a reflection of how Israel's current tactics have not been producing any results for decades now.
The problem is that Trump and Netanyahu's warm relationship and the former's withdrawal of support for the two-state solution further weakens the US' ability be an honest broker.
Hoping that Arab leaders will replace Palestinians and agree to make peace with Israel on behalf of Palestinians, is another mistaken proposal. As the saying goes, "been there, tried that".
In the past, Arab leaders as well as Israeli and US leaders have tried to find an alternative leadership for Palestinians and have failed miserably.
For instance, Egypt and Jordan resisted pressures from Israel and the international community on who should represent the Palestinians in the 1970s, and in 1974 the Arab summit recognised the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
Netanyahu and Trump's approach to the issue is pushing the region towards a more blatant and legalised form of apartheid in which the Palestinian majority in the occupied territories is stripped off their political rights while Jewish settlers enjoy full political and national rights....' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
'Two former heads of Israel’s powerful domestic intelligence service, the Shin Bet, have made an impassioned and powerful intervention ahead of events to mark the 50th anniversary of the country’s occupation of the Palestinian territories in June.
One of the pair warned that the country’s political system was sunk in the process of “incremental tyranny”.
Ami Ayalon and Carmi Gillon were speaking ahead of a public meeting at a Jerusalem gallery which is threatened with closure for hosting a meeting organised by the military whistleblowing group Breaking the Silence, one of the main targets of the rightwing government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
During his recent visit to the UK, Netanyahu also asked Theresa May to cut UK government funding to the group – a request that baffled diplomats as no direct UK funding exists.
“Incremental tyranny [is a process] which means you live in a democracy and suddenly you understand it is not a democracy any more,” Ayalon told a small group of journalists, including the Guardian, ahead of the event. “This is what we are seeing in Israel. The tragedy of this process is that you only know it when it is too late.”
Ayalon cited recent moves by ministers in the Netanyahu government to change the laws to hit groups such as Breaking the Silence by banning them from events in schools and targeting their funding, while also taking aim at the country’s supreme court and independence of the media.
Issues of freedom of speech and expression have become one of the key faultlines in Israeli society – in everything from the arts to journalism – under the most rightwing government in the country’s history.
The Babur gallery is under threat of closure after being censured by the country’s culture minister, Miri Regev, for holding an event with Breaking the Silence on publicly owned property – a group which Regev claimed “hurts Israel’s image”.
The Israelis and Palestinians who work together in peace
Gillon was equally bleak in his analysis of Israel’s trajectory, saying that the country was being “driven by this occupation towards disaster”.
He added: “This country was established on the values of liberal democracy, values written in the only kind of constitution we have – which is our declaration of independence – values we don’t fulfil any more. You can analyse what happened to us in the last 50 years, but everything is under the shade of occupation. It has changed us a society. It has made us an unpleasant society.”.........' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
'...One assumption underlying discussion of the conflict in the US is that, while certainly capable of making “mistakes”, the government only ever acts benevolently—never absent good intentions. This is why Americans will never learn from the mainstream media what the greatest obstacle to peace is between Israelis and Palestinians: the government of the United States.
Simply stated, Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people could not go on without the US’s financial, military, and diplomatic support.
The US has historically given Israel more than $3 billion annually in military aid in the form of grants that serve largely as a taxpayer subsidy to the US arms industry as Israel uses the money to purchase military hardware used to oppress the Palestinians. This was increased last year under the Obama administration to $3.8 billion annually. The US also provides Israel with loan guarantees that are underwritten by the American taxpayers and allow Israel to borrow at lower interest rates.
When Israel commits war crimes against Palestinians, as during its major military operations in Gaza in 2008-09, 2012, and 2014, it does so largely with US arms. US-supplied military hardware includes Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters, GBU bunker-buster bombs, and white phosphorus munitions.....'
'...One of the key documents comprising the legal foundation of the two-state solution is UN Security Council Resolution 242.
The Meaning of Resolution 242
There is an extremely widespread misunderstanding about the meaning of Resolution 242; what is nearly universally reported as the meaning of the resolution is in fact an invalid Zionist reinterpretation of the text.
One often hears about Resolution 242 in terms of the “land for peace” formula. This is the idea that Israel would have to give up land in exchange for peace. Resolution 242, however, did not outline a “land for peace” formula; the simple reason for this is that none of the land in question was Israel’s to give.
There are two key operative subclauses in Resolution 242. It called for (i) the “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and (ii) the establishment of “secure and recognized boundaries” between them.
According to the Zionist reinterpretation, the absence of the article “the” before the words “territories occupied” means Israel only had to partially, not fully, withdraw.
In other words, the argument is that, since it doesn’t say “the territories”, we must understand it to mean “some of the territories”—patently absurd and self-defeating logic.
As a simple matter of English grammar, the absence of the article “the” has no effect on the meaning of the clause with respect to the extent of withdrawal. The extent was rather determined by the principal emphasized in the resolution’s perambulatory section that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible under international law.
The extent of withdrawal is also determined by the phrase “occupied in the recent conflict”. The Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, the Syrian Golan Heights, and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are all “territories”, plural, occupied during the 1967 war and hence territories, plural, from which Israel must withdraw.
A secondary argument underlying the Zionist reinterpretation is that implementation of subclause (i) was made conditional upon implementation of subclause (ii).
In fact, the Council stated that both withdrawal and the establishment of secure and recognized boundaries were necessary, conditioning neither one upon the other. However, there was a logical reason for placing the demand for Israel to withdraw first in order: the UN Security Council did not intend for Israel to be able to use conquered territory as a bargaining chip during peace negotiations.
The Security Council did not intend for the Palestinians to be forced to negotiate under gunpoint with the Occupying Power over how much of their own territory they would be allowed to retain for their own state.....' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum