McChrystal, Tocqueville, and the Koran: The Postmodern ‘COINage’ of a Failed Policy

References to the Koran are all-but-missing from “COIN,” our counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. In contrast, 150 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville knew better.
June 29, 2010 – by Andrew G. Bostom

Just over nine months ago, on September 20, 2009, the Department of Defense released a declassified version of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s assessment of the war in Afghanistan. The Washington Post published a version of this report with minor deletions of material that officials maintained could compromise future operations, rather than a copy of the document marked “confidential.” Although Gen. McChrystal’s counterinsurgency (COIN)-based analysis, “updated” for the Afghanistan theater, at least mentioned the “Koran” (a word omitted entirely from the December 2006 COIN manual co-authored by Gen. David Petraeus), the Koran’s motivational relevance — consistent with a over a millennium of jihadism within Afghanistan (or “Ghazni”) — was completely misrepresented. Negating doctrinal and historical realities, past and present, McChrystal’s uninformed, panglossian Koranic gloss rationalized an ostensibly “more forceful” strategy:

whereby INS [insurgents] are exposed continually for their cultural and religious violations, anti-Islamic and indiscriminate use of violence and terror, and by concentrating on their vulnerabilities. These include their causing of the majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, development projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran. These vulnerabilities must be expressed in a manner that exploits the cultural and ideological separation of the INS from the vast majority of the Afghan population. (emphasis added)

McChrystal’s superficial, bowdlerized pieties on the Koran, and Petraeus’ complete neglect of this foundational Islamic text, contrast starkly with the contemplative, firsthand observations on the Koran (and Islam) made by Alexis de Tocqueville. Shortly after his return from America, Tocqueville studied North African Islamic culture and history — which included an analysis of the Koran (“Notes on the Koran,” March, 1838) — and made two visits to Algeria (in 1841, and 1846), becoming one of the foremost experts on these matters, while serving as a French parliamentarian.

Before visiting Algeria, Tocqueville studied the Koran, writing an analysis of the first 18 suras (chapters) in careful, if succinct notes, and elaborating his summary conclusions during additional private observations and correspondence recorded through his voyage to North Africa in 1841. Tocqueville opens his March 1838 “Notes on the Koran” with these two observations:

Encouragement, commandments for holy war.

Necessity of obeying the Prophet, of obeying him as one does God.

He accurately documents the Koran’s repeated references to jihad warfare, noting,

Sanctity of holy war encouraged with both energy and violence. … Permission and commandment to kill infidels. Prohibition against killing believers. … Cut off the hands and feet of those who fight God and his prophet.

This discussion culminates, appropriately, in Tocqueville’s more extended assessment of suras 8 and 9, which are redolent with eternal proclamations justifying and describing the conduct of jihad war against the non-Muslim infidel:

Spoils taken from the enemy belong to God and to his envoy. Fear the Lord. Whoever turns his back on the day of combat shall remain in hell. Fight infidels until the point  when there is no more schism and when holy religion is universally triumphant. O  believers! when you march on the enemy, be resolute, obey God and the prophet, fear the discord that extinguishes the fire of courage. Be firm. The incredulous who refuses to believe in Islam is more abject than a brute in the eyes of the Eternal. If the fortune of battle causes those who violate the pact they have made with you to fall into your hands, use torture to terrify their followers. God will ease your task: 20 brave believers will  crush 200 infidels, 100 will put 1,000 to flight. No prophet has taken prisoners without spilling the blood of a great number of enemies. Feed on what you have taken from the enemy. You shall have no society with believers who have remained at home, until they have marched into combat. Believers who have left their country to fight under the standard of faith and those who have given aid to the prophet are the truly faithful ones.        Paradise is their portion.

Believers who tear themselves from the bosom of their family to follow [God’s] standard,  sacrificing their property and their lives, shall have the first places in the realm of the heavens. They shall be the object of God’s kindness; they shall live in gardens of delights and taste eternal pleasures. Cease loving your fathers, your brothers, if they prefer incredulity to faith. … Young and old, enter combat, sacrifice your wealth and your lives for the defense of the faith, [for] there is no more glorious advantage for you. Some believers have let the prophet go, they have said, “Let us not fight during the heat!” The  fire of hell shall be much more terrible than that heat. … O Believers! Fight your unfaithful neighbors. May they find implacable enemies.

Tocqueville concludes his Koranic analysis in the March 1838 “Notes” with these additional observations:

Everything that relates to war is precise; everything that relates to morals … is general and confused. … As in practically all of the Alcoran [Koran], Muhammad concerns himself  far more with making himself believed than with giving rules of morality. And he employs terror much more than any other motive.

Prior to visiting Algeria, Tocqueville supplemented his initial reflections on the Koran with further meditations on both this defining Muslim text and Islam:

Reading the latter [Koran] is one of the most … instructive things imaginable because the eye easily discovers there, by very closely observing, all the threads by which the prophet held and still holds the members of his sect. … [T]hat the first of all religious duties is to blindly obey the prophet, that holy war is the first of all good deeds … all these doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them.

Jihad: Holy war, is an obligation for all believers. … The state of war is the natural state with regard to infidels. Only truces can be made [meaning…can only be interrupted by a  truce, not ended]. … After the victory, 4/5 of the booty — land, buildings, and other property — of the defeated I shared out. Two motives: fanaticism, cupidity.

Muhammadanism is the religion that most thoroughly conflated and intermixed the  powers in such a way that the high priest is necessarily the prince, and the prince the high priest, and all acts of civil and political life are more or less governed by religious law. … [T]his concentration and this conflation of power established by Muhammad     between the two powers … was the primary cause of despotism and particularly of social immobility that has almost always characterized Muslim nations.

And following his first sojourn in Algeria, Tocqueville compared Islam’s lasting impact with that of Christianity (and the latter’s possible disappearance), in an October 1843 letter to Arthur de Gobineau:

If  Christianity should in fact disappear, as so many hasten to predict, it would befall us, as already happened to the ancients before its advent, a long moral decrepitude, a poisoned old age, that will end up bringing I know not where nor how a new renovation. … I closely studied the Koran especially because of our position with regard to the Muslim populations in Algeria and throughout the Orient. I admit that I came out of  that study with the conviction that, all things considered, there had been few religions in the world so dreadful for men as that of Muhammad. It is, I believe, the major cause of  the decadence today so visible in the Muslim world and though it is less absurd than ancient polytheism, it’s social and political tendencies, in my opinion much more to be feared. I see it relative to paganism itself as a decadence rather than an advance.


Nearly 170 years later, it is a bitter, tragic irony that the harshest and most valid critiques of Stanley McChrystal — leveled by military officers in Michael Hastings’ now infamous Rolling Stone essay (“The Runaway General“) — hinge upon the general’s ignorant and willfully misconceived formulation of the same timeless Islamic doctrines so plainly elucidated by Tocqueville.

Retired Col. Douglas MacGregor, an accomplished military strategist who attended West Point with Gen. McChrystal, remonstrated:

The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people. The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is  utter nonsense.

MacGregor’s plaintive statement reiterated the essence of Marine Corps Sergeant Major (Ret.) James Sauer’s criticisms elaborated with meticulous detail — doctrinal, historical, and hands-on experiential — in an October 2009 essay. But perhaps even more revealing — and damning — was the impassioned comment about the prohibitively restrictive rules of engagement (ROE) McChrystal has imposed upon U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan. A Special Forces soldier with years of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan opined:

Bottom line? I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers’ lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing.

With a combined wisdom and intellectual honesty almost absent in journalism today, Diana West has been chronicling, tirelessly, the dangerous absurdities of our “See-No-Islam” COIN strategy, pitted against the menace of global Islamic jihadism. Following McChrystal’s resignation, West, in her singular clarity, further identified the Gordian knot intertwining COIN doctrine and our troops’ hideously self-destructive ROEs — which she aptly termed “a post-modern form of human sacrifice” — in Afghanistan.

It is this COIN theory that is directly responsible for the unconscionably restrictive ROEs that have been attracting media attention, a postmodern form of human sacrifice staged to appease the endlessly demanding requirements of political correctness regarding Islam. There is no separating the two. If we have COIN, we have these same heinous ROEs.

West also reminded those engaging in wishful speculation that Gen. Petraeus, now re-assigned to McChrystal’s former command in Afghanistan, would somehow alter the current ROEs:

And there is no sign of the COIN nightmare ending anytime soon. Alas, the new commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, is the man who literally wrote the  COIN book.

Subsequently, Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman concurred with West’s assessment, noting:

Gen. Petraeus has been in the loop during the formulation of these [ROEs], has been  sitting in on weekly satellite conferences, has been part of most of the major monthly and  quarterly reviews. So this is not somebody coming to this with a new set of attitudes.

Moreover, while he commanded U.S. troops in Iraq, Petraeus (re-)stated during a 2007 interview with National Public Radio the standard mantra of COIN enthusiasts: that this mode of warfare featured “protecting the Iraqi population,” ostensibly to avoid actions which “create more enemies than you take off the streets.”

Past, both distant and recent, as prologue, Afghanistan’s present manifestations of Islamic irredentism — jihadism and dehumanizing, often lethal persecution of non-Muslims, especially “apostates” from Islam and Muslim women — reflect a readily discernible continuum also ignored by the avatars of COIN. Indiana University Professor Nick Cullather (noted here by Diana West), for example, described in a 2002 essay how during more than three decades, between 1946 and 1979, the U.S. engaged in precisely the kind of sustained, non-military “hearts and minds-winning” utopian efforts advocated by today’s COIN doctrinaires, to no avail. This doomed “Helmand Valley Project” — Helmand being a present day Taliban stronghold — even featured a massive dam designed by the builder of the Hoover Dam (in addition to Cape Canaveral, and the Golden Gate Bridge), Morris Knudsen. As Cullather observed, instructively, the Helmand Valley Project:

 …was lavishly funded by U.S. foreign aid, multilateral loans, and the Afghan government, and it was the opposite of piecemeal. It was an “integrated” development scheme, with education, industry, agriculture, medicine, and marketing under a single controlling authority. Nation-building did not fail in Afghanistan for want of money, time, or imagination. In the Helmand Valley, the engines and dreams of modernization had run their full course, spooling out across the desert until they hit limits of physics, culture,  and history. … Proponents of a fresh nation-building venture in Afghanistan, unaware of the results of the last one, have resurrected its imaginings.

Some 25 years after the Helmand Valley Project terminated in 1979, between October 2005 and October 2006, Holly Barnes Higgins worked as a public information specialist for a U.S.-funded aid project, also in Helmand, seeking to inspire local citizens to commit themselves to economic progress, including the “repudiation” of poppy cultivation. Higgins left embittered by the project’s failure, which she attributed in large measure to the region’s Islamic irredentism:

Aside from a lack of security arising from the informal local poppy alliance, the barriers to shifting the local economy toward licit crops also included the absence of the rule of  law, widespread illiteracy, corruption and fiercely conservative interpretations of Islam that seemed to oppose all change, especially change introduced by foreigners.

The 16-year experiences of Dr. Theodore Leighton-Pennell (1867-1912), originally published in 1909, provide sobering, if disquieting evidence that Islamic religious fanaticism has been a continuous phenomenon among a defining element of the Afghan Muslim population — its frontier tribal peoples spanning the present day border with northwestern Pakistan — since at least the latter half of the 19th century. Pennell was a noble physician and Christian missionary who founded the Bannu hospital, and died (of septicemia, likely contracted from a patient) serving the region’s indigenous Afghan Muslim population. Although devoted to his patients, and sympathetic to their culture, Pennell objectively documented the anti-infidel jihadism and brutal misogyny he witnessed firsthand more than a century ago. Pennell’s references to the profound societal influence of Afghan “mullahs,” and the sway they held over their “talibs,” or students (and in contemporary parlance, “Taliban”), remain depressingly relevant in our era.

There is no section of the people of Afghanistan which has a greater influence on the life of the people than the Mullahs, yet it has been truly said that there is no priesthood in Islam. According to the tenets of Islam, there is no act of worship and no religious rite which may not, in the absence of a Mullah, be equally well performed by any pious layman; yet, on the other hand, circumstances have enabled the Mullahs of Afghanistan to wield a power over the populations which is sometimes, it appears, greater than the power of the throne itself. For one thing, knowledge has been almost limited to the priestly class, and in a village where the Mullahs are almost the only men who can lay claim to anything more than the most rudimentary learning it is only natural that they should have the people of the village entirely in their own control. Then, the Afghan is a Muhammadan to the backbone, and prides himself on his religious zeal, so that the Mullah becomes to him the embodiment of what is most national and sacred. The Mullahs are, too, the ultimate dispensers of justice, for there are only two legal appeals in Afghanistan — one to the theological law, as laid down by Muhammad and interpreted   by the Mullahs; the other to the autocracy of the throne — and even the absolute Amir would hesitate to give an order at variance with Muhammadan law, as laid down by the leading Mullahs. His religion enters into the minutest detail of an Afghan’s everyday life,  so that there is no affair, however trivial, in which it may not become necessary to make an appeal to the Mullah.

Frequently the object of the mullah is to egg the people on to acts of open violence:

The more fanatical of these Mullahs do not hesitate to incite their pupil [“talibs”] to acts of religious fanaticism, or ghaza,[jihad operation] as it is called. The ghazi [jihadist] is a man who has taken an oath to kill some non-Muhammadan, preferably a European, as representing the ruling race; but, failing that, a Hindu or a Sikh is a lawful object of his fanaticism. The Mullah instills into him the idea that if in so doing he loses his own life, he goes at once to and enjoys the special delights of the houris and the gardens which are set apart for religious martyrs. When such a disciple has been worked up to the degree of religious excitement, he is usually further fortified by copious draughts of bhang, or Indian hemp, which produces a kind of intoxication in which one sees everything red, and the bullet and the bayonet have no longer any terror for him. Not a year passes on the frontier but some young officer falls a victim to one of these ghazi fanatics. Probably the ghazi has never seen him his life, and can have no grudge against him as a man; but he is a “dog and a heretic,”and his death a sure road to Paradise.

The Afghan noblemen maintain the strictest parda, or seclusion, of their women, who pass their days monotonously behind the curtains and lattices of their palace prison-houses, with little to do except criticize their clothes and jewels and retail slander; and. …The poorer classes cannot afford to seclude their women, so they try to safeguard their virtue by the most barbarous punishments, not only for actual immorality, but for any fancied breach of decorum. A certain trans-frontier chief that I know, on coming to his house unexpectedly one day, saw his wife speaking to a neighbour over the wall of his compound. Drawing his sword in a fit of jealousy, he struck off her head and threw it over the wall, and said to the man: “There! you are so enamoured of her, you can have her.” The man concerned discreetly moved house to a neighbouring village….The recognized punishment in such a case of undue familiarity would have been to have cut off the nose of the woman and, if possible, of the man too. This chief, in his anger, exceeded his right, and if he had been a lesser man and the woman had had powerful relations, he might have been brought to regret it. But as a rule a woman has no redress; she is the man’s property, and a man can do what he likes with his own. This is the general feeling, and no one would take the trouble or run the risk of interfering in another man’s domestic arrangements. A man practically buys his wife, bargaining with her father, or, if he is dead, with her brother; and so she becomes his property, and the father has little power of interfering for her protection afterwards, seeing he has received her price.

…The two greatest social evils from which the Afghan women suffer are the purchase of wives and the facility of divorce. I might add a third — namely, plurality of wives; but though admittedly an evil where it exists, it is not universally prevalent, like the other two — in fact, only men who are well-to-do can afford to have more than one wife.


Consistent with Tocqueville’s learned approach to understanding Islam — based upon actually studying the creed’s foundational texts, and living history of jihad — Major Stephen Coughlin, a trained lawyer and the Pentagon’s only expert on Islamic law, wrote a magisterial thesis on the contemporary jihadist enemy’s threat doctrine. Coughlin concluded his analysis, published in July 2007, with this warning — and challenge — to the advocates of COIN:

Islam is not just a religion but a way of life. As a way of life for all Muslims at both the individual and community level, [they] are bound by Islamic law. Islamic law understands jihad exclusively as warfare to establish the religion. In the doctrinal  trenches of jihad, while Current Approach advocates and the national security community consistently message adoctrinal notions of Islam and jihad, the “extremists”  will always be able to counter with the requirements of jihad that are grounded in Sacred Islamic law emanating directly from Allah and His Prophet.

Finally, the juxtaposition of COIN-based Islamic negationism to Tocqueville’s writings — both on Islam, and his renowned two-volume Democracy in America — also reveals the post-modern immoral equivalence between Islamic and uniquely Western values promoted by the avatars of COIN.

(The discussion of Tocqueville relies upon Professor Michael Curtis’ insightful analysis, “Orientalism and Islam — European Thinkers on Oriental Despotism in the Middle East and India,” chapter 6, “Alexis de Tocqueville and Colonization,” Cambridge, 2009. Translated extracts of Tocqueville’s letters and observations from his “Oeuvres Completes,” Paris, 1952-1995, were kindly provided by Nidra Poller, or reproduced from Professor Jennifer Pitts’ “Alexis de Tocqueville — Writings on Empire and Slavery,” Baltimore, 2001.)

A friend asked that I write a post-script to this essay, listing strategic aims for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.S. has these two main, legitimate strategic interests in so-called “Af-Pak”:

  1. First and foremost, seizing and destroying or removing Pakistan’s nukes.
  2. Second, destroying Afghanistan’s — and the Taliban’s — odious “cash crop” – opium.

If the U.S. is unwilling to pursue these two basic strategic aims, we should withdraw, lest our brave combat soldiers — subjected as they are to our heinous, COIN-based ROEs — become victim to the hopeless malaise characterized so aptly by Rudyard Kipling in his “The Young British Soldier.

Kipling wrote, “When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains.”

Andrew Bostom (http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/) is the author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (2005/2008) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (2008).



From: Bernice S. Lipkin, Ph.D. [mailto:editor@think-israel.org]

Subject: Yeshiva Demolition

TO: PM Netanyahu, MK Yaalon, MK Begin, Defense Minister Barak,

Has it occurred to you that if you demolish the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar, the publicity you will receive in America will be all bad? All negative. And it will make it harder to ask religious people — Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists – to support Israel.

You have a POTENTIALLY large support group. But frankly, you confuse everyone.

You say you need to blockade Gaza and then you send in supplies. You give them water and electricity. Blockades are supposed to weaken the enemy, not support them.

In the flotilla, your well-trained commandos got the situation in hand
before the terrorists had a chance to lynch them as in Ramallah. And
what do you do? You release the terrorists, as if they weren’t
criminals. (In contrast to the way you treated Jewish teen-agers who
were demonstrating PEACEFULLY against government demolitions.)

You say Israel is a Jewish country. And then you say you are willing
to give up Biblical Israel to a bunch of ersatz “people”. Let me tell
you, Americans know that no one willingly gives up land that is his.
If someone so much as says he’s willing to consider giving up land, we know he doesn’t really believe it is his. Especially when the “Palestinians” say they won’t give up any land — not even the land that is now called Israel.

You say the Temple Mount is yours. But you let the Arabs destroy Jewish artifacts. And you keep Jews from praying there. Can you imagine the USA sharing “Constitution Hall” in Philadelphia with a tribe of Indians? Or splitting the White House into two semi-detached Houses so Mexico could govern land they say is theirs? (And they have a better claim than the Arabs to any of mandated Palestine..)

You think you are clever creating a “historical landmark” list. You are not. You will win friends when you can say with true belief and
passion that Samaria and Judea and the Golan and Gaza belong to you because they are yours. By history. By devotion. By Biblical promise. By international law. By conquest.

You say Hamas’s mission is to destroy Israel, but you allow funds and material to reach them because you fear world opinion. The so-called “world opinion” will scream no matter what you do, If they scream anyways no matter how much you try to protect enemy civilians — at the cost of your own sons and daughters — you might as well do what you need to do. They can’t scream any louder. And Obama and the State Dept. will be lame ducks by November, anyways.

Why aren’t you spending your time and effort protecting Israel? If you must worry about the local Arabs having a state, suggest it be in some ISOLATED place that is part of Arab Land — after all, they do own 99.9% of the Middle East. (I wouldn’t make it Jordan because that’s too close to Israel.) That would clean out the refugee camps and the locals in Samaria, Judea and Gaza and the Israeli Arabs that are pro-Palestinian. It could be 10 times the size of Israel (with Samaria, Judea and Gaza annexed) and still not make a dent in the Arab land holdings. Now that’s a 2-state solution that would have a chance of peace. In their State, the “Palestinians” could learn to develop the infra-structure of a state. Or they could kill themselves. Either would be better than giving them land from which they can kill you. Right now, people who hear you say you are willing to have the Arabs take over some of Samaria and Judea — which means you are willing to let the Arabs control your water supply — figure you must be as irresponsible as the Arabs.

There is only one Jewish state and by being timid and figuring on how
little you can live on, you are helping destroy it. You are losing
support from your friends. You are perceived as a bully to the weak and weak to the bullies of this world.

I don’t know if HaShem will forgive you, but Jewish history will not.


Bernice Lipkin
Editor, Think-Israel


US PR firm paid to demonize Israel


Think about this: there is at least one American business that is paid to demonize Israel.

The employees, well-paid professionals, go to work every day and think up ways to make Israel look like a moral monster, a rogue state dangerous to world peace for which the only remedy — as in the case of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or apartheid South Africa — is more than just regime change, rather, a fundamental change in the nature of the polity which can only be effected by force.

They are creative people and they know their jobs. Their trade is building or wrecking the public images of politicians, products, organizations, companies and even nations.

Today their goal is to prevent the Jewish state from defending itself by creating a mass of public opinion that sees its self-defense as war crimes. To prevent the Jewish state from defending itself, so that its enemies can finally succeed in doing what they have been trying to do since Israel was born, destroy it.

They are Fenton Communications, and they are working on their current project as diligently as they did for MoveOn.org, The Body Shop, Greenpeace, Ben and Jerry’s and numerous other clients:

    Fenton Communications, which has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco, signed two contracts last year with Qatar to develop “a communications action plan for an 18-month campaign” aimed at delegitimizing Israel and generating international support for the Hamas-run Gaza strip, documents filed with the Department of Justice show.

    The campaign, known as the “Al Fakhoora Project,” has a very visible Web presence that boasts of rallying 10,000 activists “against the blockade on Gaza.”

    Fenton signed the contracts, worth more than $390,000, with the Office of Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned, the wife of the Qatari ruler, and a separate foundation she chairs. The contracts are ongoing, according to Fenton’s Foreign Agent registration forms…

    The cash from Qatar bought a sophisticated U.S. media campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion to generate support for the Hamas-led government and the people of the Gaza strip.

    It also included a full-scale fundraising effort aimed at generating a war chest of up to $100 million in addition to the money the Qatari sheikha provided. — Ken Timmerman

You can see Fenton’s registration as a foreign agent here (h/t: The Israel Project). I’ve extracted the part which describes more work to be performed by Fenton this year:


“Samson Option”: choice in absence of choice?

 By Alexander Maistrovoy  Wednesday, June 23, 2010

“When people speak about human rights, everyone has in mind his own ones”, a German scientist and publicist Wilhelm Schwebel wrote. His words perfectly reflect the issue of “breaking” the Gaza blockade. These actions are as related to human rights as Josef Stalin’s “fight for peace”.

Till now not a single person has died of hunger in Gaza . They die in the other parts of the world, like Kirghizia , but nobody cares about it. The rights of Palestinians are above the rights of Uzbek people. As well as the Sudanese Christians, Iraqi Kurds, Boers in Southern Africa, “Ahmadyya” in Pakistan and Baha’is in Iran. Palestinians are the high caste of mankind because fortunately they are up against Israel , and the international community has its own rights and interests in this conflict.

What are they? Interests of all the players are very clear except for the West.

The goal of Iran is to strengthen its base on the Mediterranean Sea coast to escalate the confrontation with Israel and moderate Sunni Arab regimes, and at the same time to distract the world attention from its nuclear program.

The goal of Turkish Justice and Development Party led by Erdogan is to get points before the elections, make Turkey the leader of the Sunni world and to revive the national ambitions lost with the fall of the Ottoman Empire .

Russia is supporting Iran and Turkey in an attempt to restore the previous Soviet influence, push the US out of the region, and recover the lost imperial greatness.
The aims of these powers are completely contrary to the aims of the other two leading players in the region: Israel and the moderate Arab regimes.

The goal of Israel is to provide its safety by weakening HAMAS and depriving it of its life support: weaponry, rockets and building materials to fortify smuggling and transportation tunnels and defensive bunkers.

Arabs fear the Iranian Shiites. Nor do they want Turkey

The goal of the moderate Arab regimes coincides with that of Israel . Arabs fear the Iranian Shiites. Nor do they want Turkey , which they dislike and fear too, to raise its role in the Middle East . Least of all they are interested in strengthening the Palestinian enclave where the Iranians and Turks will rule. First of all it concerns the Mubarak regime that fears the Muslim Brotherhood’s (of which Palestinian HAMAS is an offshoot) popularity.

Theoretically both Israel and the Arab regimes are allies of the West. So it would be right to assume that the West will protect them from regional predators. Alas! Common sense and political expediency do not work. Why? There are two reasons: irreparable losses of spiritual and cultural values by once the greatest world civilization and banal political cowardice.

The radical left and liberal part of the Western elite has voluntary deprived itself of its own heritage, values and ideals. It has refused itself the right to exist, reconciled to the secondary role and even recognized its own uselessness.

“Alliance of Civilizations” of Zapatero and Obama is nothing else but accepting voluntary the status of dhimmitude

The supposed “Alliance of Civilizations ” of Zapatero and Obama is nothing else but accepting voluntary the status of dhimmitude, invitation of an alien strong, dominant, and aggressive civilization to take the place of their own bankrupt and degrading one. Obama’s bows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia , a mosque in the place of WTC, kūfīyä on Zapatero’s neck, the Libyan terrorist who had blown up the plane over Lockerbie released “for health reasons” – all are the displays of this outlook. As Israel is the main irritant to Muslims, it loses its right to exist.

Zapatero recognizes the idea almost openly, Obama does it less obviously, but the essence does not change. His recent demands of Israel to open its nuclear program for IAEA oversight and to remove Gaza ’s blockade are more eloquent than any other words.

The other part of the Western political elite, European right and social-democrats, don’t accept this attitude. However, they don’t have any outlook at all. Their only goal is to keep their power up to the following elections and not to “rock the boat”.

The ideology of surviving at all costs leads to the policy of appeasement. Sarkozy (“Disproportionate application of force” by Israel ) and Kouchner (“Recognize Palestinian state before the agreement between Israel and the PA is signed”); Brown (“Labourites have a lot in common with Muslims”) and Miliband (“More respect” to Muslims), Baroness Ashton (The blockade is “unacceptable and politically counterproductive”) and Berlusconi kissing the hands of Muammar Kaddafi are certainly not anti-Semitic.

Some of them are even Jews. They have nothing against Israel , as it is. They have little concern for the simple fact that the Muslim “sea” floods their own house washing away its foundations. So what use to speak about Israel , Mubarak and the Hashemite dynasty? Why to speak at all, if it is so comfortable to be silent? Especially, if there are big business, EU officials, “Greens” and anti-globalists, “Human Rights Watch” and their own cultural elite to resist? So they meekly follow the “Alliance of Civilizations”.

The more timorous is the policy of the West, the more aggressive Ahmadinejad and Erdogan become. The USA and Western Europe encourage these hysterical politicians, and their wild behavior can lead to uncontrollable consequences.

Fall of moderate Arab regimes in Egypt , Jordan and the Persian Gulf states, Israel will be backed into a corner

If the situation does not change (that is extremely improbable), we will witness a two-act drama. The first act will be the fall of moderate Arab regimes in Egypt , Jordan and the Persian Gulf states. If it happens, the second act will follow. Israel will be backed into a corner, surrounded by uncontrollable mad regimes. It will face the total Islamic hysteria. It will see how the circle of its enemies such as Turkey , Syria , Iran and their puppets in Lebanon and Gaza unite with “revolutionary” Muslim brothers in Egypt and Jordan .

It will see the silent indifference of the West at best and shouts of triumph and jeering at worst. The next Holocaust will cease to be an abstraction and become a reality.
Israel will be left with only two options: to die without a fight or to be lost, having destroyed the enemies. The option of falling victim to genocide or the “Option of Samson”.  Zapatero and Obama believe that Israel will choose the first one. Considering the tragic and painful history of Jews, from Maccabeus and Jerusalem’s zealots to the Warsaw ghetto and the Six-Day War, I would not hurry up with conclusions. And in this case there will be no outside observers…


The anniversary (fifteenth) of the worst outrage on humanity since the Holocaust of the Jews takes place inside about a month (August 4). This is not the fake “Srebrenica Massacre” but the ethnic cleansing of almost 300,000 Serbs from the Krajina in Yugoslavia.

Note here we did not say the Krajina area of Croatia. This is the first lesson to learn – the Krajina was an independent entity since 1400, which is before the Mayflower set sail to create modern America. The Krajina was thus a very old nation. Jews should be particularly aware, what happened at the hands of the Empire allied with Jihad was the total destruction of a nation.

This issue of the destruction of Krajina (it was more than ethnic cleansing) is inseparable from an understanding of the great hoax that was foisted onto humanity through the claim that the Serbs in the “Srebrenica Massacre” killed 8000 Muslims.

The Krajina was all too real. The Srebrenica “Massacre” a total hoax.

But these are not issues by themselves.

There is no such thing as Krajina, or Srebrenica, separated from the overall political situation in the world.

That is the second main lesson to learn about the Krajina and how we should approach it in the context of the coming fifteenth anniversary

It was clear then, it was even more obvious now, that the main mover in what happened in the destruction of Yugoslavia was the US, EU and NATO Empire, with United Nations in close support.

The Islamic Jihad of Izetbegovic, the Islamic thugs around Thaci in Kosovo, were entirely subservient to the Empire.

At the same time the Islam Jihad is a real phenomenon and is also as well (as being the tool of) quite independent from an Imperialist system in crisis.

This is dialectical, contains contradiction and can never be understood by formalist thinkers.

The Empire is the partner of Jihad. At times it is also in conflict. Both the Empire and Jihad are ways of disciplining the mass movement of ordinary people. These two phenomena are interrelated and interconnected-

When we on 4international talk about the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina, of the giant hoax of Srebrenica, we see it as one with the plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jewish people, which has always been the aim of world antisemitism, whether of the Islamic or Vatican “Judeo Christian” variety

The “Left” of the Stalinists and fake Trotskyists like the WRP or WSWS supported Khomeini to power and helped create a theocracy, which now threatens directly Jews, and to create a new holocaust, this time by the direct use of nuclear bomb, or the indirect use by means of threat of same.

This same fake Left is still supporting this Jihad against Israel.

Only now this Jihad is clearly being assisted and often simply led by the US and EU, that is by the Empire.

This is what this lying fake left is hiding.

All that is raised in the issues surrounding the destruction of Yugoslavia, the demonization of the Serbs and the setting up of a totally illegal international court system

To complicate this situation, those who are directly threatened by this Empire cum Islamic Jihad, the Jews, have a section of their leadership which openly and shamefully joined in with the Empire against the Serbs.

That is, of course, a direct threat against their own people.

So what is posed in all of this is the creation of a new leadership, the Trotskyist Party, in total opposition among Jews and others to those who support the Empire in the world today.

The insular forces within Judaism drives certain forces, whome we will talk about, to see only themselves. A little like the narrow parochialness of “we ourselves” Sinn Fein. That is fatal.

Only the Trotskyist Party can see the whole, and this is why the best way to defend Israel, or the Serbs, is to build 4international. It is the only way.

Over the next month of July along with much else 4international will be printing many articles which will enlighten on the issue of the Empire, the Jihad, and Yugoslavia.

Be sure to tune in.


The following is the recent article by Phyllis Chesler

A secret admirer, perhaps a critic, has sent me a gift subscription to Time magazine. I leaf through its pages, stop at the two page layout of “The World” which displays Israel as one of ten world hot spots this week. Israel’s “easing of the Gaza blockade” merits 176 words and comprises a column which is 5 ½ inches by 2 ½ inches. By contrast, China’s “easing” of its financial currency restrictions (which may have major world repercussions) merits only 89 words; the refugee crisis in Kyrgyzstan which has displaced 400,000 ethnic Uzbeks merits only 82 words and a photo. Obama’s Patients’ Bill of Rights is only 65 words;   America’s additional resolutions sanctioning Iran merit only 58 words.

Am I crazy, counting words? Not really.  Propaganda works, word by word when it is repeated day after day, year after year. The aim of such propaganda is to render Israel a pariah among nations–so that proposals for its elimination will seem reasonable and will achieve as welcome a reception  as have the narratives about Israel murdering little Muhammad Al-Dura, committing a massacre in Jenin,  harvesting Palestinian organs, and attacking non-violent humanitarians on a boat.  We also understand how propaganda fulfills its mission by counting, literally, how many words are being used to focus attention on one subject, one special country. Obsessive attention versus benign neglect is also a propaganda tool.

But, some might say that Time’s editors chose Israel for praise, not blame: they viewed Israel’s “easing” of the “controversial” Gaza blockade as a positive accomplishment. On the other hand, Time ties this “easing” to “the Israeli raid on an aid flotilla which killed nine and drew international condemnation.”

In other words: Lean on the Jew. It works. The fact that the “aid flotilla” bore hired assassins, shahids; that the so-called humanitarians knew they were aiding Hamas, an organization deemed a “terrorist” group by the United States; and that Israeli soldiers killed them in self-defense, is not acknowledged here as a contending counter-narrative.

Thus, all the other areas and issues chosen by Time: Severe Brazilian floods which left thousands homeless, the rather serious Uzbek refugee crisis, the sentencing of Somali pirates in Holland, the violence which continues, unabated, in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe over the “blood diamonds,” Obama’s Patients’ Bill of Rights, the “loosening” of China’s currency restrictions, the arrest of a major drug lord, etc. deserve fewer words.

Finally, guess which country is shown first, in the #1 position, onTime’s map of the world? Tiny Israel of course.

So much for what Israel is up against in terms of the allegedly neutral Western media.

Israel is also up against Israeli Jewish critics and Jewish rabbis. There are so many examples that it is hard to pick and choose any one. Well, here’s one. J Street just published a full-page ad in the July 2nd edition of The Forward. It is signed by too many American rabbis to even count. While acknowledging Gilad Shalit’s captivity and Hamas’ rockets, it nevertheless remains committed to a “democratic Jewish state—a nation that upholds the highest human and Jewish values.” It “hopes” that Israel will end the “counter-productive” Gaza blockade and remains proudly hopeful about “the possibility of two states, Jewish and Palestinian, living as neighbors, in peace and security.”

The J Street rabbis absolutely refuse to understand that dealing with Hamas (or with Arafat’s heirs) is a little like dealing with Hitler or with Al-Qaeda, that evil does not negotiate, nor does fascism, that Israel has tried their approach over and over again only to have “peace” and a “two-state solution” rejected by the Palestinians. What is it that they don’t understand? Or is it that they are far too frightened to face an evil which is not fathomable, not receptive to appeasement, not even to surrender?

Since many of the rabbi-signatories are women and/or feminists, I wonder if they would give a battered woman or a rape victim the same advice: Sit down with your batterer, reason, compromise with him, forgive him, act non-violently, show the world that you are more ethical than he is.

Finally, over the weekend, an acquaintance sent me an article and implored me to read it with an open mind and open heart. She is an educated and religious woman who wrestles with the narrowness of Judaism. Like many writers and intellectuals, I usually first go to the footnotes and bibliography. I need to know whose shoulders a particular work is standing upon. Idly, I glanced at the recommended reading list at the end of the article. It consisted of Jimmy Carter, Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart, Baruch Kimmerling, the early Benny Morris. This told me all I needed to know without reading the article which, indeed, turned out to be a trite one-sided critique of Israel but one launched in a soft and “healing” voice.

Hark! A new kind of propaganda.

I wish I were part of a Ministry to Combat Propaganda in the age of post-Orwellian Newspeak. Well, maybe I already am.

Here is another piece that Chesler wrote, in 2008, carried on the Julia Gorin Blog, who I will say something about later. The piece is totally self explanatory

On my way to Penn Station on Friday afternoon, (on West 29th St. to be precise), there seemed to be some kind of demonstration going on. When we got closer we saw that it was a large Islamic prayer service which had spilled out onto the sidewalk and into the gutter. It was mainly a mass of prostrated men but women in hijab walked nearby. The driver, a silver-haired man of Greek and Bulgarian background, launched into a non-stop monologue.

“I wouldn’t mind it if they came here to become Americans like I did. But no, they hate America. They want to stay the way they are but they want to take over America. You ought to see it in Astoria, Queens! Far bigger than this. You know why they’re on the sidewalk and in the street? Because they are really protesting not having larger and larger mosques.”

Well, their prayer service, (and it was that), did somehow seem like a protest. There was an aggressive rather than a humbled feeling in the air, more anger than love, a separatism but one right in-your-face.

Upon my return, several brave members of the LiberalHawks listserv group, including Pamela Hall, Tom Dolan, (of Gathering Eagles), Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs, and others from the United American Committee were discussing the Muslim Day Parade. I watched a very disturbing Video and read personal accounts of what happened at yesterday’s parade. Unlike the Hispanic Day Parade, which also took place yesterday, the Muslim Day parade was aggressive, angry, confrontational, and did not seem very happy or joyful. No one was celebrating Islam’s many cultures and ethnicities. One sign read “Home of the Free Shari’a Movement.”

A number of super-angry bearded men tried to charge a small group of women who were holding signs which read “We Will Not Submit.” The men called one woman: “A fu–ing bitch,” “You whore,” “Your Talmud says you can rape a three year old,” “You baby murderer,” “The Jews kill little children,” “Rothschild was a Zionist,” (!). The background was a continuous roar of “Allahu-Akbar.”

One woman, (who prefers to remain anonymous), a member of the LiberalHawks listserv group, was threatened by a Muslim man. He threatened to “rape her fifty times.” He, and several other men, walked right through the barrier that had been erected to separate the two groups. Muslim parade marchers also photographed the protesters — a method of intimidation, a threat that they are being watched and might be stalked or worse. The police ended up having to protect the small band of protesters. In my time, it was the police who photographed the demonstrators, the demonstrators and counter-demonstrators did not photograph each other (unless they were FBI or CIA agents disguised as demonstrators or protesters).

Perhaps perfectly peaceful Muslims are paranoid about not being allowed to pray in the public square and are therefore aggressive about it. Perhaps their leaders want to claim public, secular space as Islamist religious space — just as they’ve enjoyed it in the Old Country. Perhaps Muslims who really want to pray have only seen Muslims marching in anger or even rioting in public and believe that this is what Muslims “do.”

This is an ill wind and it’s blowin’ right here in Manhattan and Brooklyn and Queens. The March for McCain on Manhattan’s upper west side elicited a solid, ugly wall of hoots, jeers, boos and rage. (Kudos to Pamela Hall who took the footage). When I asked some liberal friends of mine to view it, they were non-plussed. Indeed, they said that the hoots and jeers were proof of a flourishing First Amendment. “The marchers can march and we can express our views of their views.”

When I and others had to be protected by police officers when we spoke on campus about Islamic gender and religious apartheid and about Islamic imperialism and pro-slavery views, many of the students looked and acted a lot like the upper westsiders — but that too was defended as the First Amendment in action. I have been a radical feminist for most of my life and have always voted Democratic. I voted for Bush once and reaped the whirlwind. However, I have not seen conservative students boo, jeer, and move menacingly against speakers who opposed the military, the War, etc. Have you? They just seem to wear their bow-ties and behave in civilized ways. Why? (Needless to say, I do not agree with many items on the conservative and Republican agenda but I do appreciate their civility in these times).

The Muslim Day parade in Manhattan seems to be another example of the First Amendment and freedom of religion being used to censor other views in an ugly and threatening way.

I am afraid for our country. There seems to be an escalation, an acceleration of Islamist aggression in many of our cities, and not just via prayer-protest but also via lawsuit. Even now, the United Nations is preparing a truly racist document against the Jews, (Durban II), and yet it’s being promoted as an “anti-racist’ document. Why is the mainstream media so silent about all this? Why are the intelligentsia silent, why do they once again make common cause with totalitarians and fascists? What will it take to connect the dots?

Julia Gorin had introduced this as “an account of the day by fair feminist Phyllis Chesler — an increasingly conservative-friendly Democrat who is increasingly freaked out by jihad and her liberal friends’ non-response to it”

At the end of that piece by Chesler above Gorin went on to write this:

Chesler deserves credit for the honest intellectual road she has traveled, including recognizing the lack of civility that her fellow Democrats show conservatives. She also deserves credit for trying to find her way through the Balkan morass after initially penning — like everyone else — a piece repeating the ubiquitous Bosnian propaganda upon Radovan Karadzic’s arrest (I couldn’t stomach the read, but here is the link).

If you followed the link above supplied by Gorin you will have found out that Chesler engaged in Serb hating, comparing Serbs to Nazis, attacks on Serb leaders, glorification of the Muslim Jihad against the Serb Christians.

Where Gorin refers to Chesler “trying” we have this from Chesler

Who can understand Balkan history–that cursed region whose fiery nationalisms led to World War One? Not I. East Europeans remember how especially brutal Muslim Nazi- and Arab-empowered soldiers were during World War Two. Yes, there once were some pockets of European-style assimilation and sophistication among Caucasus-based Muslims, Jews, and Christians in the region. Has anyone read the incomparably charming and popular novel, Ali and Nino: A Love Story written by the very Jewish Lev Nuissimbaum whose pen name was Khurbain Said? The romance captured everyone’s longing for operatic harmony between Christians and Muslims. (For the Jews, it was always more complicated). Tom Reiss has written a must-read biography of Nuissembaum titled The Orientalist: Solving The Mystery of A Strange and Dangerous Life.

But fiction and exceptions aside, ethnic and religious feuds have simmered and boiled over between the Christians of different nationalities in the Caucasus and between Christians and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.

I have now received and posted the most challenging comments in response to my piece about the capture of Radovan Karadzic.

What I do know about the recent warfare in the former Yugoslavia is that many girls and women were brutally and repeatedly gang-raped. I know this because I spoke with their lawyers and with feminist counselors and I read everything about their plight that I could find. Had there been funding enough to protect the raped women witnesses, I might have testified to the Court in The Hague about Rape Trauma Syndrome.

Other than this, and like everyone else, I believed that, although atrocities were committed by all sides, that the Bosnian Serbs were the ones who mainly committed genocide, “ethnic cleansing” and the gang-rapes. Now, Mr. John Peter Maher writes here that the massacre in Srbrenica was a Big Lie propagated by masterful Muslim deceivers. Several other commentators, including Felix Quigley here compare this lie to the lie about a massacre in Jenin which never really took place. They claim that in fact, most of the allegedly dead Muslim boys and men made their way to Tuzla where they joined or were protected by Muslim jihadists.

I have begun to ask my sources whether any of this is true or whether none of this is true. So far, I have been told that “some” of this might be true; that “none” or “little” of it can be true; that this might be the beginning of a masterful disinformation campaign to support Karadzic’s testimony at trial; and that the disinformation campaign was begun long ago by Islamists who are covetously eying Europe.

Friends: This is not my area. Do I have any Balkan experts out there? If so, please weigh in.

So under “trying” Gorin has Chesler now stating that “this is not my area”. The problem is that it was late, because she had already as we have seen made it very much her area. Her attacks on Karadzic and the Serbs, her identification with the Muslim Jihad was total in both cases.

Under the link “find”, that is Chesler finding her way, Chesler asked around and came up with material published by John Bostom and Srdja Trifkovic and before she took herself “off fishing”, and  I have not heard from her since on the issue, she penned these lines:

Folks: I am getting many articles on the Balkan Mess. I am still no expert but what must be admitted is this: The West, including America, has been “had” in terms of signing on to only one acceptable narrative: The Christian Serbs are the evil aggressors and the Muslim separatists and imperialists are the innocent victims. (Where have we heard this before?)

The truth: That all sides committed war crimes but not genocide is apparently too complicated to bear. Anyway, I am reposting an entire article that has just appeared. Once again, dear reader, tell me what you know and what you think about this.

READERS PLEASE NOTE: I will post no comments that insult other commentators or that insult me. Good will must be assumed or I must assume an absence of civility on the insulter’s part. Also please note: This is not a legal tribunal. And calls for “evidence” must bear this in mind.

What are the lessons we must learn from the article? Please read the Comments posted at the Trifkovic article below.

Source http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=673

So after much reflection by Chesler she comes up with these conclusions:

1. One side is as bad as another

2. It is a mess, and as we know if it is a mess then it is very dificult to understand, maybe even impossible to understand, hence her remark about “going fishing”.

3. Chesler´s formula “That all sides committed war crimes but not genocide is apparently too complicated to bear” well that is really too difficult indeed for anybody to bear, because how would Chesler address the truth, that it was ONE side which was creating and carrying out the war crimes

4. And that one side, Phyllis Chesler, was your beloved “West”, that is US Imperialism, and their agents and “babies”, why that is Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Thaci, just as Hajj Amin el Husseini had been the baby of the British Imperialists in the Mandate, just as Bin Laden had been the baby of the US imperialists post 1945 (see John Loftus and see also Christopher Simpson explanation in “Blowback” of how the US foreign policy became that foreign policy of Hitlerian Nazis)

5. Then having done that Phyllis Chesler you might consider what the US ruling class is really doing to Israel at the moment. Having created a continuation of the Holocaust as far as the Serb people was concerned from 1990 to the present, especially the Holocaust Continuation in the Krajina in August 2005, they are now preparing with Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah, plus Syria and Turkey, with the US elite ruling class in the lead, the same continuation of the Holocaust as far as the Jewish people are concerned.


The biggest problem is the US Government. Not Islam, not Hamas etc, but the US Government. It matters not in the slightest whether republican or democrat

The biggest problem though of the Israeli people is the ideology of the Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora.

The first and biggest problem is not inflicted, it is self-inflicted!

This came across forcefully when I read the recent article by Barry Rubin.

The essence of Rubin in this article was that the US Government of Obama (and remember Bush or McCain would be no different) is that the US is going after Hamas as its real strategic ally        

Rubin is right there. Really you would need to be blind not to see that.

The US has always looked to the billion plus Arabs and Islamists as its ally, never the Jews, who add up to a mere few millions. The only thing keeping the US elite back from the open alliance with Islam was NOT THE JEWS IN AMERICA who add up to a tiny minority, BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A WHOLE WHO HAVE ALWAYS STOOD BEHIND THE JEWISH HOMELAND.

Hence the noted researcher Professor Francisco Gil White could go through all of the years since 1945 and determine that the policy and programme of ALL THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE US were anti Jew and anti Israel

In the article mentioned above Barry Rubin has all of this reversed!

The heading of the article states the obvious that “””OBAMA EMBRACES HAMAS”

It is the sub-heading that Rubin follows up with that is SO wrong:

White House Announcement on Gaza Shows the Missing Element: Strategic Rationality

Who does Rubin think that he is…God?

Is he able to read the mind of the most powerful Empire that the world has ever known.

Rubin displays a great deal of arrogance here in that he figures he knows better, knows so much that he can begin to lecture the Empire on “strategic rationality”

Rubin like so many of these wannabe Jewish pundits think that they know better than the Empire and that they can lecture the Empire on issues of Empire strategy.

The underlying message is “What is good for Empire is good for us Jews too”

Part of the Rubin “analysis”:

Everyone will probably view the just-released official document, “White House on Israel’s Announcement on Gaza,” as purely routine government rhetoric that means nothing. But that just shows how much people have become used to taking for granted the lack of any strategic sense in this U.S. government.

The June 20 White House statement opens thusly:

“The President has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and has made clear that it demands fundamental change.”

One would expect that a rational policy would use the words “unsustainable” and “demands fundamental change” to mean that the president demands the overthrow of Hamas. In fact, it signifies the exact opposite: he demands the stabilization of that regime.

The statement continues:

“On June 9, [Obama] announced that the United States was moving forward with $400 million in initiatives and commitments for the West Bank and Gaza. The President described these projects as a down payment on the U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank.”

Just think of the calm insanity of that paragraph. The United States is going to pump money into Gaza. That money is a “down payment on the U.S. commitment,” that is, it is not an act of generosity for which the United States deserves to get something in return. No, the phrasing makes it seem that the United States owes them the money.

Moreover, giving this money does not really advance the cause of building a Palestinian state but retards it by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel, and against a two-state solution.

Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the Palestinian Authority. The people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank will build a state, says the statement. Couldn’t the administration even have said that the state would be built in the context of the Oslo accords or under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority?

This is truly amazing. There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: nothing said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel’s existence or returning to recognition of the Palestinian Authority’s rule as the legitimate government. The statement is unconditional, absolutely unconditional. Only the “humanitarian” consideration counts, as if the U.S. government is a community organizer organizing a food stamp program.

In seeking an analogy to this abdication of strategy and politics, it would be like the United States making a commitment to help the people of North Vietnam during the Vietnam war or North Korea during the Korean war by pouring in money and goods unconditionally, saying this would help lead to a moderate unified state.

Doesn’t who governs the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing, terrorist, and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter a bit?

The announcement continued by welcoming Israel’s new policy as something that “should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons.”

In other words, the United States has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the U.S. approach.


Which leaves us on 4international mentally chewing over the fact that Barry Rubin has his head firmly lodged inside the rear of US Imperialism.

Rubin and others if they had given just one minute´s thought to what happened in the destruction of Yugoslavia would know


US Governments are not ever interested in rights, who was in the right, principles.

Their only strategy is to back reactionary regimes and the more reactionary the better. Why is this?

There is actually a perfectly logical reason and strategy Mr Rubin is always based upon reason.

In a period of deep political and social crisis the force which can keep down populations is always the force of deepest reaction.

In the last War it is easily demonstrated that the US and Britain had NO fundamental difference with Fascism. They made war on Hitler only because Hitler was expansionist. For a very long time they thought that Hitler was a damned good idea.

No Mr Rubin. Hamas is the BABY of the US, as is Iran, Hizbullah and you had better get used to that as well.

It is the ultimate in folly to suggest as does Rubin and others that the US would ever attack Iran.

Israel is alone and the US Government is the enemy of Israel. The axis that Israel faces is Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the US ruling class.

Step outside of that truth as the Israeli leaders and the Jewish Diaspora leaders all do, then they are laying the basis for a new Holocaust


When will American Jews, like the Israpundit and Frontpage websites, recognize that the number one enemy of the Jews is the US Government?

All those who like editor of Israpundit Ted Belman do not spell out to their readers that the US Government is and always has been the enemy of the Jews is doing to those very Jews a great disservice.

The American Jewish leaders, and various Jewish leaders scattered around the Diaspora, are potentially the most lethal traitors to the Jewish people that their 3000 year struggle has ever known.

According the the noted researcher, Professor Francisco Gil White, there is due another Holocaust of the Jews, another great killing of the Jews.

So these American and Canadian Jewish leaders, like Belman on Israpundit, had better make up their minds fast.

If they stay with their support on a world stage for the US Imperialists, including their suppression of the Serbs, then history will damn them as traitors to the Jewish cause.

The report which is just today published by YNet News is quite obviously the truth. The American Government is working closely with Hamas in order to destroy Israel.

4ionternational believes that the US Government also worked closely with the IHH, and with the supporters of IHH in the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, in order to launch the Flotillas of Hate, which they use in order to destabilize the Netanyahu Government

The “Grand” Scheme of Obama is to replace Netanyahu with Livni. It is urgent for Obama to get Livni in power. That is at the centre of the Obama strategy.

We on 4international are totally opposed to Israpundit and the type of “leadership” which Belman puts forward.

In the leadership of Israpundit now is a man calling himself Yamit82. It is very doubtful that anybody on Israpundit knows the real identity of this character.

More on this character again but the main thing as regards this article is that Yamit82 is an ultra sectarian religious maniac, who refuses to defend Netanyahu against the attacks of the US Government.

This Yamit82 is a confirmed anti Trotskyist as indeed is Belman. That is the main thing which unites them

In the face of these attacks by the US Government on the Israeli Government of Netanyahu we on 4international defend without any conditions Netanyahu.

We challenge Belman to say publicly does he defend Netan yahu without any conditions against the US Government?

If Belman does indeed do so then he is in conflict with a number of people, especially Yamit82, on his website.

If on the other hand (and I think this is the more likely) Belman keeps quiet then he is in fact a political opportunist. Essentially he associates on his website with people who are traitors to the Jewish cause.

The YNet report says:

The US denied on Saturday reports by an Arab newspaper saying officials were holding secret talks with Hamas.

Assistant White House Press Secretary Tommy Vietor said the story was “inaccurate”, and that it was unfortunate the paper’s editors neglected to request a comment by the US administration.

According to the report published by Al-Quds Al-Arabi Friday, official and unofficial US sources have asked the Hamas to refrain from making any statements regarding contacts with Washington, following reports that a senior American official is due to arrive in an Arab country in the coming days to relay a telegram from the administration.


A senior Hamas figure told the newspaper that the Americans fear discussing the talks publicly would “rouse the Jewish lobby and other pressure groups in the US and cause them to pressure the administration to suspend all talks with Hamas”.

Hamas has been blacklisted by the US State Department, which considers it a terror organization and has made it illegal for any US official to meet with its leaders. But the group has been attempting to gain worldwide legitimacy through international relations. The US denied on Saturday reports by an Arab newspaper saying officials were holding secret talks with Hamas.

Assistant White House Press Secretary Tommy Vietor said the story was “inaccurate”, and that it was unfortunate the paper’s editors neglected to request a comment by the US administration.

According to the report published by Al-Quds Al-Arabi Friday, official and unofficial US sources have asked the Hamas to refrain from making any statements regarding contacts with Washington, following reports that a senior American official is due to arrive in an Arab country in the coming days to relay a telegram from the administration.



This is following the same pattern as in the destruction of Yugoslavia. There the US adopted the known antisemite Tudjman which led to the massacre of the Krajina Serbs.

Then they adopted Izetbegovic who was actually a big wheel in the Holocaust of Serbs, Jews and Romany during the Holocaust in the Balkans.

After that it was the drug running thug Thaci of the KLA in Kosovo.

After the War the US brought into their pay tens of thousands of Nazis (Christopher Simpson Blowback)

At the same time they recruited the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood (according to John Loftus) out of whom emerged Bin Laden.

According to respected British journalist Eve Ann Prentice it was Izetbegovic in Bosnia, and under the control of the US Government, who provided the platform for Bin Laden to launch the horrific 9-11 attack on New York workers


The equally horrific Yamit82 is opposed to any discussion on Israpundit, or anywhere else in the Jewish movement, of the implications of the destruction of Yugoslavia by this alliance of Islam and US Government

The implications for Jews are immense from this kind of Jewish leader.

Ted Belman, editor of Israpundit, could start by telling the public just who is this character who calls himself “Yamit82”



Profreading: Einde O’Callaghan, December 2006.

The former prominent colonial bureaucrat of Great Britain, Sir Roger Casement, by conviction a revolutionary Irish nationalist, the go-between for Germany and the Irish uprising, on being sentenced to death declared, ‘I prefer to sit on the bench of the accused than in the seat of the accuser,’ before the reading of the sentence, which ran according to the old formula that Casement should be ‘hung by the neck until dead’, at which God was invited to have mercy on his soul.

Should the sentence be carried out? This question must have given Asquith and Lloyd George many troubled hours. To execute Casement would make it even more difficult for the opportunist, nationalist and purely parliamentary Irish party, led by Redmond, to ratify a new compromise with the government of the UK on the blood of the insurrectionaries. To pardon Casement, after having carried out so many executions, would mean an open ‘display of indulgence to a high-ranking traitor’. This is the demagogic tune of the British social-imperialists of the Hyndman type – downright blood-thirsty hooligans. But however the personal fate of Casement is resolved the sentence on him will bring to a conclusion the dramatic episode of the Irish uprising.

In so far as the affair concerned the purely military operations of the insurrectionaries, the government, as we know, turned out comparatively easily to be master of the situation. The general national movement, however it was expressed in the heads of the nationalist dreamers, did not materialize at all. The Irish countryside did not rise up. The Irish bourgeoisie, as also the upper, more influential layer of the Irish intelligentsia, remained on the sidelines. The urban workers fought and died, together with revolutionary enthusiasts from the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. The historical basis for the national revolution had disappeared even in backward Ireland. Inasmuch as the Irish movements in the last century had assumed a popular character, they had invariably fed on the social hostility of the deprived and exhausted pauper-farmer towards the omnipotent English landlord.

But if for the latter Ireland was only an object of agrarian plunder and exploitation, for British imperialism it was a necessary guarantee of their dominion over the seas. In a pamphlet written on the eve of the war, Casement, speculating about Germany, proves that the independence of Ireland means the ‘freedom of the seas’ and the death blow to the naval domination of Britain. This is true in so far as an ‘independent’ Ireland could exist only as an outpost of an imperialist state hostile to Britain and as its military naval base against British supremacy over the sea routes. It was Gladstone who first expounded with full clarity the military imperialist consideration of Great Britain over the interests of the Anglo-Irish landlords and laid the basis for the wide agrarian legislation by which the state transferred to the Irish farmers the landlords’ land, very generously compensating the latter, of course. Anyway, after the agrarian reforms of 1881-1903, the farmers turned into conservative small property owners, whose gaze the green banner of national independence is no longer able to tear away from their plots of land.

The redundant Irish intelligentsia flowed in their thousands into the towns of Great Britain as lawyers, journalists, commercial employees, etc. In this way, for the majority of them, the ‘national question’ got lost. On the other hand, the independent Irish commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, in so far as it has formed over the past decades, immediately adopted an antagonistic position towards the young Irish proletariat, giving up the national revolutionary struggle and entering the camp of imperialism. The young Irish working class, taking shape in an atmosphere saturated with the heroic recollections of national rebellions, and clashing with the egoistic, narrow-minded, imperial arrogance of British trade unionism, naturally swing between nationalism and syndicalism, ever ready to unite these two concepts in their revolutionary consciousness. It attracts the young intelligentsia and individual nationalist enthusiasts, who, in their turn, supply the movement with a preponderance of the green flag over the red. In this way, the ‘national revolution’, even in Ireland, in practice has become an uprising of workers, and the obviously isolated position of Casement in the movement only serves to emphasize this fact still deeper.

In a pathetic and shameful article, Plekhanov recently pointed to the ‘harmful’ character of the Irish uprising for the cause of freedom, rejoicing that the Irish nation ‘to their credit’ had realized this and not supported the revolutionary madmen. Only complete patriotic softening of all the joints could lead anyone to interpret the situation as if the Irish peasants had declined to participate in the revolution from the standpoint of the international situation, thus saving the ‘honour’ of Ireland. In actual fact they were led only by the obtuse egoism of the farmer and complete indifference to everything beyond the bounds of their plots of land. It was precisely because of this and only this that they supplied the London government with such a quick victory over the heroic defenders of the Dublin barricades. The undoubted personal courage, representing the hopes and methods of the past, is over. But the historical role of the Irish proletariat is only beginning. Already into this uprising – under an archaic banner – it has injected its class resentment against militarism and imperialism. That resentment from now on will not subside. On the contrary, it will find an echo throughout Great Britain. Scottish soldiers smashed the Dublin barricades. But in Scotland itself coal-miners are rallying round the red flag, raised by Maclean and his friends. Those very workers, who at the moment the Hendersons are trying to chain to the bloody chariot of imperialism, will revenge themselves against the hangman Lloyd George.

(Nashe Slovo, 4 July 1916)



The Irish rising has been crushed. Those whom it was thought necessary to shoot first have been shot. The rest wait for their personal fate to be decided after that of the rising itself. The triumph of British rule is so complete that Prime Minister Asquith considered it possible to declare from his parliamentary platform the government’s intention to show ‘reasonable clemency’ towards the imprisoned Irish revolutionaries. In so doing Asquith referred to the good fruits of the clemency shown by General Botha to those who took part in the South African rising. Asquith refrained from mentioning General Botha himself. Twelve years before the present war he stood at the head of the Boers who shed their blood in a struggle against British imperialism; but at the beginning of the war he put down a rising of his own fellow-countrymen. Thus Asquith remains wholly within the traditions of British imperialism when he crowns the work of ‘law and order’ specialists in Dublin and other places with the proclamation of the principles of ‘expedient’ humanity – humanity, that is, within the limits of what is … expedient. So far, then, everything is clear, and there can be no doubt in the minds of our readers about Asquith’s statement, which goes beyond what it is permissible to express in the French Republic in 1916.

But the matter does not end there. We have an uprising crushed – buildings razed, human corpses, men and women in chains. We have triumphant authority making a gesture of ‘philanthropy’. But in this picture which history has set in the frame of the world war, on this ‘stage within a stage’, one other figure is missing: the French social-patriot, the standard bearer of ‘liberating’ war and the principles of national ‘freedom’, commenting on the official ‘humanity’ of the Dublin government.

To fill this gap, and add the finishing touch to our picture of the official governmental, patriotic aspect of our epoch, M. Renaudel published an article on Clemency in the pages of his paper Humanité, which until now has not carried a single word about the Irish rising.

Now of course he, Renaudel, knows that there were facts in the past which clouded relations between Ireland and Britain. He allows that these facts could not but leave bitterness to this day in the most irreconcilable Irish hearts. But the Irish chose a most fatal hour for their action. He, Renaudel, had not doubted for a moment that the British government would do everything necessary to remain master of the situation, and he was not mistaken. But therefore, ‘Britain, who is fighting with her allies for the rights of nations, can and must show magnanimity.’ And that is why being simultaneously a friend of Britain and of Ireland, of Britain which crushed down and of Ireland which was crushed, he, Renaudel, could only welcome Asquith’s magnanimous gesture.

One might think this was quite enough. One might think it physically impossible for social-patriotic cynicism to go any further than masquerading like this as the advocate of clemency to a set of frenzied butchers. But no, Renaudel has also to introduce a national French factor in order to explain and rationalise his sage statesman-like pleading on behalf of the vanquished and justify it to official France. ‘Of course,’ he writes, ‘in a land which weeps over Corneille’s verses and the noble farewell to Cinna by Auguste – in such a land it causes no surprise if we counsel that clemency be shown.’

Thus the spiritual heirs and political descendants of Thiers and General Gallifet are reassured. For didn’t they, who wept on reading Racine, show clemency to the fighters of the Paris Commune? Here is the real crowning of the spiritual reconciliations between Gallifet’s descendants and the offspring of the movement in whose history the Commune is indelibly inscribed.

(May 1916)


The Irish Rebellion of 1916

By V. I. Lenin

The views of the opponents of self-determination lead to the conclusion that the vitality of small nations oppressed by imperialism has already been sapped, that they cannot play any role against imperialism, that support of their purely national aspirations will lead to nothing, etc. The imperialist war of 1914–16 has provided facts which refute such conclusions.

The war proved to be an epoch of crisis for the West-European nations, and for imperialism as a whole. Every crisis discards the conventionalities, tears away the outer wrappings, sweeps away the obsolete and reveals the underlying springs and forces. What has it revealed from the standpoint of the movement of oppressed nations? In the colonies there have been a number of attempts at rebellion, which the oppressor nations naturally did all they could to hide by means of a military censorship.

Nevertheless, it is known that in Singapore the British brutally suppressed a mutiny among their Indian troops; that there were attempts at rebellion in French Annam [Vietnam] and in the German Cameroons; that in Europe, on the one hand, there was a rebellion in Ireland, which the freedom-loving English, who did not dare to extend conscription to Ireland, suppressed by executions, and, on the other, the Austrian Government passed the death sentence on the deputies of the Czech Diet for treason, and shot whole Czech regiments for the same crime.

This list is, of course, far from complete. Nevertheless, it proves that, owing to the crisis of imperialism, the flames of national revolt have flared up both in the colonies and in Europe, and that national sympathies and antipathies have manifested themselves in spite of the draconian threats and measures of repression.

All this before the crisis of imperialism hit its peak; the power of the imperialist bourgeoisie was yet to be undermined (this may be brought about by a war of attrition but has not yet happened) and the proletarian movements in the imperialist countries were still very feeble. What will happen when the war has caused complete exhaustion, or when, in one state at least, the power of the bourgeoisie has been shaken under the blows of proletarian struggle, as that of tsarism in 1905?

A ‘putsch’ or national rebellion?

On May 9, 1916, there appeared, in Berner Tagwacht, the organ of the Zimmerwald group (1), including some of the Leftists, an article on the Irish rebellion entitled Their Song Is Over and signed with the initials K.R. It described the Irish rebellion as being nothing more nor less than a putsch, for, as the author argued, the Irish question was an agrarian one, the peasants had been pacified by reforms, and the nationalist movement remained only a purely urban, petty-bourgeois movement, which, notwithstanding the sensation it caused, had not much social backing….

The term putsch, in its scientific sense, may be employed only when the attempt at insurrection has revealed nothing but a circle of conspirators or stupid maniacs, and has aroused no sympathy among the masses.

The centuries-old Irish national movement, having passed through various stages and combinations of class interest, manifested itself, in particular, in a mass Irish National Congress in America (Vorwarts, March 20, 1916) which called for Irish independence; it also manifested itself in street fighting conducted by a section of the urban petty bourgeoisie and a section of the workers after a long period of mass agitation, demonstrations, suppression of newspapers, etc.

Whoever calls such a rebellion a putsch is either a hardened reactionary, or a doctrinaire hopelessly incapable of envisaging a social revolution as a living phenomenon.

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semiproletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.—to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution.

So one army lines up in one place and says, We are for socialism, and another, somewhere else and says, We are for imperialism, and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view would vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a putsch.

Whoever expects a pure social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip service to revolution without understanding what revolution is….

The socialist revolution in Europe cannot be anything other than an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all and sundry oppressed and discontented elements. Inevitably, sections of the petty bourgeoisie and of the backward workers will participate in it—without such participation, mass struggle is impossible, without it no revolution is possible—and just as inevitably will they bring into the movement their prejudices, their reactionary fantasies, their weaknesses and errors.

But objectively they will attack capital, and the class- conscious vanguard of the revolution, the advanced proletariat, expressing this objective truth of a variegated and discordant, motley and outwardly fragmented, mass struggle, will be able to unite and direct it, capture power, seize the banks, expropriate the trusts which all hate (though for different reasons!), and introduce other dictatorial measures which in their totality will amount to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the victory of socialism, which, however, will by no means immediately purge itself of petty bourgeois slag.

Social-Democracy, we read in the Polish theses, must utilize the struggle of the young colonial bourgeoisie against European imperialism in order to sharpen the revolutionary crisis in Europe.

Is it not clear that it is least of all permissible to contrast Europe to the colonies in this respect? The struggle of the oppressed nations in Europe, a struggle capable of going all the way to insurrection and street fighting, capable of breaking down the iron discipline of the army and martial law, will sharpen the revolutionary crisis in Europe to an infinitely greater degree than a much more developed rebellion in a remote colony.

A blow delivered against the power of the English imperialist bourgeoisie by a rebellion in Ireland is a hundred times more significant politically than a blow of equal force delivered in Asia or in Africa.

1. Zimmerwald, Switzerland, was the location of a September 1915 international conference of Socialists who opposed voting for war credits for their governments. The Zimmerwald group refers to supporters of this international current. Lenin led a left wing at that conference, and his supporters were known as the Zimmerwald Left.




The 1916 Easter Rebellion, led by trade union organizer and socialist James Connolly and nationalist poet and educationalist Patrick Pearse, is one of the most historic events in Ireland’s history.

It is also of international significance.

The Easter Rising coincided with the effort of Roger Casement to bring his assistance to the Irish Rebels. Casement was dropped off in the South of Ireland by German submarine (April 21, 1916, Kerry) but was soon arrested by the British, and was quickly tried for treason, and hanged by the British.

At roughly the same time the Irish Rebels, having fought bravely, were suppressed and in a series of shocking events, their leaders were executed in Dublin. James Connolly was very seriously wounded and in order to carry out the execution the British military strapped Connolly to a chair to face the bullets of the firing squad.

The whole episode of the Irish Rising and its bloody suppression by the British was a major event internationally and historically.


Plekhanov had been the Father of Russian socialism and when he came out in opposition to the Nationalist Rising this made leaders like Lenin and Trotsky very angry with Plekhanov.

This was a socialist leader attacking a national movement. Moreover, not just any national movement, but one which was clearly in the category of a national liberation movement

Trotsky referred to Plekhanov opposition to the 1916 Rising as a case of softening of the joints on the part of the older man

There were obviously very great theoretical and political issues involved in both the Plekhanov position and the Trotsky and Lenin answers to Plekhanov.

These serious answers to Plekhanov go back to Marx and Engels and the type of relations they had with the Irish rebel movement, the Fenians.

These 2 great leaders of the early working class were always on friendly terms with the Irish Rebels. Yet in my opinion they never actually came to terms in a satisfactory way with the Irish rebels and with the national issue in general.

Today it is very important to understand the position of the Irish rebels in 1916, the position of course of the British Imperialists in Ireland, then the unconditional support of Lenin and Trotsky for the Irish rebels and their critique of Plekhanov.


The critique of Plekhanov represented a major step forward in the thinking of international revolutionary socialist theory, or Marxism

This writer thinks that the 1916 event and the thoughts of Lenin and Trotsky, their separation from Plekhanov, represent a vital stage in the overall way that socialists would approach nationalism.

One of these nationalisms which emerged was Zionism. This then today is of huge topical interest and importance.

Look at it this way. Trotsky at the 6th Zionist Congress in Bayle in 1902 had been hugely critical of Zionism and Herzl. This represented not the isolated position of Trotsky but the whole movement on the left.

Leon Trotsky and Lenin were never dogmatists. They had theory yes, but that theory was never like a religion.

I believe that the 1916 Rising was one of many stages which led to a claim which I make about Leon Trotsky, a claim which is heavily disputed.



The claim is that by the 1930s Trotsky had become himself very much a Zionist, a believer and supporter of Zionism and—This was a Zionist of a type that the world over 3000 years of Zionism had never seen

4international, our little website which represents this view, is being scorned and attacked by all on the Left.

4international is totally on the side of Zionism. We are in fact Zionists.


We on 4international are Zionists of a new kind! Our type of Zionism the world has never before seen.

We are Zionists from the standpoint of revolutionary socialism. We are revolutionary socialists; we are Trotskyists, Leninist and Marxist. There is no contradiction


In fact read again around the issue of the 1916 Easter Rising. You will find that we are in the same camp as Trotsky and Lenin, while the haters of Zionism today are in the camp of Plekhanov.

To show this, take a few facts about Irish nationalism. In this regard the 1916 Rebellion is a good illustration.

The Irish were fighting for their Homeland against the British, who were off base, out of their Homeland, oppressing the Irish and were acting as “Imperialists”.

There was a long history to the Irish national struggle. You can take it back to the Neolithic farmers who created the quite advanced astronomical device which is the Newgrange Neolithic Monument outside of Droheda.

The Jews in Judea also go back many thousands of years and there is indeed a similarity with the Irish

But there the similarity ends because there is a contrast between the early “Irish” and the Jews.

The early “Irish” of Newgrange fame were not conscious of themselves as Irish. But the Jews of Judea were very much so, and no less than HG Wells pointed out that on their return from Babylon captivity the Jews were “the finished article”.

Which brings to the central point: If the Irish have a serious and authentic national struggle then the Jews as a national entity are even more authentic and serious than the Irish. A better way to put it…they both are.

So what happened? Why is the nationalism of the Jews today so reviled by those who call themselves “left”?

Why are the Irish nationalists in their eyes “good boys” but the Jewish nationalists in the form of Zionists “bad boys”?

The exact same could be written about the antisemites of the left which we see around us today. Not all are Stalinists. Some call themselves, tragically, Trotskyists


It needs to be kept fairly simple to answer these because it is painful to see the knots they tie themselves in

Zionism is Jewish nationalism

It is really not anything more or less than Jewish nationalism.


What then about Irish nationalism. Is Irish nationalism, the struggle conducted by the 1916 Revolutionaries in the Rising, was and is it something reactionary?


That was precisely the point that Trotsky disagreed with Plekhanov on. Perhaps its methods were inadequate but was it a reactionary Rising. No of course not. It was brave and progressive. The reactionaries were the British political leaders, the army generals and the British Tommy

The exact same applies to Zionism. It applies to all the schemes and all the campaigns of Herzl

These schemes may not lead in the end to success. But they were not only not reactionary. They were progressive. Even Herzl trying to deal with antisemites in order to release Jews was progressive because the content was progressive.

Those who attack Zionism in the same mindless way as Plekhanov attacked the 1916 Rising are the same as Plekhanov then.

On that basis Trotsky attacked Plekhanov.


Why did Plekhanov attack the 1916 Rebels and took the part of British Imperialism, an incredible thing for a Marxist to do?

Why did Trotsky and Lenin sympathize with the Irish Rebels and separate themselves from Plekhanov?


The position of Marx, Engels right through the Bolsheviks which included Lenin and Trotsky was totally contradictory and wrong towards Zionism

Zionism was the wish of the Jewish people to have a Homeland in Zion

This did have an open religious aspect. Perhaps it was a crude form of anti religiousness that made the Bolsheviks oppose the plans of Herzl.


I think that was involved lthough certainly not anything so crude on the part of Lenin and above all on the part of Trotsky. But I believe it was much more a wrong position towards national movements, towards nationalism, which although can be misused is a progressive factor


Did Marx support the Irish rebels of his day without reservation. I do not think so. There was always a theme that the English workers had to help the Irish and without that help (from the English workers) the Irish could and even worse should do nothing). That was a most reactionary tendency inside the workers movement.

Right to argue that the aid of the English workers was necessary. Bu that is a different matter. The first position to take was to support the Irish rebels without conditions. That was the difference of Lenin and Trotsky with Plekhanov.


Lenin and Trotsky simply did not see the Jewish people as a nation.

They saw them as Jews who had to be defended against anti-Semitism. But not as a nation.

Lenin approached nations in so far as supporting them would aid the socialist revolution. I believe this is wrong.

These nations existed long before the working class came into play.

In the case of the Jews they go back 3 to 4000 of years. That is a very long time in anybody’s book

Lenin and Trotsky, especially Lenin, were very cerebral kind of people. I believe that theoretically Trotsky was assessing Fascism as a new political phenomenon from say 1923 when Mussolini began to emerge, then following the German Fascism most closely, watching also Spain most closely. He had reached his conclusions about the Jews as nation in the course of this intense theoretical work. Man is also an emotional animal and this also was involved. Trotsky WAS a Jew. The emotional aspect, for my money, was clear to see in the interview with Edelson which is one o fthe most important qualitative point in the study of this whole issue

We cannot emphasise this strong enough or enough times.


Trotsky did not say to the Jews: leave Europe and set up a socialist commonwealth in Palestine

Trotsky did say to the Jews, leave Europe, get to Palestine and there set up a jewish state, where you must live alone and defend yourself against anti-Semitism

In other words a Jewish state without any ifs and buts.


That is like completing the circle. Lenin and Trotsky came close to precisely that in their attack on Plekhanov who would not support Irish nationalism in 1916. Lenin died prematurely. Trotsky went on to create the great truth in his synthesis of all of these Marxist experiences. In the late 1930s Trotsky had become a Zionist, but an entirely new type, a Zionist who believed in the world socialist revolution, the only way in which Jewish people could have a space where they could be themselves, in the way they and only they decided best for them.

Some points to remember

The Bund were anti Zionist in that they opposed the creation of a nation state of the Jews, in Zion. They stood for the mirage of organizing “independently” in each individual state…an incomprehensible position

Lenin and the Bolsheviks, including Trotsky, passed a law which made anti-Semitism punishable by death, they wanted Jews to take part in the Russian Revolution which was surely right, but they opposed the Jews as a nation in Zion

Trotsky was the foremost fighter against Nazism, and therefore anti-Semitism. But crucially he broke with the Marxist past and asserted that the Jews were a nation, and that their place was in Zion. Marx has hinted at that in his visit to Jerusalem of 1852. Trotsky could not have made this more explicit. He remained a socialist revolutionary. Trotsky had become a Zionist the likes of which had never before been seen. It was his greatest achievement.

Stalin, what can be said of him?

We know he was a butcher and the very devil incarnate! Accept that.

On another level, Stalin was a political opportunist, an operator, a ruthless operator which alone brought him success, but politically and theoretically bankrupt, a passing phenomenon really

Stalin used the Jews. He was anti-Semitic in order to fight Trotsky and the Left Opposition in 1925 to 1927. Then in 198 he thought the Jews could be used to fight Britain. With the Jews though rejecting Stalin and Stalinism, swinging behind post war and boom time America Stalin turned again and became very anti Jew. His anti-Semitism again surfaced. That laid the basis for the extreme anti-Semitism of the Breznev era and jew persecution out of which came Sharansky. Unlike Trotsky who moved steadily from one principle to another, a progressive development, Stalin was not grounded in a scientific method, and his life and political work were a disaster. For himself personally and for everything that he touched. Stalin played one positive role which was as leader in the War, when according to Deutcher he subordinated himself to the expertise of the military generals of the red Army. In that he was repeating, however inadequately, the method of Trotsky, an ironic twist of history.

The Contemporary Scene

Yes they certainly can write, these modern antisemites, but their writing revolves around the old Plekhanov theme, the Irish are not allowed to fight for their nation, the Jews are not allowed to fight for their nation

One such is the following:

The Israeli working class is under attack and sooner or later, in spite of the existing right wing leadership of the Histadruth, will begin to fight back. Such a struggle will open the possibilities for many Jews to separate themselves from the American and the Israeli ruling class and allow them to identify themselves with working class internationalism. This is the only way to fight anti-Semitism.

December 2003.


From a series of articles, and there are thousands of similar on the web,


The above is the very opposite of what Leon Trotsky was fighting for in the 1930s, especially in the latter half of that decade.

It is the very same “mistake” made by Plekhanov towards 1916.

Trotsky fought for a JEWISH state in the then Palestine. That is the God’s honest truth!

Why should Jews separate from the Israeli ruling class, that is other Jews, and accept the word of what he calls “internationalism”

What is this “internationalism” that he talks about?

Where is this internationalism calling for the defence of Israel as a Jewish state.

We are back in a real sense to Plekhanov and this guy writing above is a Plekhanov because as Israel is being attacked by Arab Imperialism, by Islamist Imperialism, by US Imperialism (and the list goes on and on) this bloke above, Yossi blab la bla, is taking the same position as Plekhanov.

Just as Plekhanov attacked the Irish he is attacking the Jews of Israel. Both were wrong in his eyes. Both fought for their nation.

Yossi has nothing to do with Lenin or Trotsky…that is absolutely for sure



In the face of growing international antisemitism the revolutionary socialist organization 4international call on all workers to defend Israel unconditionally against world antisemitism.

4international is a revolutionary socialist organization built on the principles which Leon Trotsky, following on from Lenin and Marx, in opposition to Stalin, fought for

In the 1939s Leon Trotsky was a main advocate of Jews escaping from Europe and setting up a Jewish Homeland in Zion. Trotsky stood for the right of Jews to live alone and separately, where they could defend themselves from and agaionst the world antisemites.

This is even more the case today.

So we call on all international workers to defend Israel and we call on the Israeli working class to organize independently and to stand firm against these world antisemites.

We oppose in particular the lie which has been promoted by Tim Pat Coogan, Irish so-called historian, in his open letter to the Israeli Ambassador to Ireland.

The answer to Coogan is this:

In 1848 Israel was attacked by all of the Arab states…

The Arabs of Palestine left of their own accord

The Arabs of Palestine were not forced to leave

The Arabs of Palestine decided to leave because they were part and parcel of the planned Genocide of the Jews of Israel

The Arabs of Palestine in 1948 were led by Nazis who were escaping with the aid of the British and Americans from the crimes of the Holocaust

Hence Tim Pat Coogan in his letter to the Israeli Ambassador has promoted one of the worst Big Lies of History. As a historian Coogan should be ashamed and certainly our organization in Ireland 4international will campaign throughout the workers movement in Ireland to expose this Big lie of Tim Pat Coogan

Israeli workers must give the lead to the international working class.

The programme of the Israeli working class must incorporate these points:

* Organize independently

* Support without conditions the Jewish state of Israel against world antisemitism

* Support the IDF and encourage the IDF to strike with full force against the Nuclear Plans of Iran, while appealing to Iranian workers, women and youth to defend Israel

* Tell the Israeli Government that withdrawal from Gaza was a serious mistake, that Gaza must be retaken at once, and that the leaders of Hamas be executed for antisemitic crimes against Jews.

* Tell the Israeli Government that the OSLO Accords was a mistake and that all of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) must be retaken at once, and that the leaders of Fatah and Al Aqsa be executed for antisemitic crimes against Jews

* the blockade of Gaza must not under any conditions be lifted or relaxed in response to pressure from Obama and Britain (Blair). The Blockade must be intensified but the Blockade is only a temporary measure; Gaza must be retaken by force

* The Israeli workers must say that there can be no entry into Israel, West Bank or Gaza of George Mitchell, or any other member of the Obama team. The UN must be expelled from every inch of this area.


* In relation to the Flotillas, now being promoted even by the Vatican, these boats must not be boarded. These boats must be disabled at first. Then after a period of time in which those on board are asked to evacuate these boats must be sunk

* Israel must state the obvious, that Israel is at war, with Hamas, with the PA, with Hizbullah. Not one penny, not one piece of food, not one element of medecine, should be delivered to these enemies of Jews: Hamas, Fatah and Hizbullah. Did Britain and America deliver food etc to the civilians of Germany during the War? No!

Then it is the role of antisemitism to create a double standard for the Jews. The Israeli workers must not allow that. Israeli workers must state this position and appeal to International workers for support


That is the reality. Martin in deciding to expel an Israeli diplomat who he admits has nothing to do with any forging of passports shows that he is a supporter of the terrorists of Hamas.

Israel was totally within its rights to kill this terrorist who was the link man between iran and Hamas, and thus responsible for the war against Israel which Hamas has openly declared and is carrying through on.

Martin has never made any fuss over the continual rockets being fired by Hamas onto Israeli houses and schools, over 8000 of these rockets have fallen.

Israel is at war with Hamas and it has a right to pursue its enemies as long as this war lasts.

Martin is also a hypocrite because in the Irish national struggle led by Michael Collins the Irish knew they were in a war and they did not hesitate to use war methods against their British enemy.

Martion is a double and a traitorous hypocrite because the Jews in Palestine and in Ireland were in full support of the Irish national struggle. It was a war and prominent Jews gave safe houses to the IRA of Collins who were hiding from the British enemy.

Furthermore the Jewish Briscoe family in Dublin were participating and ready to lay down their lives for Irish nationalism, but they did so as Jews, as Jewish Irishmen, and as supporters of Zionism

This terrible and hateful blow struck by Martin against the Jews of the present world, in their dire hour of need, will go down in history, the history of Irish betrayal of the Jews.

You can see from the following statement just what a weak and conniving bastard Martin is. He does this with no evidence and he nod nod wink wink cowers in behind the equally cowardly British and Australians.

Problem with martin and many of these contemporary Irish…They have no balls!

report starts here


The Government has confirmed it is to ask Israel to withdraw a member of staff at its embassy in Dublin following a report into the use of Irish passport numbers by suspects in the murder of a Hamas official.

The recommendation that the official be expelled arose following the consideration of two reports – one from the Garda and the other from the Department of Foreign Affairs passport service.

Eight fake Irish passports were among a number used by those allegedly responsible for assassinating Mahmoud Al Mabhouh in Dubai on January 19th.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said he briefed the Government on the outcome of the investigations this morning. He said investigations had discovered no additional evidence linking the Irish passports to Israel.

“The fact that the forged Irish passports were used by members of the same group who carried the forged British and Australian passports, leads us to the inescapable conclusion that an Israeli government agency was responsible for the misuse and, most likely, the manufacture of the forged Irish passports associated with the murder of Mr Mabhouh.”

The Minister said efforts to enlist the assistance of the Israeli authorities in the investigation of this case had “yielded no response and no denial” of Israeli involvement.

“The misuse of Irish passports by a State with, with which Ireland enjoys friendly, if sometimes frank, bilateral relations is clearly unacceptable and requires a firm response,” he said.

“Accordingly, I have proposed, and the Government has agreed at today’s Cabinet meeting, that by way of protest at its unacceptable action, Israel be requested to withdraw a designated member of staff of its embassy in Dublin. This demand has been conveyed to the Israeli ambassador and I would expect it to be quickly acceded to.”

Mr Martin said that in accordance with normal diplomatic practice, he did not propose to reveal either the name or function of the official whom the Israeli government had been requested to withdraw.

“I want to state clearly that the official concerned is not accused or suspected of any particular wrongdoing. In being obliged to leave their post prematurely, the official concerned is a victim of the actions of the state they represent.”

Mr Martin said the Government had invested heavily in making the Irish passport the respected document which it is internationally and in improving the security of our system so that Irish citizens can travel in safety.

“Any actions which endanger our well earned reputation in this area require determined action to ensure there is no repetition.

“I believe that, by taking decisive action in this regard, the Government is conveying a clear message of protest at what has occurred and our firm expectation that it will not happen again.”

He said the Government condemned the murder of Mr Mabhouh.

“Many allegations have been made against Mr Mabhouh which, if true, would categorise him as a committed terrorist. The Irish Government does not believe that States should fight terror with terror. As a matter of principle, Ireland opposes extra-judicial killings. We believe that States have a duty to operate according to the law and to respect that way of life that terrorists seek to destroy.”

Mr Martin said he very much wanted Ireland and Israel to enjoy productive bilateral relations. “Even more, I want to see Israelis living in peace and prosperity in a state recognised by its neighbours.”

But he said the Government and the “vast majority of the Irish people disagree with certain policies pursued by the Israeli government, particularly in its relations with the occupied Palestinian territories”.

“I will not hesitate to express criticism of such policies where I believe this is warranted and where the policies in question, such as the current blockade of Gaza, are inimical to the achievement of a viable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a comprehensive overall settlement in the Middle East.”

In a statement, the Israeli embassy said the ambassador Dr Zion Evrony was invited this morning to a meeting with David Cooney, secretary general of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

“At this meeting, Ambassador Evrony was informed of the decision of the Irish government. Israel regrets this decision.

“We believe that it does not reflect the overall positive relations which exist between Ireland and Israel.”


15 June 2010

Caroline Glick has a new piece on Jerusalem Post

We will discuss the implications of this in further posts. They are profound and call for revolutionary action to defend Israel and the Jews, surely now heading towards Holocaust at the hands of Islam and Islam supported by the West

[begin Glick article here]

with Israel or just give in.


By backing the terrorist group against Israel, western countries are backing Hamas against Fatah and Islamist states against ME moderates.

Since the navy’s May 31 takeover of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his advisers have deliberated around the clock about how to contend with the US-led international stampede against Israel. But their ultimate decision to form an investigatory committee led by a retired Supreme Court justice and overseen by foreign observers indicates that they failed to recognize the nature of the international campaign facing us today.

Led by US President Barack Obama, the West has cast its lot with Hamas. It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama’s friends, former Weather Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fund-raiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is James Abourezk, a former US senator from South Dakota.

All of these people have open lines of communication not only to the Obama White House, but to Obama himself.

Obama has made his sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood clear several times since entering office. The Muslim Brotherhood’s progeny include Hamas, al-Qaida and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Last June, Obama infuriated the Egyptian government when he insisted on inviting leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech at Al Azhar University in Cairo. His administration’s decision to deport Hamas deserter and Israeli counterterror operative Mosab Hassan Yousef to the Palestinian Authority where he will be killed is the latest sign of its support for radical Islam.

Given Obama’s attitude toward jihadists and the radical leftists who support them, his decision to support Hamas against Israel makes sense. What is alarming however is how leaders of the free world are now all siding with Hamas. That support has become ever more apparent since the Mossad’s alleged killing of Hamas terror master Mahmoud al-Mabhouh at his hotel in Dubai in January.

In the aftermath of Mabhouh’s death, both Britain and Australia joined the Dubai-initiated bandwagon in striking out against Israel. Israel considers both countries allies, or at least friendly and has close intelligence ties with both. Yet despite their close ties, Australia and Britain expelled Israeli diplomats who supposedly had either a hand in the alleged operation or who work for the Mossad.

It should be noted that neither country takes steps against outspoken terror supporters who call for Israel to be destroyed and call for the murder of individual Israelis.

For instance, in an interview last month with The Australian, Ali Kazak, the former PLO ambassador to Australia, effectively solicited the murder of The Jerusalem Post’s Palestinian affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh. Kazak told the newspaper, “Khaled Abu Toameh is a traitor.”

Allowing that many Palestinians have been murdered for such accusations, Kazak excused those extrajudicial murders saying, “Traitors were also murdered by the French Resistance, in Europe; this happens everywhere.”

Not only did Australia not expel Kazak or open a criminal investigation against him, as a consequence of his smear campaign against Abu Toameh, several Australian government officials cancelled their scheduled meetings with him.

AND OF course, this week we have the actions of Germany and Poland. They are considered Israel’s best friends in Europe, and yet acting on a German arrest warrant, Poland has arrested a suspected Mossad officer named Uri Brodsky for his alleged involvement in the alleged Mossad operation against Mabhouh. Israel is now caught in a diplomatic disaster zone where its two closest allies – who again are only too happy to receive regular intelligence updates from the Mossad – are siding with Hamas against it.

And then of course we have the EU’s call for Israel to cancel its lawful blockade of the Gaza coast. That is, the official position of the EU is that an Iranian proxy terrorist organization should be allowed to gain control over a Mediterranean port and through it, provide Iran with yet another venue from which it can launch attacks against Europe.

For their part, the Sunni Arabs are forced to go along with this. The Egyptian regime considers the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood took over Gaza a threat to its very survival and has been assiduously sealing its border with Gaza for some time. And yet, unable to be more anti-Hamas than the US, Australia and Europe, Mubarak is opening the border. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa’s unprecedented visit to Gaza this week should be seen as a last ditch attempt by Egypt to convince Hamas to unify its ranks with Fatah. Predictably, the ascendant Hamas refused his entreaties.

As for Fatah, it is hard not to feel sorry for its leader Mahmoud Abbas these days. In what was supposed to be a triumphant visit to the White House, Abbas was forced to smile last week as Obama announced the US will provide $450 million in aid to his sworn enemies who three years ago ran him and his Fatah henchmen out of Gaza.

So too, Abbas is forced to cheer as Obama pressures Israel to give Hamas an outlet to the sea. This will render it impossible for Fatah to ever unseat Hamas either by force or at the ballot box. Hamas’s international clout demonstrates to the Palestinians that jihad pays.

THERE ARE three plausible explanations for the West’s decision to back Hamas. All of them say something deeply disturbing about the state of the world. The first plausible explanation is that the Americans and the rest of the West are simply naïve. They believe that by backing Hamas, they are advancing the cause of Middle East peace.

If this is in fact what the likes of Obama and his European and Australian counterparts think, apparently no one in the West is thinking very hard. The fact is that by backing Hamas against Israel, they are backing Hamas against Fatah and they are backing Iran, Syria, Turkey, Hamas and Hizbullah against Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. They are backing the most radical actors in the region – and arguably in the world – against states and regimes they have a shared strategic interest in strengthening.

There is absolutely no way this behavior advances the cause of peace.

The second plausible explanation is that the West’s support for Hamas is motivated by hatred of Israel. As Helen Thomas’s recent remarks demonstrated, there is certainly a lot of that going around.

The final plausible explanation for the West’s support for Hamas is that it has been led to believe that by acting as it is, it will buy itself immunity from attack by Hamas and its fellow members of the Iranian axis. As former Italian president Francesco Cossiga first exposed in a letter to Corriere della Serra in August 2008, in the early 1970s Italian prime minister Aldo Moro signed a deal with Yasser Arafat that gave the PLO and its affiliated organizations the freedom to operate terror bases in Italy. In exchange the Palestinians agreed to limit their attacks to Jewish and Israeli targets. Italy maintained its allegiance to the deal – and to the PLO against Israel – even when Italian targets were hit.

Cossiga told the newspaper that the August 2, 1980 bombing at the Bologna train station – which Italy blamed on Italian fascists – was actually the work of George Habash’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Eighty-five people were murdered in the attack, and still Italy maintained its agreement with the PLO to the point where it prosecuted and imprisoned the wrong people for the worst terrorist attack in its history.

Cossiga alleged that the deal is still in place today and that Italian forces in UNIFIL have expanded the deal to include Hamas’s fellow Iranian proxy Hizbullah. It isn’t much of a stretch to consider the possibility that Italy and the rest of the Western powers have made a similar deal with Hamas. And it is no stretch at all to believe that they will benefit from it as greatly as the Italian railroad passengers in Bologna did.

True, no one has come out and admitted to supporting Hamas. So too, no one has expressed anything by love for Israel and the Jewish people. But the actions of the governments of the West tell a different tale. Without one or more of the explanations above, it is hard to understand their current policies.

Since the flotilla incident, Netanyahu and his ministers have held marathon deliberations on how to respond to US pressure to accept an international inquisition into the IDF’s lawful enforcement of the legal blockade of the Gaza coast. Their deliberations went on at the same time as Netanyahu and his envoys attempted to convince Obama to stop his mad rush to give Hamas an outlet to the sea and deny Israel even the most passive right of self-defense.

It remains to be seen if their decision to form an investigative panel with international “observers” was a wise move or yet another ill-advised concession to an unappeasable administration. What is certain, however, is that it will not end the West’s budding romance with Hamas.

The West’s decision to side with Hamas is devastating. But whatever the reasons for it, it is a fact of life. It is Netanyahu’s duty to swallow this bitter pill and devise a strategy to protect the country from their madness.

Israel’s greatest strategic challenge – preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons


The first rule of strategy
is to keep your opponent busy attending to your agenda so he has no time to advance his own. Unfortunately, Israel’s leaders seem unaware of this rule, while Iran’s rulers triumph in its application.
Over the past few weeks, Israel has devoted itself entirely to the consideration of questions that are, at best, secondary. Questions like how much additional assistance Israel should provide Hamas-controlled Gaza, and how best to fend off or surrender to the international diplomatic lynch mob have dominated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s and his senior ministers’ agendas. Our political leaders – as well as our military commanders and intelligence agencies – have been so busy thinking about these issues that they have effectively forgotten the one issue that they should have been considering.
Israel’s greatest strategic challenge – preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – has fallen by the wayside.
In the shadow of our distraction, Iran and its allies operate undisturbed. Indeed, as our leaders have devoted themselves entirely to controlling the damage from the Iranian-supported, Turkish- Hamas flotilla, Iran and its allies have had a terrific past few weeks.
True, Wednesday the UN Security Council passed a new sanctions resolution against Iran for refusing to end its illicit uranium enrichment program. But that Security Council resolution itself is emblematic of Iran’s triumph.
It took a year for US President Barack Obama to decide that he should seek additional sanctions against Iran. It then took him another six months to convince Iran’s allies Russia and China to support the sanctions. In the event, the sanctions that Obama refers to as “the most comprehensive sanctions that the Iranian government has faced,” will have no impact whatsoever on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
They will not empower the Iranian people to overthrow their regime. And they will not cause the Iranian regime to reconsider its nuclear weapons program. They won’t even prevent Russia from supplying Iran with S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to protect its nuclear installations from air assault.
THOSE LONG-awaited and utterly worthless sanctions underline the fact that life is terrific these days for Iran’s leaders and their allies. A year ago, the Iranian regime was hanging by a thread. After stealing the presidential elections last June 12, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei required the assistance of all their regime goons to put down the popular revolt against them. Indeed, they needed to import Hizbullah goons from Lebanon to protect themselves and their regime from their own people. European leaders like French President Nicolas Sarkozy were openly supporting the Iranian people as they announced their intention to overthrow the regime.
But then Obama sided with the regime against its domestic, democratic opposition. Intent on giving his appeasement policy a whirl, Obama took several days to express even the mildest support for the Iranian people. In the meantime, his spokesman continued to refer to the regime as the “legitimate” government of Iran.
Obama’s support for Ahmadinejad forced European leaders like Sarkozy to temper their support for the anti-regime activists. Even worse, by keeping the democracy protesters at arm’s length, Obama effectively gave a green light to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei to resort to brute force against them. That is, by failing to back the democracy protesters, Obama convinced the regime it could get away with murdering scores of them, and torturing thousands more.
A year on, although the regime’s opponents seethe under the surface, with no leader and no help from the free world, it will take a miracle for them to mount major protests on the one-year anniversary of the stolen elections. It is unimaginable that they will be able to topple the regime before it gets its hands on nuclear weapons.
A year ago Ahmadinejad was afraid to show his face in public. But this week he received a hero’s welcome in Istanbul. He had a bilateral meeting there not only with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
In the past year Iran has deepened its strategic ties with China and Russia. It has developed an open strategic alliance with Turkey. It has expanded its strategic web of alliances in Latin America. Now in addition to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia, Iran counts Brazil among its allies.
THEN THERE is Lebanon. Like the regime in Teheran, Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hizbullah lost the Lebanese elections last June. And like the regime in Teheran, Hizbullah was able to use force and the threat of force to not only strong-arm its way back into the Lebanese government, but to guarantee itself control over the Lebanese government.
Now in control, with Iranian and Syrian support, Hizbullah has an arsenal of 42,000 missiles with ranges that cover all of Israel.
Then, too, Hizbullah’s diplomatic situation has never been better. This week former US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker called for the US to initiate a policy of diplomatic outreach to the Iranian-controlled illegal terrorist group. Ryan is the second prominent US official, after Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan, to call for the US to accept Hizbullah as a legitimate actor in the region.
As for Syria, it too has only benefited from its alliance with Iran. The Obama administration has waived several trade sanctions against Damascus.
As it battles the Senate to confirm its choice for US ambassador to Syria, the administration has become the regime’s champion.
Assuming the Senate drops its opposition, Syria will receive the first US ambassador to Damascus in five years as it defies the International Atomic Energy Agency and openly proliferates nuclear technology. Today Syria is both rebuilding its illicit nuclear reactor at Dar Alzour that Israel reportedly destroyed on Sept. 6, 2007 and building additional nuclear installations.
Luckily for Bashar Assad, the IAEA is too busy trying to coerce Israel into agreeing to international inspections of its legal nuclear installations to pay any attention. Since June 2008, the IAEA has carried out no inspections in Syria.
AND THAT’S the heart of the matter. The main reason that the past year has been such a good one for Iran and its allies is because they have managed to keep Israel so busy fending off attacks that Jerusalem has had no time to weaken them in any way.
It is true that much of the fault here belongs to the US. Since entering office, Obama has demonstrated daily that his first priority in the Middle East is to force Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians. As for Iran, Obama’s moves to date make clear that his goal is not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Rather, it is to avoid being blamed for Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Obama has used Iran’s nuclear weapons program – and vague promises to do something about it – as a means of coercing Israel into making unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians.
The problem is that despite overwhelming evidence that Obama is fundamentally not serious about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel’s leaders have played along with him. And in so doing they have lost control over their time and their agenda.
When Obama first came into office, he was committed to three things: appeasing Iran, attacking Israel for constructing homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria, and condemning Israel for refusing to support the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Obama was only partially dissuaded from appeasing Iran when Ahmadinejad rejected his offer to enrich uranium for the mullahs last December. As for his other goals, he coerced Netanyahu into agreeing to support Palestinian statehood last June and coerced him into ending Jewish home building in Judea and Samaria last September.
Ahmadinejad’s rejection of Obama’s outstretched hand forced Obama to launch his halfhearted drive for worthless UN sanctions. But he used this bid to coerce Israel into making still more unreciprocated concessions. After pocketing the prohibition on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, Obama moved on to Jerusalem.
From there he moved to forcing Israel to accept indirect negotiations with the Palestinians through his hostile envoy George Mitchell. And once he had pocketed that concession, he began pressuring Israel to surrender its purported nuclear arsenal.
Following that, he has moved on to his current position of pressuring Israel to accept a hostile international investigation of the navy’s enforcement of Israel’s lawful blockade of the Gaza coast. He also seeks to weaken Israel’s blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza and force Israel to accept a massive infusion of US assistance to Hamas-controlled Gaza.
This last Obama action plan was made explicit on Wednesday when the US president announced that his administration would give $400 million in assistance to Gaza, despite the fact that doing so involves providing material aid to an illegal terrorist organization controlled by Iran.
OBAMA’S ACTIONS are clearly disturbing, but as disturbing as they are, they are not Israel’s main problem. Iran’s nuclear program is Israel’s main problem. And Netanyahu, his senior cabinet ministers and the IDF high command should not be devoting their precious time to dealing with Obama and his ever-escalating demands.
To free himself and Israel’s other key decisionmakers to contend with Iran, Netanyahu must outsource the handling of the Palestinian issue, the Obama administration and all the issues arising from both. He must select someone outside active politics to serve as his special envoy for this purpose.
Netanyahu’s envoy’s position should be the mirror image of Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell’s role. He should be given a suite of fancy offices, several deputies and aides and spokesmen, and a free hand in talking with the Palestinians and the Obama administration until the cows come home.
In the meantime, Netanyahu and his senior cabinet ministers and advisers must devote themselves to battling Iran. They must not merely prepare to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.
They must prepare the country to weather the Iranian counter-attack that will surely follow.
Those preparations involve not only fortifying Israel’s home front. Netanyahu and his people must prepare a diplomatic and legal offensive against Iran and its allies in the lead-up, and aftermath, of an Israeli strike against Iran.
The most obviously qualified person to fill this vital role is former defense minister Moshe Arens.
Aren has the experience, wisdom and gravitas to handle the job. Bereft of all political ambitions, Arens would in no way pose a threat to Netanyahu’s leadership.
Whoever Netanyahu chooses, he must choose quickly. His failure to bear in mind the first law of strategy places Israel in greater and greater peril with each passing day.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Posted on June 11, 2010


by Jim Stephens

June 12, 2010

This is important

Imagine that! There was NO AID ABOARD!


A large part of the equipment, particularly shoes and clothing, was used and worn. 

And the medical equipment was dicey!

Printed on Israel National News

Published: 06/10/10, 6:33 PM / Last Update: 06/10/10, 7:34 PM

It’s Official: There was No Humanitarian Aid on Mavi Marmara

by Gil Ronen


The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has informed Israel’s representatives the world over that there were never any humanitarian supplies or equipment aboard the Mavi Marmara, where Israeli commandos were ambushed by armed mercenaries posing as peace activists. The commandos opened fire and killed nine of the attackers after three soldiers had been brutalized and temporarily captured.
Of the seven flotilla ships that were intercepted by Israel on May 31 and afterward, only four were freight ships, the MFA reported to its embassies and consulates: The Challenger 1 (a small yacht), the Sfendonh (a small passenger boat) and the Mavi Marmara (a passenger ship) did not carry any humanitarian aid, and had only the passengers’ personal belongings.

The four freight ships are the Gaza, the Sofia, the Defeny and the Rachel Corrie. As of  June 7, Israel had only offloaded equipment from the Defeny. The equipment offloaded was loaded onto 26 trucks, and an additional eight trucks are waiting at the Kerem Shalom crossing to enter Gaza.

The equipment includes:
1. 300 wheelchairs
2. 300 new mobility scooters
3. 100 special mobility scooters for the disabled
4. Hundreds of crutches
5. 250 hospital beds
6. 50 sofas
7. Four tons of medicine
8. 20 tons of clothing, carpets, school bags, cloth and shoes
9. Various hospital equipment – closets and cabinets, operating theater equipment, etc.
10. Playground equipment
11. Mattresses
The equipment remaining at Ashdod Port on the three  cargo ships which have not been offloaded include some 2000 tons of construction equipment – building materials and tools, and construction waste (rubble, toilets, sinks and cement) for re-use.
The MFA noted that:
The equipment does not constitute humanitarian aid in the accepted sense (basic foodstuffs, new and functional equipment, fresh medicines).
The humanitarian aid on the four cargo ships was scattered in the ships’ holds and thrown onto piles and not packed properly for transport. The equipment was not packaged and not properly placed on wooden bases. Because of the improper packing, some of the equipment was crushed by the weight in transit.
The medicines and sensitive equipment (operating theater equipment, new clothing, etc.) are being kept in cool storage at the Defense Ministry base. Some of the medicines had already expired, and some will expire soon. The operating theater equipment, which should be kept sterile, was carelessly wrapped. A large part of the equipment, particularly shoes and clothing, was used and worn. (IsraelNationalNews.com)


by Jim Stephens

June 12, 2010

There are a number of very obvious problems with Mairead Maguire and her campaign to break the blockade which Israel has placed on Gaza:

  1. By international law the blockade by Israel is totally legal. It follows that what Maguire is doing is illegal.
  2. When George Galloway led the Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza, and handed across money to the leader of Hamas, he was performing an illegal act, he knew it and stated it, yet challenged his Government to arrest and charge him with illegality
  3. Hamas was elected by the Arabs of Gaza. But Hamas fought on the basis of its Charter (Constitution) which states that it wants to kill Jews, subscribes to anti-Semitism in its worst form. Maguire is silent about Hamas.
  4. Maguire is spreading a lie: that the people of Gaza are starving. They are among the best fed people in the world and are better fed than many poor Israelis, even though Israel is the largest contributor to Gaza aid
  5. The ship which Maguire led was named the Rachel Corrie. Maguire tells a lie about Rachel Corrie. Corrie stood in front of a bulldozer and other members of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign stood, watched and took photographs, without attempting to drag Corrie out of danger. The experience of Mohammed El Dhurra who was shot by the Arabs themselves to create propaganda against Israel may mean that there are even question marks over how Corrie actually died. Maguire hides all of that but places her name on the ship to create hatred against Israel
  6. The “goods” on board did not constitute what is recognized as humanitarian aid in any case. Further it was thrown into the hull unprofessionally. When it was resurrected in Ashdod by Israel and placed on the border Hamas refused to accept the aid. It was not about need at all otherwise Hamas would have distributed it rapidly. Maguire hides all of this.


Above all Maguire hides all of this from the Irish people.

The base of Maguire is in Ireland especially among the catholic and republican Irish people. But due to the absence of a Trotskyist party in Ireland the ordinary people are ignorant of the truth about the situation in the Middle East.

It is in the absence of a Trotskyist Party that the anti-Semites of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other Left Fascist groups hold sway, backed up by none other than an alliance of the Provies and Stickies. Names which you should know!!!

The report below appeared on the notorious palestine Solidarity Campaign which maguire works closely with

[7th June, 9pm] Today family, friends and supporters welcomed home the five Irish MV Rachel Corrie passengers who were this morning deported from Israel. The five – Denis Halliday, Mairead Maguire, Fiona Thompson, Derek Graham and Jenny Graham – were greeted in Dublin airport by cheers and hugs from the assembled crowd who were there to salute their bravery.

(In the above Maguire is second from right)

She told the following lies..all of it is lies

“Ms. Maguire spoke of her motivations for taking part in the Freedom Flotilla which sought to bring much needed humanitarian aid and supplies into Gaza by breaking the illegal Israeli blockade. Ms Maguire said: “Israel is carrying out a slow genocide against the Palestinian people. It engages in collective punishment and practices apartheid policies worse than those of South Africa. For these reasons, we set out to break the three-year-old illegal siege of Gaza, to try and help ease this unspeakable suffering in a small but symbolic way by bringing humanitarian aid. Unfortunately we never made it to Gaza as we were boarded illegally in international waters and taken at the point of a gun to Israel. However, we say to the people of Gaza, we will be back. We will treble our efforts, we will not rest until the siege is lifted, the occupation of Palestine is ended and Palestinians have the right to self-determination. We will not be silent, and we will not be stopped.”



Full of lies Maguire including

as we were boarded illegally in international waters




June 12, 2010

Statement to Media



OPINION: Future historians will puzzle over the western media’s portrayal of the flotilla activists as humanitarians, ignoring evidence of motive 

AN IMPARTIAL historian analysing, 20 years hence, the events of last week surrounding Israel’s interception of the Gaza “Freedom Flotilla”, will be perplexed by several aspects of the media coverage of the episode. One would expect that, by then, the salient facts will be available to all and agreed upon by those who share a commitment to the truth. 

The first and most obvious of these facts is the difference in outcome between six of the flotilla ships, including the Rachel Corrie, and the remaining one, the Mavi Marmara, on which the regrettable loss of life occurred. On the former, only passive resistance was offered to Israeli personnel and the ships were peacefully escorted to the port of Ashdod. Our historian will wonder at media headlines that portrayed Israeli commandos as opening fire, unprovoked, on unarmed men and women trying only to bring aid materials to the “besieged” inhabitants of Gaza. If this had been the case, why the offer to unload the aid cargos at Ashdod in Israel? And why no violence on six of the seven ships? 

Regarding the seventh ship, the facts now emerging will tell a very different story from the western media’s rushed judgment of the affair. Already in the public arena was the Al Aqsa TV interview of May 30th and the Guardian newspaper report of June 3rd in which members of the IHH “charity”, a jihadist organisation with proven links to Al Qaeda and Hamas, spoke of their wish to “die as martyrs”. 

There was also the video footage (now available on YouTube) showing the Mavi Marmara passengers leaving port chanting “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahoud, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud” (“.. O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return”) a reference to a seventh-century slaughter of Arabian Jews that has become a modern jihadist battle-cry.

{ It was reference to a 7th Century massacre of Jews that ended the Jewish presence in Arabia…important emphasis – 4international]

Lastly, there was the footage of the answer sent to the Israeli ship that warned the Mavi Marmara it was approaching the blockade: “Shut up, go back to Auschwitz . . . don’t forget 9/11”. Our historian will puzzle over the media’s ignoring of this evidence of motive, and its portrayal of such self-styled warriors as “humanitarians”. 

Interviews with the detained passengers of the Mavi Marmara are now confirming that the violence met by the Israeli commandos as they boarded the ship was not spontaneous but an organised, premeditated action carried out by a hardcore of approximately 40 IHH operatives, recruited specially for the mission. This group boarded at Istanbul without undergoing security checks, while the other 500 or so passengers boarded at Antalya after a full check. (It is also emerging that the Mavi Marmara, the biggest ship in the flotilla, carried no humanitarian aid at all; only personal possessions and extremely large sums of money were found on board).

[Another great point here…They boarded without checks…this is a big factor in the analysis, which shows that the Turkish Islamist regime of Erdogan was behind all of this]

The hardcore took over the upper deck and set up a communications room. They took control of the ship using walkie-talkies and restricted the movements of the other passengers and crew. As they approached the blockade, they sent ordinary passengers below, donned ceramic vests and gas masks, and armed themselves with weapons such as knives, axes, hammers, slingshots, wooden clubs and steel rods cut in advance from the ship’s railings using angle grinders. This latter action appears to have been carried out contrary to the captain’s orders. 

The IHH operatives were instructed not to allow the Israeli soldiers to board. They successfully repelled the attempts to board the ship from corvettes using grappling hooks. When Israeli commandos landed one by one by rope from a helicopter, they were surrounded by these IHH operatives and beaten severely with the weapons already prepared. Once again, these facts are corroborated by video footage. Initially under strict orders not to open fire, the Israeli commandos had anticipated at worst a riot-control situation, not a violent ambush. Only when several of them had been beaten, shot and stabbed and it was clear that they were fighting for their lives did they open fire. 

Our historian of the future will find it curious that, in an age of instant video documentation, the Irish media showed so little interest in revisiting their initial hasty judgments of the whole episode. (S)he will also remark on the very different portrayals of the Israeli soldiers and the IHH activists given in the western media and those of the Islamic world. While the former paint the Israelis as brutal, shoot-first aggressors and the IHH as weak victims, the Turkish paper Hurriyet proudly showed photographs, taken with the cameras of the jihadist-humanitarians, of Israelis as bloodied prisoners humiliated by the ‘warriors of Islam’.

[ This is a great point the Ambassador makes. It is the difference between the Master (Islam) and the dhimmi (the western Media)!]

Another aspect of the affair that will perplex our historian will be the media’s focus on Israel’s interception as taking place in international waters, and their characterisation of Israel’s Gaza blockade as ‘illegal’, as if no historical precedents or legal justification existed for either. 

Under the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, maritime blockades are a legitimate measure that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict, and are included as such in the naval handbooks of several western countries. A blockade may be enforced in international waters so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states. 

A state of armed conflict exists between Israel and Hamas, which forms part of the Iranian strategy aimed at encircling Israel with hostile forces in furtherance of its declared goal of “wiping it off the map”. Many of the 1,350 rockets fired into southern Israel by Hamas in 2008 alone were of the sophisticated Grad 2 type smuggled into Gaza from Iran. It is worth remembering that Israel has intercepted two ships sent by Iran, the Francop destined for Hizbullah in 2009, the Karine A destined for Hamas in 2002, each carrying large supplies of weapons and war material. 

In the case of the Gaza flotilla, Israel acted perfectly legally in (i) warning the boats of the existence of the blockade and providing them with its precise co-ordinates through the accepted maritime channels, (ii) asking them to change course and to take their cargo to the port of Ashdod, (iii) when these notices were rejected, warning them that they faced being boarded and commandeered by its navy. Finally, our future historian, while aware that Israel restricted the entry of certain items into Gaza, will read with amazement of the woman in a Gaza market who told Danish journalist Steffen Jensen in 2010: “We have nothing. We need everything! Food, drinks . . . everything!” The woman spoke of this doomsday scenario while standing, according to Jensen, between ‘mountains of vegetables, fruit, eggs, poultry and fish . . .’ The historian will be able to see visual corroboration of this in the pictures published in Gaza newspapers and on Palestinian websites in 2009-10 that show Gaza food stalls laden with supplies. 

While aware that life in Gaza was difficult, (s)he will wonder all the more at the persistence of the claim of the ‘humanitarian crisis’, and the gullibility of well-intentioned westerners in accepting the Hamas propaganda of victimhood. 

Having calmly analysed the staged made-for-media event of the 2010 “Freedom Flotilla”, she or he will see it for what it is: merely the latest phase in an ongoing war to undermine the state of Israel. The enemies of the Jewish state, having failed over 62 years to defeat it either in open frontal attack or by terror and rocket campaigns, had resorted to a different tactic: the delegitimisation of its right to defend itself. 

Zion Evrony is ambassador of Israel to Ireland


by Felix Quigley

June 10, 2010

On the website Israpundit, editor Ted Belman, there is a man there who is a danger to the Jewish people, and he leads Belman and the other regulars there like lambs to the slaughter

He goes by the name of Yamit82

He writes in his latest comment the following:

  1. yamit82 says:

    BB and Barak are a real danger to our existence.

    Enough already, our lives and our future are at stake with these two incompetent miscreant microbial cowards.

    They must go one way or another and I don’t care which.

    I warned against BB over and over and over again in this forum.

    One Thing I don’t have is political Alzheimer’s.

    Criminal charges should be brought against these two for purposely endangering the lives of our soldiers needlessly

But that is precisely what Obama is trying to do Yamit82!

What will be the actual position of editor Ted Belman towards this?

It is necessary to immediately and in the first place form a United Front with the Netanyahu Government against Obama, because it is the aim of Obama to destroy Netanyahu and replace him with Livni.

We on 4international have major differences with Netanyahu and state these all of the time. But we do so in the context of overall defence of Netanyahu against Obama.

That is something that the unprincipled Yamit82 can not do.

So what position will Belman take? Will Belman side with Yamit82 on this vital issue or with 4international.

For their benefit we reprint An Aesop fable

From What Next? Vital Question for the German Proletariat, 1932

* * *

A cattle dealer once drove some bulls to the slaughterhouse. And the butcher came night with his sharp knife.

“Let us close ranks and jack up this executioner on our horns,” suggested one of the bulls.

“If you please, in what way is the butcher any worse than the dealer who drove us hither with his cudgel?” replied the bulls, who had received their political education in Manuilsky’s institute. [The Comintern.]

“But we shall be able to attend to the dealer as well afterwards!”

“Nothing doing,” replied the bulls firm in their principles, to the counselor. “You are trying, from the left, to shield our enemies — you are a social-butcher yourself.”

And they refused to close ranks.



by Jim Stephens

10 June, 2010

Obama is the most powerful man inthe world.

I think it is important to reject the idea that he is just a puppet etc. This is to enter into the world of conspiracy nut cases.

Hence it is important to understand that in his movement towards the White House Obama was more or less moving in the same direction towards Israel and the Arab palestinians as was say the Palestine Solidarity campaign.

This is why his association with the Pastor Wright church in Detroit and his stting on a board with the terrorist and probably state agent Ayers is also important.

The following report does the service of linking Obama to Ayers, and to trace the recent activity of Ayers, apparently performing the same kind of pro Palestinian Arab role oas the Palestine Solidarity, Mairead maguire, or Galloway

All aboard! Obama pals back violent

 Gaza flotilla

Activists from president’s circle of friends top supporters of anti-Israel protest ships

Posted: May 31, 2010 2:27 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The group behind the Gaza flotilla that engaged in deadly clashes with Israeli commandos today counts among its top supporters the friends and associates of President Barack Obama, namely the founders of the Weather Underground terrorist organization, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as well as Jodie Evans, the leader of the radical activist organization Code Pink.

Earlier today, Israeli navy commandos raided the six-ship flotilla, encountering heavy resistance and live fire from the activists. Several activists were killed and dozens of others were reportedly injured, as were several of the Israeli commandos.

The flotilla was organized by the Free Gaza Movement, a coalition of leftist human rights activists and pro-Palestinian groups engaged in attempts to break a blockade imposed by Israel on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Ayers, Dohrn and Evans’ Code Pink have led several recent Free Gaza Movement initiatives, including attempted marches into the Gaza Strip. Dorhn was in the Middle East just last month on behalf of the movement.

Ayers and Dohrn were close associates for years with President Obama, while Evans was a fundraiser and financial bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign.

In January, WND reported Ayers, Dohrn and Evans were involved in provoking chaos on the streets of Egypt in an attempt to enter Gaza with the Free Gaza Movement to join in solidarity with the territory’s population and leadership.

The three helped to stir riots after the Egyptian government refused to allow a large number of protesters to enter neighboring Gaza. Eventually, the protesters accepted an Egyptian offer of allowing about 100 marchers into Gaza. Once in the territory, those marchers were reportedly met on the Gaza side by Hamas’ former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

At the time of the march, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote a letter in support of a “humanitarian delegation from Massachusetts” to Gaza. Members of Ayers’, Dohrn and Evans’ group documented on their blogs how Kerry’s letter was used at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo while attempting to pressure Egypt to let their group into Gaza.

Images of the letter were also posted on the Electronic Intifada website run by Ali Abunimah, who was with Evans’ group in Egypt and who, WND previously reported, spoke at pro-Palestinian events in the 1990s alongside Obama. In one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for Palestinian “refugees,” Abunimah recalled introducing Obama on stage.

Kerry’s office previously met with Code Pink members, WND has learned. Sarah Roche-Mahdi of Code Pink also is a member of the United for Peace and Justice Palestine Task Force, which met with Kerry’s staffers.

Kerry last year became the most senior U.S. politician to visit the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, although at the time he did not meet with Hamas leaders.

Dohrn later wrote on a blog that she was briefly detained at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo following the January protests there by her group: “Bill and I went to the American Embassy at 10 a.m. and asked to see the ambassador. We were ushered into a holding pen a block away from the embassy building where we joined 35 people already there, surrounded by Egyptian soldiers,” she wrote.

Deadly clashes

Israeli Naval Forces intercepted the flotilla today attempting to break the maritime closure of the Gaza Strip.

An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson told WND commandos boarded the ships after numerous warnings from Israel requesting the ships redirect toward the Israeli port of Ashdod, where they would be able to unload their aid supplies, which could then be transferred to the Gaza Strip after undergoing security inspections.

During the boarding of one of the ships, the Marmara, activists onboard attacked IDF naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs, the IDF spokesperson said.

“The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose,” said the spokesperson. “As a result of this life-threatening and violent activity, naval forces first employed riot dispersal means, followed by live fire.

“IDF naval personnel encountered severe violence, including use of weaponry prepared in advance in order to attack them,” said the spokesperson.

The IDF released a YouTube video clearly showing activists attacking Israeli commandos, including attacks with live fire.

Close Obama associates

Evans formed Code Pink, a far-left activist organization, in 2002 to protest America’s war in Iraq. The group previously met with Hamas and with leaders of the Taliban. Evans was a fundraiser and financial bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign.

Abunimah traveled in some of the same political circles as Obama in the 1990s. Abunimah previously described meeting with Obama at a fundraiser at the home of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, reportedly a former PLO activist. Khalidi was also a close associate of Obama.

“[Obama] came with his wife. That’s where I had a chance to really talk to him,” Abunimah recalled. “It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. … He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.”

According to quotes obtained by Gulf News, Abunimah recalled a 2004 meeting in a Chicago neighborhood while Obama was running for his Senate seat. Abunimah quoted Obama telling him “warmly” he was sorry that “I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race.”

“I’m hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front,” Abunimah reportedly quoted the senator as saying.

Abunimah said Obama urged him to “keep up the good work” at the Chicago Tribune, where Abunimah contributed guest columns that were highly critical of Israel.

Ayers, meanwhile, became a name in last year’s presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years.

Ayers helped launch Obama’s political career with a fundraiser in his home. Obama served on the board of a Chicago nonprofit alongside Ayers. The terrorist later hired Obama to serve as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a job Obama later cited as experience that helped qualify him to run for public office.

While at the CAC, Obama and Ayers both granted funds to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.

WND columnist Jack Cashill has produced a series of persuasive arguments that it was Ayers who ghostwrote Obama’s award-winning autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.”

Ayers and Dohrn were two of the main founders of the Weather Underground, which bombed the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. The group was responsible for some 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.

Characterizing the Weather Underground as “an American Red Army,” Ayers summed up the organization’s ideology: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.”

“Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,” Ayers recalled in his 2001 memoir, “Fugitive Days.” “The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”

Ayers brandished his unrepentant radicalism for years later, as evidenced by his now notorious 2001 interview with the New York Times, published one day after the 9/11 attacks, in which he stated, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Ayers posed for a photograph accompanying the New York Times piece that showed him stepping on an American flag. He said of the U.S.: “What a country. It makes me want to puke.”


I think it is possible that Obama is moving on a number of political and psychological levels.

First of all he has a team around him which is pro Palestinian, pro Iran and pro Islam

Secondly Obama is also ideologically and politically the same as the anti Jewish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, a movement which supports terrorists against Israel.

This is the essence of the IHH Flotilla.

People studying this have to get away from the method which takes a person like Obama and just listens to his words.

As Francisco Gil White explains it is necessary to study the actions and then the words appear to be in contradiction with the action.

see many articles on www.hirhome.com

it is very possible that Obama is using words against the Flotilla but his actions are encouraging the Flotilla.

That is obviously the case.

The first step that Obama must therefore take is to remove Netanyahu and replace him with Livni.

This is not because Netanyahu is any real good as a leader but because Netanyahu represents the movement of the Jewish people away from Livni, and from the OSLO trusting of the enemy. Obama has to either reverse the last election by creating a situation of great dissent inside Israel, as Clinton with the help of George Soros did in Serbia, or else by diktat just steamroll over Israel

This is necessary to do before Obama can ram the Palestine state into place.

Just like there was preparation in order to ram the Kosovo state into place

It is necessary to fight in unity with Netanyahu against Obama. If Obama defeats Netanyahu and replaces him with Livni that will be a defeat for Jews and a victory for Obama and Abbas of course. Also for Hamas, Hizbullah and for Iran

It is a remarkable thing but the best defence of the Iranian rebels against the clerical fascists of Ahmadinejad is to defend netanyahu against Obama

Those who say do not defend netanyahu, like the notorious Yamit82 on Israpundit, are the really dangerous traitors, sounding so militant, unable to fight strategically.

There was one great historical lesson which was the failure of the Stalinists to unite against Hitler. they would not unite with the massive Social democtatic party because they called them Social Fascists.

Hence trotsky adapted one of Aesop´s fables to explain:


From What Next? Vital Question for the German Proletariat, 1932

* * *

A cattle dealer once drove some bulls to the slaughterhouse. And the butcher came night with his sharp knife.

“Let us close ranks and jack up this executioner on our horns,” suggested one of the bulls.

“If you please, in what way is the butcher any worse than the dealer who drove us hither with his cudgel?” replied the bulls, who had received their political education in Manuilsky’s institute. [The Comintern.]

“But we shall be able to attend to the dealer as well afterwards!”

“Nothing doing,” replied the bulls firm in their principles, to the counselor. “You are trying, from the left, to shield our enemies — you are a social-butcher yourself.”

And they refused to close ranks.



by Felix Quigley

June 9, 2010

The folowing report from DEBKAfile placed on air just minutes ago does 2 things

1. It shows that the American Obama Government is intent on sucking up to the Arabs, and to do this is waging war on Netanyahu

2. The Obama Government wants to destroy Netanyahu

Thus destroy Israel, the Israeli state, the Israeli anbility to defend itself

America is using the inquiry in order to place ITS people on it, in order to DESTROY netanyahu and to create deep divisions inside Israeli society

the American Government is hostile to the Jews and is hostile to Israel

Is this what Left Fascist Sean Matgamma of Workers Liberty meant in his latest article. Matgamma the great “revolutionary” is now aligned with Obama!!!!

Please study the following Debka article. Note also that it is TOO negative. It does not see any way out for Israel. It accepts Israel will be defeated.

But with clear revolutionary leadership Israel can win because there are millions who hate Islam, hate Obama but what it needs is a revolutionary party to mobilize.

After eight months of back-breaking work, the American military engineers helping Egypt build a steel anti-smuggling wall along the strategic Philadelphi Route dividing Gaza from Sinai were suddenly recalled, debkafile’s military sources report – signaling the collapse of Egypt’s blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Washington thus abandoned its half-a-billion dollar investment in the joint Egyptian-Israeli siege project.
Also Wednesday, June 9, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu again dispersed his inner cabinet without a decision after three days of chewing over various formats for an impartial probe of Israel’s commando raid of the Turkish-led blockade-busting flotilla of May 31.
Washington’s insistence on attaching international “teeth” – and not just American observers – to the probe has stalled Israel’s acceptance. debkafile’s political sources report that for Netanyahu as well as the defense minister Ehud Barak who ordered and scripted the raid, acceptance of a broad international inquiry as demanded by the UN secretary general and Turkey would be suicidal in domestic political terms.
Even full status for American panel members would for the first time give Washington a say in determining the political fate of the witnesses called, i.e. Netanyahu and Barak, first and foremost.

What US president Barack Obama did this week was to go back to his confrontational posture against the Israeli prime minister, at the very moment that Israeli leaders had their backs to the wall against a worldwide onslaught over the flotilla incident orchestrated from Ankara and Tehran.
Washington has now set its face on a new track: salvaging its ties with Turkey by burning the Netanyahu government. Gone is the well-publicized conciliatory rhetoric from the president, the vice president, secretary of state and chief of staff (who brought to his son to Jerusalem for his bar mitzvah) of the past few weeks.
In the absence of an Israeli demand to focus the inquiry on Ankara’s “aid” flotilla project, it will not be hard to single out the culprits for taking the rap – Netanyahu as prime minister and therefore ultimately responsible, and his Defense Minister Barak, the solo performer.
Barak asked no one before ordering chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi and the generals to go ahead with the raid of the six-vessel flotilla, after no more than a cursory word with the prime minister who was then visiting Canada. He did not put members of the security-political cabinet in the picture, or even Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon who was standing in for Netanyahu.
All the same, none of the ministers are in a hurry to endorse a probe that might fatally destabilize the government they serve. debkafile’s Washington sources report that Obama administration is also delaying a decision in order to punish Netanyahu and please Erdogan. He also hopes to use the controversy over the inquiry as a lever to free Hamas (which is incidentally listed by the US as a terror group) of the Israeli blockade.
Washington has already made its first move to that end by recalling the US army engineers building Egypt’s siege wall during Vice President Joe Biden’s talks with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak at Sharm el Sheikh and meetings with officials in Cairo Tuesday and Wednesday, June 8-9.
Reporting to the Vice President, the American engineers’ commanders and their Egyptian military colleagues painted a bleak picture of the troubles dogging their efforts to building a steel wall for blocking the arms-smuggling tunnels into Gaza.

They reported they had thwarted at every turn by amas engineers, actively assisted by Iranian, Syrian and Hizballah experts, who had managed to infiltrate the Gaza Strip through the contraband tunnels.

Hamas buried giant burners 18 meters below the surface of the sand to melt the steel wall’s foundations; its operatives then made off with the steel plates and used them to build their own fortifications.
During his talks in Cairo, Biden decided to give up on that project as well as another in the planning stage: A huge pump and pipeline for flooding the tunnels with Mediterranean water. The Vice president and Egyptian officials ended up discussing re-opening the Gaza crossings for people and goods and using European and Egyptian monitors to filter out weapons and terrorists from shore stations.
debkafile’s military sources report this plan harks back to the failed arrangements brokered by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2005 after Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and which never worked. The European monitors fled their posts after Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups started shooting at them. The situation now is even more dangerous, because foreign monitors would have to contend additionally with the new al Qaeda cells which have since sprung up in the southern Gaza Strip.
What Biden is proposing now is to virtually abandon US and Egyptian attempts to block the arms smuggling tunnels altogether – a proposal, debkafile’s military sources predict, will bring to an end the Israel-Egyptian blockade of Gaza and allow Hamas to resume its unfettered arms imports through those tunnels.
In those circumstances, the pressure on Israel to end its sea blockade will be unrelenting. The Netanyahu government may have no option but to compromise by agreeing to let cargo ships, including Iranian vessels, through, with European monitors stationed on Gaza’s shore to inspect incoming freights.
As recently as Sunday, Netanyahu vowed not to allow an Iranian port to be established in the Gaza Strip. By Wednesday, he looked as though he would have to eat his words.


It is now clear that Obama is behind Erdogan. The aim is to destroy Israel as soon as is possible and as the crisis in capitalism intensifies so will the alliance between Imperialism and reactionary Nazi Islam and Sharia Law, with the Vatican tagging along or in the lead, be intensified

In answer to Ted Belman and Israpundit and his reactionary flunkeys there

The answer is to end the capitalist system because no matter who is in power in the White House it will be the same for the Jews and Israel.

Jews must adopt the revolutionary socialist road to save their race and culture.