thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-05-22--The ‘Clean Break’ Doctrine: A Modern-Day Sykes-Picot Waging War and Havoc in the Middle East

n 1996 a task force , led by Richard Perle , produced a policy document titled “ A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ” for Benjamin Netanyahu , who was then in his first term as Prime Minister of Israel , as a how-to manual on approaching regime change in the Middle East and for the destruction of the Oslo Accords .
The “ Clean Break ” policy document outlined these goals : 1 ) Ending Yasser Arafat ’ s and the Palestinian Authority ’ s political influence , by blaming them for acts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States to overthrow Saddam Hussein ’ s regime in Iraq .
3 ) Launching war against Syria after Saddam ’ s regime is disposed of 4 ) Followed by military action against Iran , Saudi Arabia , and Egypt .
“ Clean Break ” was also in direct opposition to the Oslo Accords , to which Netanyahu was very much itching to obliterate .
The Oslo II Accord was signed just the year before , on September 28th 1995 , in Taba , Egypt .
During the Oslo Accord peace process , Likud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government of being “ removed from Jewish tradition…and Jewish values.
” Rallies organised by the Likud and other right-wing fundamentalist groups featured depictions of Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform or in the crosshairs of a gun .
In July 1995 , Netanyahu went so far as to lead a mock funeral procession for Rabin , featuring a coffin and hangman ’ s noose .
The Oslo Accords was the initiation of a process which was to lead to a peace treaty based on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
” If such a peace treaty were to occur , with the United States backing , it would have prevented much of the mayhem that has occurred since .
However , the central person to ensuring this process , Yitzak Rabin , was assassinated just a month and a half after the signing of the Oslo II Accord , on November 4th , 1995 .
Netanyahu became prime minister of Israel seven months later .
“ Clean Break ” was produced the following year .
On November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ha ’ aretz , Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin , who was the chief negotiator of the Oslo peace accords , warned those Israelis who argued that it were impossible to make peace with the Palestinians : On Oct. 5 , 2003 , for the first time in 30 years , Israel launched bombing raids against Syria , targeting a purported “ Palestinian terrorist camp ” inside Syrian territory .
Washington stood by and did nothing to prevent further escalation .
“ Clean Break ” was officially launched in March 2003 with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ The War on Terror ” .
The real agenda was a western backed list of regime changes in the Middle East to fit the plans of the United Kingdom , the U.S. and Israel .
However , the affair is much more complicated than that with each player holding their own “ idea ” of what the “ plan ” is .
Before we can fully appreciate such a scope , we must first understand what was Sykes-Picot and how did it shape today ’ s world mayhem .
WWI was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost immediately following the Balkan wars ( 1912-1913 ) which had greatly weakened the Ottoman Empire .
Never one to miss an opportunity when smelling fresh blood , the British were very keen on acquiring what they saw as strategic territories for the taking under the justification of being in war-time , which in the language of geopolitics translates to “ the right to plunder anything one can get their hands on ” .
The brilliance of Britain ’ s plan to garner these new territories was not to fight the Ottoman Empire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internal rebellion from within .
These Arab territories would be encouraged by Britain to rebel for their independence from the Ottoman Empire and that Britain would support them in this cause .
These Arab territories were thus led to believe that they were fighting for their own freedom when , in fact , they were fighting for British and secondarily French colonial interests .
In order for all Arab leaders to sign on to the idea of rebelling against the Ottoman Sultan , there needed to be a viable leader that was Arab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rebel at the behest of Britain .
Lord Kitchener , the butcher of Sudan , was to be at the helm of this operation as Britain ’ s Minister of War .
Kitchener ’ s choice for Arab leadership was the scion of the Hashemite dynasty , Hussein ibn Ali , known as the Sherif of Mecca who ruled the region of Hejaz under the Ottoman Sultan .
Hardinge of the British India Office disagreed with this choice and wanted Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud instead , however , Lord Kitchener overruled this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arabs would follow Hussein .
Since the Young Turk Revolution which seized power of the Ottoman government in 1908 , Hussein was very aware that his dynasty was in no way guaranteed and thus he was open to Britain ’ s invitation to crown him King of the Arab kingdom .
Kitchener wrote to one of Hussein ’ s sons , Abdallah , as reassurance of Britain ’ s support : “ If the Arab nation assist England in this war that has been forced upon us by Turkey , England will guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arabia , and will give Arabs every assistance against foreign aggression.
” Sir Henry McMahon who was the British High Commissioner to Egypt , would have several correspondences with Sherif Hussein between July 1915 to March 1916 to convince Hussein to lead the rebellion for the “ independence ” of the Arab states .
However , in a private letter to India ’ s Viceroy Charles Hardinge sent on December 4th , 1915 , McMahon expressed a rather different view of what the future of Arabia would be , contrary to what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such a view meant that Arabia would be subject to Britain ’ s heavy handed “ advising ” in all its affairs , whether it sought it or not .
In the meantime , Sherif Hussein was receiving dispatches issued by the British Cairo office to the effect that the Arabs of Palestine , Syria , and Mesopotamia ( Iraq ) would be given independence guaranteed by Britain , if they rose up against the Ottoman Empire .
The French were understandably suspicious of Britain ’ s plans for these Arab territories .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria as intrinsically belonging to France , based on French conquests during the Crusades and their “ protection ” of the Catholic populations in the region .
Hussein was adamant that Beirut and Aleppo were to be given independence and completely rejected French presence in Arabia .
Britain was also not content to give the French all the concessions they demanded as their “ intrinsic ” colonial rights .
Francois Georges Picot was sent to negotiate with the British on November 23rd , 1915 .
He was chosen for this role due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party ” in France , which asserted that Syria and Palestine ( which they considered a single country ) were French property , for historical , economic , and cultural reasons .
Approximately six months later , the top secret terms of the agreement were signed on May 16th , 1916 .
The map showcases the agreed upon ‘ carving up ’ of these Arab territories , to be the new jewels of Britain and France .
Notice Palestine is marked as an international zone in yellow .
Palestine was recognised as something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other .
And thus , according to the gentlemen ’ s etiquette , meant that one would simply have to take it while the other wasn ’ t looking , which is exactly what happened .
In 1916 , Sir Mark Sykes created the Arab Bureau whose headquarters would be in Cairo , Egypt ( which was under British rule ) , as a branch of British Intelligence and under the direction of Lord Kitchener .
Among the notable members of the Arab Bureau was T.E .
Lawrence , better known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raison d ’ être of the Arab Bureau was to exact British control over Arabia via British Egypt .
The Arab revolt , led under the façade of King Hussein , was launched in Hejaz in early June 1916 , however , the hundreds of thousands of Arabs the British were expecting to defect from the Ottoman army and join the revolt…did not show up .
Instead , British aircraft and ships were deployed , along with Muslim troops from British Egypt and elsewhere in the Empire .
As the revolt continued to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Arabs themselves , to such a point that Britain was starting to despair of its success , T.E .
Lawrence ( who was known as “ the man with the gold ” ) , organised a confederation of Bedouin tribal chiefs to fight alongside the British forces in the Palestine and Syria campaigns .
In 1917 , War Minister Lloyd George ordered troops from British Egypt to invade Palestine , expressing his wish to General Allenby that Jerusalem be taken by Christmas .
Obligingly , on December 11th 1917 , Allenby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and declared martial law over the city ( see picture ) .
Allenby explained to Picot , that Jerusalem would remain under British military administration , for some time .
The British India Office invaded Mesopotamia and took Baghdad on March 11th , 1917 .
The southern province of Basra , largely Shi ’ ite , was to be British , while the ancient capital of Baghdad was to be under some form of British protectorate .
After the British conquests of Palestine and Mesopotamia , Syria would be taken by September 1918 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately , after a bit of squabbling , be left under French control or “ advisory ” .
The final settlement for allocation of territories was established in 1920 with the Treaty of Sevres which stipulated that Syria and Lebanon were to go to France , and that Mesopotamia ( Iraq ) and Palestine would be under British control with Arabia ( Hejaz ) being officially “ independent ” but ruled by British puppet monarchs .
Britain was also granted continued influence over Egypt , Cyprus and the Persian Gulf coast .
Faisal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and who had been under the “ tutelage ” of T.E .
Lawrence this whole time , was proclaimed King of Iraq , after his failed attempt as King over Greater Syria before the French chased him out with their military , recognising that he represented British interests .
As for Persia ( Iran ) , the British established their control through the infamous Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 , with Ahmed Shah .
In 1926 the Mosul Treaty was signed where Iraq got nominal control over the oil region and the interests were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , French ( 21.25 % ) and American ( 21.25 % ) oil companies .
As far as central Arabia was concerned , Hussein laid claim to the title Caliph in 1924 , which his rival Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud rejected and declared war , defeating the Hashemites .
Hussein abdicated and ibn Saud , the favourite of the British India Office , was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926 , which led to the founding of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia .
While the British were promising Arab rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his sons , the British were simultaneously promising a homeland in Palestine to the Jews .
In the Balfour Declaration of November 2nd , 1917 the following was declared : “ His majesty ’ s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people , and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object… ” Britain received the mandate over Palestine from the League of Nations in July 1922 .
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months , until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire .
In 1937 , a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands , thus making it necessary to partition the land .
The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel ’ s “ prescription ” and the revolt broke out again .
This time , Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand .
Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Following the riots , the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body .
In response to the revolt , the British government issued the White Paper of 1939 , which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state , inhabited by both Arabs and Jews .
Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself , it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th , 1947 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th , 1948 after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th , 1948 .
A New Strategy for Securing Whose Realm ?
Despite what its title would have you believe , “ Clean Break ” is neither a “ new strategy ” nor meant for “ securing ” anything .
It is also not the brainchild of fanatical neo-conservatives : Dick Cheney and Richard Perle , nor even that of crazed end-of-days fundamentalist Benjamin Netanyahu , but rather has the very distinct and lingering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clean Break ” is a continuation of Britain ’ s geopolitical game , and just as it used France during the Sykes-Picot days it is using the United States and Israel .
The role Israel has found itself playing in the Middle East could not exist if it were not for over 30 years of direct British occupation in Palestine and its direct responsibility for the construction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , which set a course for destruction and endless war in this region long before Israel ever existed .
It was also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Break ” by directly and fraudulently instigating an illegal war against Iraq to which the Chilcot Inquiry , aka Iraq Inquiry , released 7 years later , attests to .
This was done by the dubious reporting by British Intelligence setting the pretext for the U.S. ’ ultimate invasion into Iraq based off of fraudulent and forged evidence provided by GCHQ , unleashing the “ War on Terror ” , aka “ Clean Break ” outline for regime change in the Middle East .
In addition , the Libyan invasion in 2011 was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain .
In a report published by the British Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2016 , it was concluded that it was “ the UK and France in March 2011 which led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi ” .
The report concluded that the Libyan intervention was based on false pretence provided by British Intelligence and recklessly promoted by the British government .
If this were not enough , British Intelligence has also been caught behind the orchestrations of Russia-Gate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though the U.S. and Israeli military have done a good job at stealing the show , and though they certainly believe themselves to be the head of the show , the reality is that this age of empire is distinctly British and anyone who plays into this game will ultimately be playing for said interests , whether they are aware of it or not .

I
n 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then in his first term as Prime Minister of Israel, as a how-to manual on approaching regime change in the Middle East and for the destruction of the Oslo Accords.
The “Clean Break” policy document outlined these goals: 1) Ending Yasser Arafat’s and the Palestinian Authority’s political influence, by blaming them for acts of Palestinian terrorism 2) Inducing the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. 3) Launching war against Syria after Saddam’s regime is disposed of 4) Followed by military action against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
“Clean Break” was also in direct opposition to the Oslo Accords, to which Netanyahu was very much itching to obliterate. The Oslo II Accord was signed just the year before, on September 28th 1995, in Taba, Egypt.
During the Oslo Accord peace process, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu accused Rabin’s government of being “removed from Jewish tradition…and Jewish values.” Rallies organised by the Likud and other right-wing fundamentalist groups featured depictions of Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform or in the crosshairs of a gun. In July 1995, Netanyahu went so far as to lead a mock funeral procession for Rabin, featuring a coffin and hangman’s noose.
The Oslo Accords was the initiation of a process which was to lead to a peace treaty based on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and at fulfilling the “right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” If such a peace treaty were to occur, with the United States backing, it would have prevented much of the mayhem that has occurred since. However, the central person to ensuring this process, Yitzak Rabin, was assassinated just a month and a half after the signing of the Oslo II Accord, on November 4th, 1995. Netanyahu became prime minister of Israel seven months later. “Clean Break” was produced the following year.
On November 6th, 2000 in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, who was the chief negotiator of the Oslo peace accords, warned those Israelis who argued that it were impossible to make peace with the Palestinians:
“Zionism was founded in order to save Jews from persecution and anti-Semitism, and not in order to offer them a Jewish Sparta or – God forbid – a new Massada.”
On Oct. 5, 2003, for the first time in 30 years, Israel launched bombing raids against Syria, targeting a purported “Palestinian terrorist camp” inside Syrian territory. Washington stood by and did nothing to prevent further escalation.
“Clean Break” was officially launched in March 2003 with the war against Iraq, under the pretence of “The War on Terror”. The real agenda was a western backed list of regime changes in the Middle East to fit the plans of the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Israel. However, the affair is much more complicated than that with each player holding their own “idea” of what the “plan” is. Before we can fully appreciate such a scope, we must first understand what was Sykes-Picot and how did it shape today’s world mayhem.
Arabian Nights
WWI was to officially start July 28th 1914, almost immediately following the Balkan wars (1912-1913) which had greatly weakened the Ottoman Empire. Never one to miss an opportunity when smelling fresh blood, the British were very keen on acquiring what they saw as strategic territories for the taking under the justification of being in war-time, which in the language of geopolitics translates to “the right to plunder anything one can get their hands on”.
The brilliance of Britain’s plan to garner these new territories was not to fight the Ottoman Empire directly but rather, to invoke an internal rebellion from within. These Arab territories would be encouraged by Britain to rebel for their independence from the Ottoman Empire and that Britain would support them in this cause. These Arab territories were thus led to believe that they were fighting for their own freedom when, in fact, they were fighting for British and secondarily French colonial interests.
In order for all Arab leaders to sign on to the idea of rebelling against the Ottoman Sultan, there needed to be a viable leader that was Arab, for they certainly would not agree to rebel at the behest of Britain. Lord Kitchener, the butcher of Sudan, was to be at the helm of this operation as Britain’s Minister of War. Kitchener’s choice for Arab leadership was the scion of the Hashemite dynasty, Hussein ibn Ali, known as the Sherif of Mecca who ruled the region of Hejaz under the Ottoman Sultan. Hardinge of the British India Office disagreed with this choice and wanted Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud instead, however, Lord Kitchener overruled this stating that their intelligence revealed that more Arabs would follow Hussein.
Since the Young Turk Revolution which seized power of the Ottoman government in 1908, Hussein was very aware that his dynasty was in no way guaranteed and thus he was open to Britain’s invitation to crown him King of the Arab kingdom.
Kitchener wrote to one of Hussein’s sons, Abdallah, as reassurance of Britain’s support: “If the Arab nation assist England in this war that has been forced upon us by Turkey, England will guarantee that no internal intervention take place in Arabia, and will give Arabs every assistance against foreign aggression.”
Sir Henry McMahon who was the British High Commissioner to Egypt, would have several correspondences with Sherif Hussein between July 1915 to March 1916 to convince Hussein to lead the rebellion for the “independence” of the Arab states.
However, in a private letter to India’s Viceroy Charles Hardinge sent on December 4th, 1915, McMahon expressed a rather different view of what the future of Arabia would be, contrary to what he had led Sherif Hussein to believe:
“[I do not take] the idea of a future strong united independent Arab State … too seriously … the conditions of Arabia do not and will not for a very long time to come, lend themselves to such a thing.”
Such a view meant that Arabia would be subject to Britain’s heavy handed “advising” in all its affairs, whether it sought it or not.
In the meantime, Sherif Hussein was receiving dispatches issued by the British Cairo office to the effect that the Arabs of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia (Iraq) would be given independence guaranteed by Britain, if they rose up against the Ottoman Empire.
The French were understandably suspicious of Britain’s plans for these Arab territories. The French viewed Palestine, Lebanon and Syria as intrinsically belonging to France, based on French conquests during the Crusades and their “protection” of the Catholic populations in the region. Hussein was adamant that Beirut and Aleppo were to be given independence and completely rejected French presence in Arabia. Britain was also not content to give the French all the concessions they demanded as their “intrinsic” colonial rights.
Enter Sykes and Picot.
Sykes-Picot: the Gentlemen’s Etiquette on Backstabbing
Francois Georges Picot was sent to negotiate with the British on November 23rd, 1915. He was chosen for this role due to his policy outlook of the “Syrian party” in France, which asserted that Syria and Palestine (which they considered a single country) were French property, for historical, economic, and cultural reasons. Approximately six months later, the top secret terms of the agreement were signed on May 16th, 1916. The map showcases the agreed upon ‘carving up’ of these Arab territories, to be the new jewels of Britain and France.
Notice Palestine is marked as an international zone in yellow. Palestine was recognised as something neither country was willing to forfeit to the other. And thus, according to the gentlemen’s etiquette, meant that one would simply have to take it while the other wasn’t looking, which is exactly what happened.
In 1916, Sir Mark Sykes created the Arab Bureau whose headquarters would be in Cairo, Egypt (which was under British rule), as a branch of British Intelligence and under the direction of Lord Kitchener. Among the notable members of the Arab Bureau was T.E. Lawrence, better known as “Lawrence of Arabia”. The raison d’être of the Arab Bureau was to exact British control over Arabia via British Egypt.
The Arab revolt, led under the façade of King Hussein, was launched in Hejaz in early June 1916, however, the hundreds of thousands of Arabs the British were expecting to defect from the Ottoman army and join the revolt…did not show up. Instead, British aircraft and ships were deployed, along with Muslim troops from British Egypt and elsewhere in the Empire. As the revolt continued to show its weaknesses and lack of support by the Arabs themselves, to such a point that Britain was starting to despair of its success, T.E. Lawrence (who was known as “the man with the gold”), organised a confederation of Bedouin tribal chiefs to fight alongside the British forces in the Palestine and Syria campaigns.
In 1917, War Minister Lloyd George ordered troops from British Egypt to invade Palestine, expressing his wish to General Allenby that Jerusalem be taken by Christmas. Obligingly, on December 11th 1917, Allenby walked into Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate and declared martial law over the city (see picture). Allenby explained to Picot, that Jerusalem would remain under British military administration, for some time.
The British India Office invaded Mesopotamia and took Baghdad on March 11th, 1917. The southern province of Basra, largely Shi’ite, was to be British, while the ancient capital of Baghdad was to be under some form of British protectorate.
After the British conquests of Palestine and Mesopotamia, Syria would be taken by September 1918 by British led forces and Damascus would ultimately, after a bit of squabbling, be left under French control or “advisory”.
The final settlement for allocation of territories was established in 1920 with the Treaty of Sevres which stipulated that Syria and Lebanon were to go to France, and that Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine would be under British control with Arabia (Hejaz) being officially “independent” but ruled by British puppet monarchs. Britain was also granted continued influence over Egypt, Cyprus and the Persian Gulf coast.
Faisal, the son of Hussein ibn Ali and who had been under the “tutelage” of T.E. Lawrence this whole time, was proclaimed King of Iraq, after his failed attempt as King over Greater Syria before the French chased him out with their military, recognising that he represented British interests.
As for Persia (Iran), the British established their control through the infamous Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919, with Ahmed Shah.
In 1926 the Mosul Treaty was signed where Iraq got nominal control over the oil region and the interests were divvied up among British (52.5%), French (21.25%) and American (21.25%) oil companies.
As far as central Arabia was concerned, Hussein laid claim to the title Caliph in 1924, which his rival Wahhabite Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud rejected and declared war, defeating the Hashemites. Hussein abdicated and ibn Saud, the favourite of the British India Office, was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926, which led to the founding of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The Fate of Palestine
While the British were promising Arab rule and independence to the Hashemite Hussein and his sons, the British were simultaneously promising a homeland in Palestine to the Jews. In the Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917 the following was declared:
“His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…”
Britain received the mandate over Palestine from the League of Nations in July 1922.
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in Palestine costing hundreds of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire. In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it necessary to partition the land.
The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel’s “prescription” and the revolt broke out again. This time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the British armed forces and police. Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.
In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947. Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.
A New Strategy for Securing Whose Realm?
Despite what its title would have you believe, “Clean Break” is neither a “new strategy” nor meant for “securing” anything. It is also not the brainchild of fanatical neo-conservatives: Dick Cheney and Richard Perle, nor even that of crazed end-of-days fundamentalist Benjamin Netanyahu, but rather has the very distinct and lingering odour of the British Empire.
“Clean Break” is a continuation of Britain’s geopolitical game, and just as it used France during the Sykes-Picot days it is using the United States and Israel. The role Israel has found itself playing in the Middle East could not exist if it were not for over 30 years of direct British occupation in Palestine and its direct responsibility for the construction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which set a course for destruction and endless war in this region long before Israel ever existed.
It was also Britain who officially launched operation “Clean Break” by directly and fraudulently instigating an illegal war against Iraq to which the Chilcot Inquiry, aka Iraq Inquiry, released 7 years later, attests to. This was done by the dubious reporting by British Intelligence setting the pretext for the U.S.’ ultimate invasion into Iraq based off of fraudulent and forged evidence provided by GCHQ, unleashing the “War on Terror”, aka “Clean Break” outline for regime change in the Middle East.
In addition, the Libyan invasion in 2011 was also found to be unlawfully instigated by Britain. In a report published by the British Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2016, it was concluded that it was “the UK and France in March 2011 which led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi”. The report concluded that the Libyan intervention was based on false pretence provided by British Intelligence and recklessly promoted by the British government.
If this were not enough, British Intelligence has also been caught behind the orchestrations of Russia-Gate and the Skripal affair.
Therefore, though the U.S. and Israeli military have done a good job at stealing the show, and though they certainly believe themselves to be the head of the show, the reality is that this age of empire is distinctly British and anyone who plays into this game will ultimately be playing for said interests, whether they are aware of it or not.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-05-22--Memories of U.S. Terrorism against Cuba (Dossier)

By Ángel Guerra Cabrera on May 21 , 2020 uban State Security has documented 581 acts of aggression in 41 countries against the island ’ s diplomatic personnel and buildings abroad .
Here I am talking specifically about twothat touched me personally .
The high-powered bomb that exploded in the Cuban embassy in Lisbon around 5 p.m. when the young children of Cuban diplomats returning from school were entering the place .
Like lightning it struck Adriana Corcho Calleja and Efrén Monteagudo Rodríguez , 35 and 33 years old respectively , officials of the diplomatic headquarters .
The device was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the departments that formed part of the Cuban embassy by an individual who entered the old building and left in a hurry .
That was April 22 , 1976 , four months after Cuban troops defeated a major attack carefully organized by the CIA against the nascent People ’ s Republic of Angola .
The United States launched a powerful column of the racist South African army , numerous forces from neighboring Zaire and experienced white mercenaries against the young state .
Realizing what was coming , Angolan President Agustino Neto requested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met Adriana during a journalism assignment Lisbon during the Carnation Revolution and this made me shudder even more at the news of the terrorist attack .
Very close to where the bomb exploded we had talked on more than one occasion and I was able to get an understanding of her revolutionary thinking , professional competence and solid character .
The first military defeat by Cuba in Angola – and even a much more resounding one in 1988 – infuriated the government of President Gerald Ford and in particular the CIA .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and following another one with the bombing of the Cubana Airliner over Barbados killing 73 , Fidel Castro said , “ In recent months the U.S. government , resentful of Cuba ’ s contribution to the defeat suffered by the imperialists and racists in Africa , along with brutal threats of aggression , unleashed a series of terrorist activities against Cuba .
That campaign has been intensifying for days and has been directed , fundamentally , against our diplomatic headquarters and our airlines.
” On September 11 , 1979 , Félix García , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission to the United Nations headquarters in New York , was on his way to a dinner in the Queens neighborhood , after having accompanied Chilean friends to an event to remember President Salvador Allende , who had been assassinated exactly six years earlier in a coup d ’ état orchestrated by the CIA , but he never reached his destination .
When his car stopped at a traffic light , the terrorist Pedro Remón , trained in this type of action by the US intelligence agency , fired a burst of shots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his life .
Never again would Felix light up my office at Bohemia magazine with his blithe Creole words and personal compassion .
Felix is the only case of a diplomat accredited to the United Nations who has been killed in New York .
Remon claimed responsibility for the crime in calls to the media , but it was not until the late 1980s that he was tried and convicted by a U.S. court , when his bloody terrorist actions had begun to damage Washington ’ s interests .
By the way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he continued his terrorist activity against Cuba , inside and outside the United States , with absolute impunity .
These two cases are among the most notable attacks perpetrated against Cuban headquarters and diplomatic officials , but blood has also flowed in many others , not only Cuban , but of people of other nationalities .
Right here in Mexico , the same terrorist Pedro Remón took part in an attempted kidnapping , in 1976 , of Daniel Ferrer Hernández , the Cuban consul in Mérida , in which the Cuban fishing technician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of terrorism against Cuba and , in particular , against its diplomatic headquarters , is a long one .
But there is reason to believe that the fascist mafia in Miami and the cronies in the ( dis ) government of Donald Trump intend to encourage a return to such practices .
The United States continues to be complicit in the machine-gunning of the Cuban embassy in Washington on April 30 .
And yet not a word about such a serious event from the State Department seems to hide something unutterable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cleared up in accordance with the laws of the United States and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations , it will set a terrible precedent .

By Ángel Guerra Cabrera on May 21, 2020
C
uban State Security has documented 581 acts of aggression in 41 countries against the island’s diplomatic personnel and buildings abroad. Here I am talking specifically about twothat touched me personally. The high-powered bomb that exploded in the Cuban embassy in Lisbon around 5 p.m. when the young children of Cuban diplomats returning from school were entering the place. Like lightning it struck Adriana Corcho Calleja and Efrén Monteagudo Rodríguez, 35 and 33 years old respectively, officials of the diplomatic headquarters. The device was left next to the door of one of the departments that formed part of the Cuban embassy by an individual who entered the old building and left in a hurry.
That was April 22, 1976, four months after Cuban troops defeated a major attack carefully organized by the CIA against the nascent People’s Republic of Angola. The United States launched a powerful column of the racist South African army, numerous forces from neighboring Zaire and experienced white mercenaries against the young state. Realizing what was coming, Angolan President Agustino Neto requested Cuba’s support. I had met Adriana during a journalism assignment Lisbon during the Carnation Revolution and this made me shudder even more at the news of the terrorist attack. Very close to where the bomb exploded we had talked on more than one occasion and I was able to get an understanding of her revolutionary thinking, professional competence and solid character.
The first military defeat by Cuba in Angola – and even a much more resounding one in 1988 – infuriated the government of President Gerald Ford and in particular the CIA. Just six months after the crime in Lisbon and following another one with the bombing of the Cubana Airliner over Barbados killing 73, Fidel Castro said, “In recent months the U.S. government, resentful of Cuba’s contribution to the defeat suffered by the imperialists and racists in Africa, along with brutal threats of aggression, unleashed a series of terrorist activities against Cuba. That campaign has been intensifying for days and has been directed, fundamentally, against our diplomatic headquarters and our airlines.”
On September 11, 1979, Félix García, my friend and diplomat from the Cuban mission to the United Nations headquarters in New York, was on his way to a dinner in the Queens neighborhood, after having accompanied Chilean friends to an event to remember President Salvador Allende, who had been assassinated exactly six years earlier in a coup d’état orchestrated by the CIA, but he never reached his destination.
When his car stopped at a traffic light, the terrorist Pedro Remón, trained in this type of action by the US intelligence agency, fired a burst of shots at him from a motorcycle, ending his life. Never again would Felix light up my office at Bohemia magazine with his blithe Creole words and personal compassion.
Felix is the only case of a diplomat accredited to the United Nations who has been killed in New York. Remon claimed responsibility for the crime in calls to the media, but it was not until the late 1980s that he was tried and convicted by a U.S. court, when his bloody terrorist actions had begun to damage Washington’s interests.
By the way, as soon as he served his sentence he continued his terrorist activity against Cuba, inside and outside the United States, with absolute impunity.
A terrorist's nostalgia album
These two cases are among the most notable attacks perpetrated against Cuban headquarters and diplomatic officials, but blood has also flowed in many others, not only Cuban, but of people of other nationalities. Right here in Mexico, the same terrorist Pedro Remón took part in an attempted kidnapping, in 1976, of Daniel Ferrer Hernández, the Cuban consul in Mérida, in which the Cuban fishing technician Artagnan Díaz Díaz was murdered.
The history of terrorism against Cuba and, in particular, against its diplomatic headquarters, is a long one. But there is reason to believe that the fascist mafia in Miami and the cronies in the (dis)government of Donald Trump intend to encourage a return to such practices.
The United States continues to be complicit in the machine-gunning of the Cuban embassy in Washington on April 30. And yet not a word about such a serious event from the State Department seems to hide something unutterable. If this attack is not investigated and cleared up in accordance with the laws of the United States and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, it will set a terrible precedent.
Source: La Jornada, translation Resumen Latinoamericano, North America bureau


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-05-22--Bertrand Russell’s Advice For How (Not) to Grow Old: “Make Your Interests Gradually Wider and More I

Bertrand Russell’s Advice For How (Not) to Grow Old: “Make Your Interests Gradually Wider and More Impersonal”

n spite of the title , this article will really be on how not to grow old , which , at my time of life , is a much more important subject .
My first advice would be to choose your ancestors carefully .
Although both my parents died young , I have done well in this respect as regards my other ancestors .
My maternal grandfather , it is true , was cut off in the flower of his youth at the age of sixty-seven , but my other three grandparents all lived to be over eighty .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who did not live to a great age , and he died of a disease which is now rare , namely , having his head cut off .
A great-grandmother of mine , who was a friend of Gibbon , lived to the age of ninety-two , and to her last day remained a terror to all her descendants .
My maternal grandmother , after having nine children who survived , one who died in infancy , and many miscarriages , as soon as she became a widow devoted herself to women ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the founders of Girton College , and worked hard at opening the medical profession to women .
She used to tell of how she met in Italy an elderly gentleman who was looking very sad .
She asked him why he was so melancholy and he said that he had just parted from his two grandchildren .
‘ Good gracious , ’ she exclaimed , ‘ I have seventy-two grandchildren , and if I were sad each time I parted from one of them , I should have a miserable existence !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he replied .
But speaking as one of the seventy-two , I prefer her recipe .
After the age of eighty she found she had some difficulty in getting to sleep , so she habitually spent the hours from midnight to 3 a.m. in reading popular science .
I do not believe that she ever had time to notice that she was growing old .
This , I think , is the proper recipe for remaining young .
If you have wide and keen interests and activities in which you can still be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think about the merely statistical fact of the number of years you have already lived , still less of the probable shortness of your future .
n spite of the title , this article will really be on how not to grow old , which , at my time of life , is a much more important subject .
My first advice would be to choose your ancestors carefully .
Although both my parents died young , I have done well in this respect as regards my other ancestors .
My maternal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut off in the flower of his youth at the age of sixty-seven , but my other three grandparents all lived to be over eighty .
Of remoter ancestors I can only discover one who did not live to a great age , and he died of a disease which is now rare , namely , having his head cut off .
A great-grandmother of mine , who was a friend of Gibbon , lived to the age of ninety-two , and to her last day remained a terror to all her descendants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nine children who survived , one who died in infancy , and many miscarriages , as soon as she became a widow devoted herself to women ’ s higher education .
She was one of the founders of Girton College , and worked hard at opening the medical profession to women .
She used to tell of how she met in Italy an elderly gentleman who was looking very sad .
She asked him why he was so melancholy and he said that he had just parted from his two grandchildren .
‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ I have seventy-two grandchildren , and if I were sad each time I parted from one of them , I should have a miserable existence !
’ ‘ Madre snaturale !
, ’ he replied .
But speaking as one of the seventy-two , I prefer her recipe .
After the age of eighty she found she had some difficulty in getting to sleep , so she habitually spent the hours from midnight to 3 a.m. in reading popular science .
I do not believe that she ever had time to notice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think , is the proper recipe for remaining young .
If you have wide and keen interests and activities in which you can still be effective , you will have no reason to think about the merely statistical fact of the number of years you have already lived , still less of the probable shortness of your future .
As regards health , I have nothing useful to say as I have little experience of illness .
I eat and drink whatever I like , and sleep when I can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever on the ground that it is good for health , though in actual fact the things I like doing are mostly wholesome .
Psychologically there are two dangers to be guarded against in old age .
One of these is undue absorption in the past .
It does not do to live in memories , in regrets for the good old days , or in sadness about friends who are dead .
One ’ s thoughts must be directed to the future , and to things about which there is something to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy ; one ’ s own past is a gradually increasing weight .
It is easy to think to oneself that one ’ s emotions used to be more vivid than they are , and one ’ s mind more keen .
If this is true it should be forgotten , and if it is forgotten it will probably not be true .
The other thing to be avoided is clinging to youth in the hope of sucking vigour from its vitality .
When your children are grown up they want to live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to be as interested in them as you were when they were young , you are likely to become a burden to them , unless they are unusually callous .
I do not mean that one should be without interest in them , but one ’ s interest should be contemplative and , if possible , philanthropic , but not unduly emotional .
Animals become indifferent to their young as soon as their young can look after themselves , but human beings , owing to the length of infancy , find this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old age is easiest for those who have strong impersonal interests involving appropriate activities .
It is in this sphere that long experience is really fruitful , and it is in this sphere that the wisdom born of experience can be exercised without being oppressive .
It is no use telling grownup children not to make mistakes , both because they will not believe you , and because mistakes are an essential part of education .
But if you are one of those who are incapable of impersonal interests , you may find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you concern yourself with your children and grandchildren .
In that case you must realise that while you can still render them material services , such as making them an allowance or knitting them jumpers , you must not expect that they will enjoy your company .
Some old people are oppressed by the fear of death .
In the young there there is a justification for this feeling .
Young men who have reason to fear that they will be killed in battle may justifiably feel bitter in the thought that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that life has to offer .
But in an old man who has known human joys and sorrows , and has achieved whatever work it was in him to do , the fear of death is somewhat abject and ignoble .
The best way to overcome it -so at least it seems to me- is to make your interests gradually wider and more impersonal , until bit by bit the walls of the ego recede , and your life becomes increasingly merged in the universal life .
An individual human existence should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , narrowly contained within its banks , and rushing passionately past rocks and over waterfalls .
Gradually the river grows wider , the banks recede , the waters flow more quietly , and in the end , without any visible break , they become merged in the sea , and painlessly lose their individual being .
The man who , in old age , can see his life in this way , will not suffer from the fear of death , since the things he cares for will continue .
And if , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increases , the thought of rest will not be unwelcome .
I should wish to die while still at work , knowing that others will carry on what I can no longer do and content in the thought that what was possible has been done .
[ from “ Portraits From Memory And Other Essays ” ] [ from “ Portraits From Memory And Other Essays ” ]

Up to You.
^3000US citizens have no real political representation.
We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.
I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.
What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.
And its multitude of minions and lackeys.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-05-23--The Empire (Continues) to Strike Back: United States Strategic Approach to The People’s Republic of

The Empire (Continues) to Strike Back: United States Strategic Approach to The People’s Republic of China

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible .
Share with kin , friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise .
You can read the document here , or , if that fails because the US mandarins have suddenly disappeared it , here .
Comments by lucid minds are attached .
Exceptional State reasoning : China does not show expected signs of wanting to be just like us .
Conclusion : We need to modernise our nuclear weapons .
Logical , no ?
—Diana Johnstone This American official anti-China stance is not recent and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ product of the MIC which does no business with China , in fact competes against China in the arms market ( as it does with Russia ) , and depends on enemies to make its living .
Given the MIC 's mesmerizing hold over America since the [ end of ] WW2 , their policy is therefore supported by everyone in the American swamp .
If CCP is sharp and I believe they are because it did n't take penetrating analysis for me to notice it , they should have been preparing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably earlier .
I believe that Xi 's tenure has been extended indefinitely and his exercise of raw power to clean house at the highest level of government , are the clues of CCP 's reactions to US anti-China intentions .
In fact , selecting Xi could be the reaction of the CCP preparing for the day it can not pretend to be small any more .
Make no mistake , cleaning house for CCP is a difficult and thankless task , at times dangerous .
Others such as Zhu Rongji and Hu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success .
Cleaning house takes away a lot of people 's cheese and upsets a lot of powerful people 's apple-carts .
China is a big place with a lot of people .
There are millions of soldiers , military police , and civil police .
The CCP is a big party running a big country in a complicated world .
The house cleaning must be done delicately and with finesse , so that the CCP does not harm itself in the process .
Certainly there has been a lot of corruption ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , but the most dangerous are the CCP officials who have been corrupted and manipulated by their Western friends .
China must be defended in the coming battle by a clean CCP house .
Xi was selected as the best person to do the job and he was given the power to do the job .
It takes a brave man to do what Xi has done .
Xi was not the head of any clique nor was he involved in any plot to seize power .
He was just well supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the CCP power structure .
At this point , China under Xi is well positioned to face down the US under Trump , or under any other imbecile the American people decide to elect as their next leader .
We 'll see .
— Peter Man United States Strategic Approach to The People ’ s Republic of China Since the United States and the People ’ s Republic of China ( PRC ) established diplomatic relations in 1979 , United States policy toward the PRC was largely premised on a hope that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political opening in the PRC and lead to its emergence as a constructive and responsible global stakeholder , with a more open society .
More than 40 years later , it has become evident that this approach underestimated the will of the Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) to constrain the scope of economic and political reform in China .
Over the past two decades , reforms have slowed , stalled , or reversed .
The PRC ’ s rapid economic development and increased engagement with the world did not lead to convergence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order as the United States had hoped .
The CCP has chosen instead to exploit the free and open rules based order and attempt to reshape the international system in its favor .
Beijing openly acknowledges that it seeks to transform the international order to align with CCP interests and ideology .
The CCP ’ s expanding use of economic , political , and military power to compel acquiescence from nation states harms vital American interests and undermines the sovereignty and dignity of countries and individuals around the world .
To respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has adopted a competitive approach to the PRC , based on a clear-eyed assessment of the CCP ’ s intentions and actions , a reappraisal of the United States ’ many strategic advantages and shortfalls , and a tolerance of greater bilateral friction .
Our approach is not premised on determining a particular end state for China .
Rather , our goal is to protect United States vital national interests , as articulated in the four pillars of the 2017 National Security Strategy of the United States of America ( NSS ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect the American people , homeland , and way of life ; ( 2 ) promote American prosperity ; ( 3 ) preserve peace through strength ; and ( 4 ) advance American influence .
Our competitive approach to the PRC has two objectives : first , to improve the resiliency of our institutions , alliances , and partnerships to prevail against the challenges the PRC presents ; and second , to compel Beijing to cease or reduce actions harmful to the United States ’ vital , national interests and those of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compete with the PRC , we welcome cooperation where our interests align .
Competition need not lead to confrontation or conflict .
The United States has a deep and abiding respect for the Chinese people and enjoys longstanding ties to the country .
We do not seek to contain China ’ s development , nor do we wish to disengage from the Chinese people .
The United States expects to engage in fair competition with the PRC , whereby both of our nations , businesses , and individuals can enjoy security and prosperity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PRC requires cooperative engagement with multiple stakeholders , and the Administration is committed to building partnerships to United States Strategic Approach to The People ’ s Republic of China 2 protect our shared interests and values .
Vital partners of this Administration include the Congress , state and local governments , the private sector , civil society , and academia .
The Congress has been speaking out through hearings , statements , and reports that shed light on the CCP ’ s malign behavior .
The Congress also provides legal authorities and resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actions to achieve our strategic objectives .
The Administration also recognizes the steps allies and partners have taken to develop more clear-eyed and robust approaches toward the PRC , including the European Union ’ s publication in March 2019 of EU-China : A Strategic Outlook , among others .
The United States is also building cooperative partnerships and developing positive alternatives with foreign allies , partners , and international organizations to support the shared principles of a free and open order .
Specific to the Indo-Pacific region , many of these initiatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Defense June 2019 IndoPacific Strategy Report and the Department of State November 2019 report on A Free and Open Indo-Pacific : Advancing a Shared Vision .
The United States is working in concert with mutually aligned visions and approaches such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nation ’ s Outlook on the Indo-Pacific , Japan ’ s free and open Indo-Pacific vision , India ’ s Security and Growth for All in the Region policy , Australia ’ s Indo-Pacific concept , the Republic of Korea ’ s New Southern Policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy .
Yada , yada , yada .
READ ON This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License Do people get the government they deserve ?
• remember : ALL CAPTIONS , IMAGES , PULL QUOTES AND ANNOTATIONS BY THE EDITORS , NOT THE AUTHOR—

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
Prefatory note: The Exceptional Nation continues to make it official: it just "won't accept, it won't tolerate" the rise of an independent multilateralist China. [or Russia, for that matter). Written in the usual self-important corporado-diplomatic language used in such high-falutin documents, Washington's latest declaration is as menacing as it is risible. It is also a typical product of the unrealistic hodge-podge that passes for clear and righteous reasoning in a Neocon-infested foreign policy establishment long marinated in oceans of hubris. The result is a stunningly hypocritical pronouncement couched in all the usual exceptionalist claptrap about the sacrosanct "American way of life" (savage capitalism) and "US vital interests" (the interests of the oligarchic 0.0001%) and the American nation's God-given, immutable place of paramount power in the world. —P. Greanville
You can read the document here, or, if that fails because the US mandarins have suddenly disappeared it, here. Comments by lucid minds are attached.
Exceptional State reasoning:
China does not show expected signs of wanting to be just like us.
Conclusion: We need to modernise our nuclear weapons.
Logical, no? —Diana Johnstone
This American official anti-China stance is not recent and not a Trump anomaly. It is a product of the MIC which does no business with China, in fact competes against China in the arms market (as it does with Russia), and depends on enemies to make its living. Given the MIC's mesmerizing hold over America since the [end of ] WW2, their policy is therefore supported by everyone in the American swamp. If CCP is sharp and I believe they are because it didn't take penetrating analysis for me to notice it, they should have been preparing for this day since Xi took office, probably earlier. I believe that Xi's tenure has been extended indefinitely and his exercise of raw power to clean house at the highest level of government, are the clues of CCP's reactions to US anti-China intentions.
In fact, selecting Xi could be the reaction of the CCP preparing for the day it cannot pretend to be small any more. Make no mistake, cleaning house for CCP is a difficult and thankless task, at times dangerous. Others such as Zhu Rongji and Hu jintao have tried before but with limited success. Cleaning house takes away a lot of people's cheese and upsets a lot of powerful people's apple-carts. China is a big place with a lot of people. There are millions of soldiers, military police, and civil police. The CCP is a big party running a big country in a complicated world. The house cleaning must be done delicately and with finesse, so that the CCP does not harm itself in the process. Certainly there has been a lot of corruption (what do you expect from humans?), but the most dangerous are the CCP officials who have been corrupted and manipulated by their Western friends. China must be defended in the coming battle by a clean CCP house. Xi was selected as the best person to do the job and he was given the power to do the job. It takes a brave man to do what Xi has done. Xi was not the head of any clique nor was he involved in any plot to seize power. He was just well supported by the elders at the top rungs of the CCP power structure. At this point, China under Xi is well positioned to face down the US under Trump, or under any other imbecile the American people decide to elect as their next leader. We'll see. — Peter Man
I appreciate that there have been modifications in the language and the organisational structure of those who form the executive action branch of the regime. However it seems to me that the adoption of factional designations like neo-con or neo-liberal confuses more than it clarifies. The reason is simple: these terms direct us to see some original or elemental system of rule that was implicitly better-if not benevolent- compared with the post-1945 regime. However there is no such earlier pristine America, whether Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, Lincolnian, Wilsonian or Rooseveltian. The USA was the prototype of Rhodesia except that Rhodesia was far too late.
George Washington was the Georg Soros of his day.
Of course this w**** house paper cannot be more decent than the cesspool in which it germinated.
There are still people who praise Hitler for his employment policies and the motorway and think Mussolini improved rail service in Italy.
But if you were to try to defend either on these points alone, many would deem you insane or fascist.
Yet there are still millions who believe that slavery and annihilation of the indigenous in North America were accidental and trivial elements of US history and the formation of the ruling elite.
p.s. of course no one says what was done with dead communists because there is no money at all to be made there. Larry Romanoff, who introduced me to Bacque's Other Losses insisted that many of the alleged KZ photos were not from Poland but from the US camps in the West. I cannot confirm or deny this assertion. However it raised a thought which I reiterate here. Germany under US occupation was restored to economic prosperity by four main factors: a) more than 60% of industry was actually untouched by allied bombing (since people like McCloy protected US industrial assets in Germany from bombing. b) the US secretly removed most of the valuable industrial plant from Saxony before the Red Army arrived. c) the US made countries like Greece waive reparations d) when the US attacked Korea German heavy industry was swamped with orders. The only country that was entitled to reparations was Rothschild's Palestinian/ Zionist colony. It would seem that these reparations were calculated on the basis of how many Jews had been killed. Zionists defined all Jews as de jure citizens. Hence ex post facto the Zionist state could claim per capita reparations for the murder of its fictive citizens. Hence there was every reason to present the mass murder by the NSDAP- not only anti-semitic but anti-Slav, anti-communist -and general as a terror system- as primarily a mega-pogrom. The more Jews the more reparations. The exclusivity which was introduced into the story once the little Rothschild offshore began territorial expansion (wars against Egypt etc) justified more transfers from and through Germany to Israel. We know that the Red Army -not the West- liberated all the camps in the East. The photo material initially used (but actually suppressed shortly after the war) was from the Russians. So it occurred to me- intuitively but without any more specific evidence- that Romanoff's suggestion that many of the photos used in the West to focus on German camp atrocities were not photos of camps in the East but camps in the West! The obvious function of such manipulation would be to promote the policy of the US - subordinating Germany (its citizens not its ruling elite) and creating the overall narrative for selling what Norman Finkelstein would later call the "holocaust industry". Ancillary to this hypothesis is simply the argument that there is no real inconsistency between the US regime's handling of mass murder at home and abroad: these are business transactions. Take a lampshade made from a dead Sioux and it is always better than one made from a dead Jew. Com os meus melhores cumprimentos. —Dr. T. P. Wilkinson
United States Strategic Approach to The People’s Republic of China
Introduction
Since the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) established diplomatic relations in 1979, United States policy toward the PRC was largely premised on a hope that deepening engagement would spur fundamental economic and political opening in the PRC and lead to its emergence as a constructive and responsible global stakeholder, with a more open society. More than 40 years later, it has become evident that this approach underestimated the will of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to constrain the scope of economic and political reform in China. Over the past two decades, reforms have slowed, stalled, or reversed. The PRC’s rapid economic development and increased engagement with the world did not lead to convergence with the citizen-centric, free and open order as the United States had hoped. The CCP has chosen instead to exploit the free and open rules based order and attempt to reshape the international system in its favor. Beijing openly acknowledges that it seeks to transform the international order to align with CCP interests and ideology. The CCP’s expanding use of economic, political, and military power to compel acquiescence from nation states harms vital American interests and undermines the sovereignty and dignity of countries and individuals around the world.
To respond to Beijing’s challenge, the Administration has adopted a competitive approach to the PRC, based on a clear-eyed assessment of the CCP’s intentions and actions, a reappraisal of the United States’ many strategic advantages and shortfalls, and a tolerance of greater bilateral friction. Our approach is not premised on determining a particular end state for China. Rather, our goal is to protect United States vital national interests, as articulated in the four pillars of the 2017 National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS). We aim to: (1) protect the American people, homeland, and way of life; (2) promote American prosperity; (3) preserve peace through strength; and (4) advance American influence.
Our competitive approach to the PRC has two objectives: first, to improve the resiliency of our institutions, alliances, and partnerships to prevail against the challenges the PRC presents; and second, to compel Beijing to cease or reduce actions harmful to the United States’ vital, national interests and those of our allies and partners. Even as we compete with the PRC, we welcome cooperation where our interests align. Competition need not lead to confrontation or conflict. The United States has a deep and abiding respect for the Chinese people and enjoys longstanding ties to the country. We do not seek to contain China’s development, nor do we wish to disengage from the Chinese people. The United States expects to engage in fair competition with the PRC, whereby both of our nations, businesses, and individuals can enjoy security and prosperity.
Prevailing in strategic competition with the PRC requires cooperative engagement with multiple stakeholders, and the Administration is committed to building partnerships to United States Strategic Approach to The People’s Republic of China 2 protect our shared interests and values. Vital partners of this Administration include the Congress, state and local governments, the private sector, civil society, and academia. The Congress has been speaking out through hearings, statements, and reports that shed light on the CCP’s malign behavior. The Congress also provides legal authorities and resources for the United States Government to take the actions to achieve our strategic objectives. The Administration also recognizes the steps allies and partners have taken to develop more clear-eyed and robust approaches toward the PRC, including the European Union’s publication in March 2019 of EU-China: A Strategic Outlook, among others. The United States is also building cooperative partnerships and developing positive alternatives with foreign allies, partners, and international organizations to support the shared principles of a free and open order. Specific to the Indo-Pacific region, many of these initiatives are described in documents such as the Department of Defense June 2019 IndoPacific Strategy Report and the Department of State November 2019 report on A Free and Open Indo-Pacific: Advancing a Shared Vision. The United States is working in concert with mutually aligned visions and approaches such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nation’s Outlook on the Indo-Pacific, Japan’s free and open Indo-Pacific vision, India’s Security and Growth for All in the Region policy, Australia’s Indo-Pacific concept, the Republic of Korea’s New Southern Policy, and Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy.
Yada, yada, yada.
READ ON
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Do people get the government they deserve?
This bloodsoaked monster is probably the most evil person on planet earth https://t.co/nGq2H1EPHt — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 9, 2020
• remember: ALL CAPTIONS, IMAGES, PULL QUOTES AND ANNOTATIONS BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHOR—


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-05-23--Israel an Enemy of America

Israel an Enemy of America

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post .
Be sure to share it widely .
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse The argument that Israel is pro-American is so blatantly false as to be ludicrous , but the argument that America is pro-Israeli is so true as to be itself ludicrous , because Israel is and has always constituted a national security threat against , and actually an outright enemy of , the American people .
All of this will be documented here , especially because there is so much published that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as will here be shown .
He closed this false allegation by this threat : “ If the ICC continues down its current course , we will exact consequences.
” Though Palestine signed and became a member-state , and the U.S. refused to do so , he threatens the ICC with unspecific “ exact consequences , ” if the ICC so much as even considers Palestine ’ s case .
This is injury being heaped upon insult to the ICC and to international criminal law , which that Court holds the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to prosecute .
What the U.S. regime represents in this particular case is the interests of the apartheid nation of Israel , and not the interests of the American people .
It insults and obstructs the interests of the American people , just as Israel insults and obstructs the interests — and the human rights — of the Palestinian people .
Furthermore , Pompeo ’ s presumption that Israel represents the Palestinian people resembles Hitler ’ s presumption that his Government represented Germany ’ s Jews , and Botha ’ s presumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Blacks , because in all three instances the tyrant who asserts it is asserting that the enemy of those people not only represents them but is the sole and exclusive governmental authority which can represent them .
In the slave-holding American southern states , the same claim had been made that they and only they represented their slaves .
Those states cited the Bible as authority , because it authorizes slavery , but tyrants can always cite some allegedly infallible scripture in support of their tyranny , and it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that scripture might be .
Albert Einstein was a prominent American when he was one of the signatories to a letter to the editor of the New York Times , on 4 December 1948 , in which he and many other prominent American Jews condemned as “ fascists ” Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir and their gangs who slaughtered whole Arab villages in order to seize their land for zionist Jews to take as ‘ Israel ’ , and the signatories strongly condemned that movement — the movement which created this apartheid racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ akin in its organization , methods , political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties , ” against which America had waged World War II .
But today ’ s American Government represents those “ Nazi and Fascist parties , ” against their victims , even though during WW II , Americans had even died fighting against such evil people as the founders of Israel ’ s Government were .
Had Americans been wrong in WW II to have fought against Nazis and Fascists , or are today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is protecting Israel ’ s ideological nazis and fascists against any rights for Palestinians — against rights for the descendants of the survivors of Jewish racist fascism or nazism ?
Does Israel represent American values , really — or instead the values of America ’ s enemies , such as the current U.S. Government is ( as will be subsequently exemplified here ) ?
The Palestinians ’ cause is also the cause of the American people .
The current American Government , bipartisanly in both of its political Parties , does not represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against us , and does only what it must in order to fool us into thinking to the contrary of the ugly reality .
When Einstein and those other prominent American Jews in 1948 wrote condemning the individuals who had created Israel , here was the immediate historical context : all “ non-Jews , ” such as non-Arab Christians . )
So : even Israel ( though they never explicitly assert this , since it ’ s so damning ) has acknowledged that over ( 777,700-160,000= ) 617,770 of the 777,700 Arabs who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in 1947 , or over 80 % of them all , were gone in 1949 .
Though they never assert this elimination of 80 % + of that land ’ s Arabs , they give those numbers , from which any reader who can add and subtract will inevitably conclude that at least 80 % of the Arabs disappeared from “ Israel ” during 1948 , which happens to have been the year of Israel ’ s creation .
80+ % .
Only less than one-fifth of them were still in Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not only in Germany but in many countries — perpetrated the Holocaust against Jews , and those 80+ % of “ Israel ” s Arabs got treated by these surviving Jews remarkably like European Christians had treated so many of these Jews .
These Jews absorbed into themselves what had been the the worst majority-Christian culture ( especially its prevalent bigotry , though now having a different target ) and then practiced it against the local Muslims in this part of Arabia .
Whether or not they were practicing what they preached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And without the continuing and ongoing yearly support of the American people , this could not have happened and still be happening .
It would not happen .
The 452-page study , published in 1974 , The Population of Israel , which was produced for the Demographic Center of the Prime Minister 's Office in Israel and by the Institute of Contemporary Jewry of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem , mentions only in passing , on its page 401 , that there were an “ estimated 1,200,000 settled Arabs in Palestine at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there also that the total number of Arabs then “ within the territory of Israel ” was 777,700 .
The next page then mentions — also only in passing — that “ The estimate of Non-Jews found in Israel in 1949 ( including some returnees , during 1949 ) is about 160,000.
” ( That number included not only Arabs but “ non-Jews , ” such as non-Arab Christians . )
So : even Israel ( though they neverassert this , since it ’ s so damning ) has acknowledged that over ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were “ within the territory of Israel ” in 1947 , or over 80 % of them all , were gone in 1949 .
Though they never assert this elimination of 80 % + of that land ’ s Arabs , they give those numbers , from which any reader who can add and subtract will inevitably conclude that at least 80 % of the Arabs disappeared from “ Israel ” during 1948 , which happens to have been the year of Israel ’ s creation .
80+ % .
Only less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel .
European Christians — not only Germans and not only in Germany but in many countries — perpetrated the Holocaust against Jews , and those 80+ % of “ Israel ” s Arabs got treated by these surviving Jews remarkably like European Christians had treated so many of these Jews .
These Jews absorbed into themselves what had been the the worst majority-Christian culture ( especially its prevalent bigotry , though now having a different target ) and then practiced it against the local Muslims in this part of Arabia .
Whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preached , they practiced what they had .
And without the continuing and ongoing yearly support of the American people , this could not have happened and still be happening .
It would not happen .
instead of against Israel ( which might be warranted ) .
Netanyahu has even On April 29th , the great independent American investigative journalist Gareth Porter headlined “ With apparently fabricated nuclear documents , Netanyahu pushed the US towards war with Iran ” , and he reported that there is “ little room for doubt that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] 2004 were , in fact , created by the Mossad.
” Those are the documents upon the basis of which American sanctions were placed against Iran for its having a nuclear-weapons program ( which Israel itself actually does have ) , which Iran did not have and was not even seeking — the documents were Israeli forgeries .
“ Netanyahu ’ s multiple levels of deception have been remarkably successful , despite having relied on crude stunts that any diligent news organization should have seen through .
Through his manipulation of foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to maneuver Donald Trump and the United States into a dangerous process of confrontation that has brought the US to the precipice of military conflict with Iran ” —against Israel ( which might be warranted ) .
Netanyahu has even lied to claim that Hitler didn ’ t initiate the idea of exterminating all of the world ’ s Jews , the leader of the Palestinians initiated that idea .
Just as Hitler lied to ‘ justify ’ spreading his hatred , Netanyahu likewise does , and Pompeo also does .
Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the U.S. regime claims to be “ upholding the rule of law ” and “ protecting human rights ” while it flagrantly violates both .
The brazenness of the U.S. regime ’ s hypocrisy is unprecedented and historically unique , but otherwise it ’ s a rather normal fascist — if not nazi — government .
bipartisan rape .
For example , the Obama Administration was working likewise to block independence for a separate Palestinian state ; only their tactics were different ( because they represented Democratic Party billionaires , instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
It is a thoroughlyrape .
For example , the Obama Administration was working likewise to block independence for a separate Palestinian state ; only their tactics were different ( because they represented Democratic Party billionaires , instead of — like Trump — Republican Party billionaires ) .
Victoria Nuland of Obama ’ s State Department threatened UNESCO just as Mike Pompeo of Trump ’ s State Department now threatens the ICC .
In fact , in this video , you can see her at a press conference defending this .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaires pursue different tactics to fool different groups of voters .
Republican billionaires fool conservative ones , while Democratic billionaires fool liberal ones .
That ’ s how they get the voters bipartisanly to support spending $ 3.8 billion per year so that Israel can spend $ 3.8 billion more on weapons that those American billionaires ’ firms manufacture than would otherwise be the case — it ’ s all just a gravy train for the country ’ s billionaires , and not only for that fascist foreign regime , which uses their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American regime isn ’ t likewise fascist doesn ’ t understand how fascism works .
( Mussolini sometimes called it “ corporationism.
” ) The fascism of one country is no better than the fascism of another , no matter whether it ’ s Hitler ’ s “ Deutschland über alles !
” or Trump ’ s “ America First !
” They ’ re all doing basically the same mental rape .
To call such a regime ‘ democratic ’ is to insult democracy .

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse
Eric Zuesse, originally posted at The Saker
Do the American people gain more than they lose from supporting (and from having billions of their tax-dollars each year donated to) the apartheid and racistly Jewish Israel against the Palestinians — the descendants of the Arabs who prior to Israel’s creation were the vast majority of that land’s population?
The argument that Israel is pro-American is so blatantly false as to be ludicrous, but the argument that America is pro-Israeli is so true as to be itself ludicrous, because Israel is and has always constituted a national security threat against, and actually an outright enemy of, the American people. All of this will be documented here, especially because there is so much published that contradicts it, all based on lies, as will here be shown.
Mike Pompeo, threatened the International Criminal Court, on behalf of the Government of Israel, and against any other government than Israel to represent the interests of the Palestinians, which people Israel’s Government has always not in the interests of the American people — headlined, falsely, at the U.S. State Department, On May 16th, the neoconservative U.S. Secretary of State,, threatened the International Criminal Court, on behalf of the Government of Israel, and against any other government than Israel to represent the interests of the Palestinians, which people Israel’s Government has always actually considered to be enemies , instead of citizens to whom the Government of Israel has any obligation. Pompeo — on behalf of Israelis, and certainly— headlined, falsely, at the U.S. State Department, “The International Criminal Court’s Illegitimate Prosecutions” , and he said (also falsely) “The International Criminal Court is a political body, not a judicial institution.” He then went on to assert:
On April 30, the ICC Prosecutor re-affirmed her attempt to exercise jurisdiction over the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza through a new filing to the Court. As we made clear when the Palestinians purported to join the Rome Statute [not actually ‘purported to’ but did, in fact, agree to the terms of that statute, in order to — and they did — sign and join so as to become subject to the ICC’s international jurisdiction, which happened on , we do not believe the Palestinians qualify as a sovereign state. [not actually ‘purported to’ but did, in fact, agree to the terms of that statute, in order to — and they did — sign and join so as to become subject to the ICC’s international jurisdiction, which happened on 1 April 2015 , though Pompeo says there that it never happened]
He closed this false allegation by this threat: “If the ICC continues down its current course, we will exact consequences.” Though Palestine signed and became a member-state, and the U.S. refused to do so, he threatens the ICC with unspecific “exact consequences,” if the ICC so much as even considers Palestine’s case. This is injury being heaped upon insult to the ICC and to international criminal law, which that Court holds the world’s supreme international authority to investigate and to prosecute.
likewise rejects it, in order to protect Israelis, not Americans, against the ICC, to which neither Israel nor U.S. has ever signed, because both Governments intend to be international criminals, and want themselves not to be prosecutable. However, Palestine is a signatory to that Court’s jurisdiction, and yet the U.S. regime refuses to recognize any rights of Palestinians, including no right before that Court, which Court both Israel and the U.S. reject. The U.S. regime constantly is asserting that it invades other countries in order to itself, a tyranny, such as America had warred against prior to 1946. Indeed, never until recent decades was the U.S. Government condemning and rejecting international law — but it does this, routinely, now, even while insisting that it invades other countries in order to “uphold the rule of law” and to In America, even individuals who are charged with murder are considered to have a right to legal representation that is not hostile to them but instead to represent them against the Government. Of course in fascist regimes such as Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy, the Government rejected that American principle, but America’s current Government, via this Secretary of State,rejects it, in order to protect Israelis, not Americans, against the ICC, to which neither Israel nor U.S. has ever signed, because both Governments intend to be international criminals, and want themselves not to be prosecutable. However, Palestine is a signatory to that Court’s jurisdiction, and yet the U.S. regime refuses to recognize any rights of Palestinians, including no right before that Court, which Court both Israel and the U.S. reject. The U.S. regime constantly is asserting that it invades other countries in order to “uphold the rule of law” , but if that is only to its own law, then this regime is only an international outlaw, and being an international outlaw nation is certainly not what America’s Founders had intended when they wrote the U.S. Constitution, and so this current American regime does not represent the American people, because it does not represent our Constitution — neither as it was originally written, nor as subsequently Amended. This current U.S. regime is thus a renegade U.S. Government; it is,, a tyranny, such as America had warred against prior to 1946. Indeed, never until recent decades was the U.S. Government condemning and rejecting international law — but it does this, routinely, now, even while insisting that it invades other countries in order to “uphold the rule of law” and to “protect human rights.”
What the U.S. regime represents in this particular case is the interests of the apartheid nation of Israel, and not the interests of the American people. It insults and obstructs the interests of the American people, just as Israel insults and obstructs the interests — and the human rights — of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, Pompeo’s presumption that Israel represents the Palestinian people resembles Hitler’s presumption that his Government represented Germany’s Jews, and Botha’s presumption that apartheid South Africa represented South Africa’s Blacks, because in all three instances the tyrant who asserts it is asserting that the enemy of those people not only represents them but is the sole and exclusive governmental authority which can represent them. In the slave-holding American southern states, the same claim had been made that they and only they represented their slaves. Those states cited the Bible as authority, because it authorizes slavery, but tyrants can always cite some allegedly infallible scripture in support of their tyranny, and it’s just as evil, nonetheless, whatever that scripture might be.
Albert Einstein was a prominent American when he was one of the signatories to a letter to the editor of the New York Times , on 4 December 1948, in which he and many other prominent American Jews condemned as “fascists” Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir and their gangs who slaughtered whole Arab villages in order to seize their land for zionist Jews to take as ‘Israel’, and the signatories strongly condemned that movement — the movement which created this apartheid racist ‘Israel’ — as being “akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties,” against which America had waged World War II. But today’s American Government represents those “Nazi and Fascist parties,” against their victims, even though during WW II, Americans had even died fighting against such evil people as the founders of Israel’s Government were.
Had Americans been wrong in WW II to have fought against Nazis and Fascists, or are today’s Americans aware that the current U.S. Government is protecting Israel’s ideological nazis and fascists against any rights for Palestinians — against rights for the descendants of the survivors of Jewish racist fascism or nazism? Does Israel represent American values, really — or instead the values of America’s enemies, such as the current U.S. Government is (as will be subsequently exemplified here)?
On 8 June 1967, Israel intentionally attacked and sank the USS Liberty, slaughtering 34 of our sailors, and injuring another 172. The official U.S. government inquiry by an independent study Commission headed by Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, found that, “after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against the USS Liberty, the world’s most sophisticated intelligence ship.” “Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the Liberty’s bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship.” “Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty’s life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded.” “There is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.” “Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States.” “The White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the Liberty.” “Surviving crewmembers were later threatened with ‘court-martial, imprisonment or worse’ if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government.” “The White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.” “This attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the attack.” “There has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history.”
The USS Liberty Veterans Association delivered to the Executive Agent for the U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, on 8 June 2005, their own 35-page study report backing this up and urging retaliation. It quoted from Richard Helms, the Director of Central Intelligence at the time of the USS Liberty attack. He supported, as Helms put it, “the board’s finding that there could be no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered the attack.” The Veterans Association concluded that, “the fact that the Israeli government and its surrogates in the United States have worked so long and hard to prevent an inquiry itself speaks volumes as to what such an inquiry would find. The USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc. respectfully insists that the Secretary of the Army convene an investigatory body to undertake the complete investigation that should have been carried out thirty-eight years ago.” Their study and urging were simply ignored.
The Palestinians’ cause is also the cause of the American people. The current American Government, bipartisanly in both of its political Parties, does not represent the American people — it is hostile against us, and does only what it must in order to fool us into thinking to the contrary of the ugly reality.
When Einstein and those other prominent American Jews in 1948 wrote condemning the individuals who had created Israel, here was the immediate historical context:
all “non-Jews,” such as non-Arab Christians.) So: even Israel (though they never explicitly assert this, since it’s so damning) has acknowledged that over (777,700-160,000=) 617,770 of the 777,700 Arabs who were “within the territory of Israel” in 1947, or over 80% of them all, were gone in 1949. Though they never assert this elimination of 80%+ of that land’s Arabs, they give those numbers, from which any reader who can add and subtract will inevitably conclude that at least 80% of the Arabs disappeared from “Israel” during 1948, which happens to have been the year of Israel’s creation. 80+%. Only less than one-fifth of them were still in Israel. European Christians — not only Germans and not only in Germany but in many countries — perpetrated the Holocaust against Jews, and those 80+% of “Israel”s Arabs got treated by these surviving Jews remarkably like European Christians had treated so many of these Jews. These Jews absorbed into themselves what had been the the worst majority-Christian culture (especially its prevalent bigotry, though now having a different target) and then practiced it against the local Muslims in this part of Arabia. Whether or not they were practicing what they preached, they practiced what they had learned. And without the continuing and ongoing yearly support of the American people, this could not have happened and still be happening. It would not happen. The 452-page study, published in 1974, The Population of Israel , which was produced for the Demographic Center of the Prime Minister's Office in Israel and by the Institute of Contemporary Jewry of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, mentions only in passing, on its page 401, that there were an “estimated 1,200,000 settled Arabs in Palestine at the end of 1947” and acknowledges there also that the total number of Arabs then “within the territory of Israel” was 777,700. The next page then mentions — also only in passing — that “The estimate of Non-Jews found in Israel in 1949 (including some returnees, during 1949) is about 160,000.” (That number included not only Arabs but“non-Jews,” such as non-Arab Christians.) So: even Israel (though they neverassert this, since it’s so damning) has acknowledged that over (777,700-160,000=) 617,770 of the 777,700 Arabs who were “within the territory of Israel” in 1947, or over 80% of them all, were gone in 1949. Though they never assert this elimination of 80%+ of that land’s Arabs, they give those numbers, from which any reader who can add and subtract will inevitably conclude that at least 80% of the Arabs disappeared from “Israel” during 1948, which happens to have been the year of Israel’s creation. 80+%. Only less than one-fifth of them were still in Israel. European Christians — not only Germans and not only in Germany but in many countries — perpetrated the Holocaust against Jews, and those 80+% of “Israel”s Arabs got treated by these surviving Jews remarkably like European Christians had treated so many of these Jews. These Jews absorbed into themselves what had been the the worst majority-Christian culture (especially its prevalent bigotry, though now having a different target) and then practiced it against the local Muslims in this part of Arabia. Whether or not they were practicing what they preached, they practiced what they had. And without the continuing and ongoing yearly support of the American people, this could not have happened and still be happening. It would not happen.
instead of against Israel (which might be warranted). Netanyahu has even On April 29th, the great independent American investigative journalist Gareth Porter headlined “With apparently fabricated nuclear documents, Netanyahu pushed the US towards war with Iran” , and he reported that there is “little room for doubt that the documents introduced to Western intelligence [in] 2004 were, in fact, created by the Mossad.” Those are the documents upon the basis of which American sanctions were placed against Iran for its having a nuclear-weapons program (which Israel itself actually does have), which Iran did not have and was not even seeking — the documents were Israeli forgeries. “Netanyahu’s multiple levels of deception have been remarkably successful, despite having relied on crude stunts that any diligent news organization should have seen through. Through his manipulation of foreign governments and media, he has been able to maneuver Donald Trump and the United States into a dangerous process of confrontation that has brought the US to the precipice of military conflict with Iran” —against Israel (which might be warranted). Netanyahu has even lied to claim that Hitler didn’t initiate the idea of exterminating all of the world’s Jews, the leader of the Palestinians initiated that idea . Just as Hitler lied to ‘justify’ spreading his hatred, Netanyahu likewise does, and Pompeo also does. Maybe the biggest difference between them is that only the U.S. regime claims to be “upholding the rule of law” and “protecting human rights” while it flagrantly violates both. The brazenness of the U.S. regime’s hypocrisy is unprecedented and historically unique, but otherwise it’s a rather normal fascist — if not nazi — government.
instead of the duty to prosecute it. This Government, by such liars, rapes the minds of the American people. American taxpayers spend $3.8 billion per year as a donation to Israel’s military. Every American (including all recent Presidents) who has participated in imposing that burden upon us is a traitor, and so too is every American who has hidden or tried to hide from the American public the reality,the duty to prosecute it. This Government, by such liars, rapes the minds of the American people.
bipartisan rape. For example, the Obama Administration was working likewise to block independence for a separate Palestinian state; only their tactics were different (because they represented Democratic Party billionaires, instead of — like Trump — Republican Party billionaires). It is a thoroughlyrape. For example, the Obama Administration was working likewise to block independence for a separate Palestinian state; only their tactics were different (because they represented Democratic Party billionaires, instead of — like Trump — Republican Party billionaires). Victoria Nuland of Obama’s State Department threatened UNESCO just as Mike Pompeo of Trump’s State Department now threatens the ICC. In fact, in this video , you can see her at a press conference defending this. The only difference is that Republican and Democratic billionaires pursue different tactics to fool different groups of voters. Republican billionaires fool conservative ones, while Democratic billionaires fool liberal ones. That’s how they get the voters bipartisanly to support spending $3.8 billion per year so that Israel can spend $3.8 billion more on weapons that those American billionaires’ firms manufacture than would otherwise be the case — it’s all just a gravy train for the country’s billionaires, and not only for that fascist foreign regime, which uses their weapons. Anybody who thinks that this American regime isn’t likewise fascist doesn’t understand how fascism works. ( Mussolini sometimes called it “corporationism.” ) The fascism of one country is no better than the fascism of another, no matter whether it’s Hitler’s “Deutschland über alles!” or Trump’s “America First!” They’re all doing basically the same mental rape. To call such a regime ‘democratic’ is to insult democracy.