US Officials Confirm Their Coalition Allies Have Killed 80 Civilians – But None Will Accept Responsibility


The United States’ Coalition partners in the war against so-cal led Islamic State are responsible for at least 80 civilian deaths from airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, US military officials have confirmed exclusively to Airwars in an investigation jointly published with Foreign Policy. Yet none of the 12 allies will publicly concede any role in those casualties.

Though these dozen partner nations – which include Britain, France, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands – have launched more than 4,000 airstrikes between them, they have so far claimed a perfect record in avoiding civilian casualties. An Airwars investigation for Foreign Policy has now uncovered evidence that disproves that assertion

The confirmed deaths caused by non-US airstrikes came to light in the most recent Coalition civilian casualty report, released April 30th. The briefing quietly referred to 80 new deaths referenced only as “attributable to Coalition strikes to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria from August 2014 to present [that] had not been previously announced.”

Three CENTCOM officials confirmed to Airwars that the 80 deaths occurred in incidents that US investigators had previously concluded were the responsibility of partner nations (a small number may have also been previously mis-attributed to the US). But allies then pressured the US and the Coalition against releasing details of the strikes in question, Airwars understands.

“In reference to the 80,” said one CENTCOM official, “those do reference non-US strikes.”

Coalition spokesperson Colonel Joseph Scrocca said that CENTCOM officials had arrived at the tally of 80 civilian deaths prior to handing over investigations to the alliance in late 2016.

For over a year, some senior US officials have been frustrated that their allies have not stepped forward to admit their own errors. US forces first admitted their own civilian casualties in May 2015, and have so far confirmed their responsibility for 377 non-combatant fatalities – including 105 killed in a single Mosul incident in March.

Efforts by US officials to release information about casualties caused by their partner nations, however, have come at a cost. As the result of a deal struck with its Coalition partners, the United States will in future no longer confirm its own responsibility for specific civilian casualties incidents either – a move toward greater secrecy that could deprive victims’ families of any avenue to seek justice or compensation for those deaths.

An Australian F/A-18A Hornet following an anti-ISIL mission, May 5th 2017 (Via Australian Defence Force)

Deny, Deny, Deny

Even when confronted with this confirmed evidence of non-US civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria, no Coalition partner would publicly admit any responsibility – despite the allies responsible knowing which specific events they are implicated in.

“Just being in a coalition, especially in an air campaign, does not remove or reduce individual states’ responsibilities,” said Clive Baldwin, senior legal advisor at Human Rights Watch. “The Coalition can not be an excuse or justification for hiding.”

Airwars reached out to all twelve non-US members of the Coalition to ask which were responsible for the 80 fatalities. The responses ranged from outright denials of involvement (Australia, Canada, Denmark, and Britain); to no response (Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates); to several ambiguously worded statements.

Despite these statements, Airwars has confirmed that every Coalition member identified as responsible for incidents among those that caused the 80 deaths was informed by US officials of their assessed involvement. The allies have known for months if not longer of these findings, according to American officials – but those nations responsible chose not to admit it when questioned by Airwars.

Britain is the most active member of the Coalition after the United States, carrying out more than 1,300 airstrikes since October 2014. UK officials have often boasted of zero civilian casualties, despite the high tempo of the campaign and the fact that most strikes now take place on Iraqi and Syrian cities and towns. The Foreign Office’s anti-ISIL feed on Twitter has claimed for example “coalition air campaign most precise in history of warfare. Zero civilian casualties from Royal Air Force air strikes.”

Yet for 2016 alone, Airwars flagged 120 incidents to the British Ministry of Defense (MoD) where RAF aircraft might have been involved in civilian casualty events in Iraq and Syria, according to the public record.

Nearly all of these cases were investigated and dismissed, according to the MoD. For eleven incidents however, a senior British official noted that “we cannot make any definitive assessment of possible UK presence from the evidence […] provided, but I can confirm that there was no indication of any civilian casualties in our own detailed assessments of the impact of each of our strikes over the period concerned.”

Asked whether Britain had been responsible for any of the 80 non-US deaths reported by the Coalition, a spokesman pointed to a March 25th MoD statement asserting, “we have not seen evidence that we have been responsible for civilian casualties so far.”

British officials have often boasted that the UK’s air campaign has caused no harm to civilians

Other partner nations were not so willing to give a straight answer. Asked whether its own forces had caused civilian casualties, France twice evaded the question, noting only that “no comment is made on the 80 additional cases recognized by the Coalition.”

The Netherlands – which says it is still investigating one possible civilian casualty event that occurred in 2014, and a second unknown case – failed to answer eleven queries from Airwars on the 80 civilian deaths, including a May 9th letter sent to Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert.

Belgium’s Ministry of Defense, responsible for several hundred airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, informed Airwars that it would only “share the information about our operations in the appropriate [closed session] parliamentary committee.” The Belgians directed further inquiries to CENTCOM, which in turn said it would not officially identify any partner nations.

One political official in Brussels told Airwars that they were aware that Belgian defence staff “have looked at the list of incidents in the Coalition report and they have come to the conclusion that there is still no reason to believe that Belgium has caused civilians casualties. Though they do admit that it was ‘close’ a few times, not by negligence or carelessness by the Belgian army, but just by bad luck.”

A Belgian  F-16 refuels over Iraq, October 6th 2016 (Via US Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Larry E. Reid Jr)

Hiding Behind the Alliance

The Coalition campaign against the Islamic State, now nearing the end of its third year, has produced reams of firing and targeting data. The number of munitions used and targets attacked are all publicly available – but that has not translated into transparency from many individual members, who have instead hidden behind the alliance’s structures. Though totals are publicly available for overall Coalition strikes, the alliance does not confirm which countries carry out specific raids.

“This is just the unfortunate evolution of the dynamic of coalition operations,” said Christopher Jenks, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University who served in the US military for two decades. “Because of coalition dynamics you can’t get into the real substantive details of the core issues: whether we believe that an air strike was piloted by a Canadian or French pilot.”

From the start of Coalition operations in August 2014 to May 22nd 2017,  the Coalition says that 4,011 airstrikes in Iraq and 404 in Syria were performed by non-US forces. France and Britain accounted for more than half of these attacks, while partners such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Australia made up the bulk of the remaining non-US actions. Additional countries like Germany provide aerial reconnaissance, but do not conduct airstrikes.

The Coalition’s regional partners – Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Turkey – have been responsible for an estimated 150 strikes between them, or less than one percent of all actions. None of those countries responded to questions on the 80 confirmed deaths put to their NATO missions or to their embassies in Washington.

Less Sunlight in the War Against the Islamic State

One consequence of the new Coalition admissions is that the US’s own transparency in the war against the Islamic State may also now be jeopardized.

US officials had wanted to release the information about the 80 additional civilians deaths for many months. That finally occurred on April 30 – but it came at a cost. Neither the Coalition nor CENTCOM would provide a breakdown of the events that led to those deaths, such as when or where they occurred or how many civilians had died in each incident. These facts are always provided in monthly civilian casualty reports – but not this time.

US officials said the inclusion of the 80 civilian deaths was the product of a compromise among Coalition members – they could be released, but only attributed as “Coalition” strikes.

Going forward, non-US strikes will be included in future civilian casualty reports. However, the United States will no longer identify the strikes resulting in civilian casualties that were carried out by its own forces. This is due to a concern that allies responsible for civilian deaths could be identified by a process of elimination.

“We will just say ‘Coalition,’ and we won’t say if it was US or not,’ confirmed CENTCOM Director of Public Affairs Colonel John Thomas.

Thomas described the change as an effort to decrease the number of open cases of alleged civilian casualties.

“By not specifying which national was flying at the time of an incident we’ll be able to more quickly say when a case is adjudicated under our methods and closed,” he explained

The move, however, will also set a precedent for more opacity in Coalition operations. There are also serious concerns for victims’ families: If they do not know which country is responsible for a casualty event, it will be impossible for them to pursue solatia, or compensation payments, from individual nations, and exceedingly difficult to file freedom of information requests with national governments regarding the incident.

“This would be exactly the wrong move on the part of the United States, which is already not doing enough to provide transparency about civilians killed,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberty Union’s National Security Project. “Generally in the last decade, there has been more transparency about strikes in the context of recognized armed conflict than lethal strikes outside of it, and this seems to be a step in the wrong direction.”

Though the Coalition’s under-resourced civilian casualty unit has over time increased the number of cases it considers and investigates, the obfuscation over the countries that launched the strikes follows a pattern that began early in the campaign. In October 2014, under pressure from European allies, CENTCOM ceased identifying the Coalition members that took part in particular strikes.

“At the end of the day, implicit in the way the US and CENTCOM is handling this is placing the coalition dynamic ahead of accountability and transparency,” said Professor Jenks.

A Canadian crew arms an aircraft prior to its 2015 Iraq mission (Canadian Armed Forces)

Rising toll

The Coalition has so far admitted to killing 457 civilians since 2014, including the 80 or more non-combatants slain by US allies. However, this may just by the tip of the iceberg: That figure is still many times lower than Airwars’ own minimum estimate of 3,680 civilian fatalities in the air campaign. That tally is the result of monitoring carried out by researchers, and does not include incidents that are contested or are currently backed by weak evidence.

Recent months have seen record civilian death tolls from airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria. In April alone, Airwars researchers assessed that between 283 and 366 civilians were likely killed by the Coalition. Yet despite the continuing bloody battle in Mosul, almost none of those deaths were included, as in most events there it remains unclear whether Coalition or Iraqi ground or air actions, or Islamic State attacks, were responsible for casualties. High fatalities have also been reported for some months around Raqqa, despite little media coverage.

As the war against the Islamic State centres on the group’s last remaining urban bases, there is little doubt that the fight is resulting in significant civilian casualties. Yet for families who have lost a loved one, their ability to know which country is bombing them – or who might be liable – is slowly going up in smoke.



UK’s Labour Party will ‘immediately’ recognize Palestine if elected in June- whoopie!

Corbin’s party just said something really stupid

Palestinian: “When Israel talks peace, we start storing food and water”

Of course, there are those same sticky conditions to be met FIRST that hasn’t worked in 2 decades!

BETHLEHEM (Ma’an)May 27, 2017 – Britain’s Labour party announced in its 2017 elections manifesto that if elected in June, the party would immediately recognize the state of Palestine.

The manifesto stated that the party was committed to a two-state solution to solve the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict, adding that “there can be no military solution to this conflict” and that both Israel and Palestine must “avoid taking action that would make peace harder to achieve,” referencing the need to end the decade-long Israeli siege, the half-century Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and Israel’s continued settlement expansions.  Ha! Such dinosaur rhetoric!

It added that Hamas, the de facto (what happened to ‘democratically elected’?) leaders in the besieged Gaza Strip, must also end rocket and “terror attacks,” in order for leaders to enter “meaningful negotiations” and develop a “diplomatic resolution.”

“A Labour government will immediately recognize the state of Palestine,” the manifesto added. Sure, because it will never happen.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom’s House of Lords released a statement that strongly criticized the British government’s “very degrading, dismissive attitude” towards international efforts to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and suggested that it take a stronger stance to advance a two-state solution, including recognizing a state of Palestine…]

Security Council 2013

The United Nations would remain an integral part of efforts to urgently address the “dangerous political vacuum”.  But, no international effort alone was sufficient for progress absent the requisite will from the parties themselves.  And, now was not the time for actions that undermined mutual trust.

Outlining recent developments, he drew particular attention to the dramatic increase in settlement building announced by Israel.  Housing units built in the so-called E1 area would be a “red line”, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had said he would consider referring the situation to the International Criminal Court.  Mr. Serry said such “worrying events and trends” also included an increase by nearly 90 per cent of Israeli operations and arrests in the West Bank.

“We should be under no illusion:  the viability of the Palestinian Authority will be increasingly at stake if its standing is based on political quicksand,” he said, adding that, ultimately, there is no future for the Palestinian Authority without a two-State solution.

Following Mr. Serry’s briefing, Riad al Malki, Palestine’s Foreign Affairs Minister, in his first address to the Council following the General Assembly’s historic decision last year to accord Palestine non-Member observer State status in the United Nations, recalled that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when asked about that decision, had responded in an interview:  “What the UN says does not interest me.”

That attitude was manifesting itself in the systematic escalation of the settlement campaign, particularly in and around occupied East Jerusalem, he said.  All Israeli settlements were illegal, whether it was one unit or 1,000; whether it was called a “settlement” or an “outpost”, and halting “is not a precondition — it is a legal obligation”.  If all such practices were not halted, Israel would have to bear the responsibility for the destruction of the two-State solution.

The interventions throughout the day were predictably sombre, as speaker after speaker criticized the impasse between the parties and called for the leadership on both sides to take bold and courageous steps.  Many, like Mr. Serry, sounded notes of caution, including the representative of the United Kingdom, a Quartet member, who said that without resumption of talks, “we may find ourselves in a situation where there is no longer a two-State solution to speak of”.

From the region, many speakers stressed the need to end all “illegal” Israeli activities, especially its ongoing settlement activities, which, they said, prejudiced efforts to achieve the two-State solution.  Following adoption of the status resolution in the General Assembly, said Egypt’s delegate, the Israeli Government had proceeded with a “settlement frenzy” in occupied territory.

Everybody knows by now that the “peace process” has always been a deception and a distraction for Israel to turn heads while they steal more and more Palestinian land and build settlements so that there’s no room for Palestinians at all.! There will never be a two-state and it never was going to happen under any circumstances. America has it’s own public to appease with this pretense and Israel has to play along. The Israeli regime would much rather not pretend anymore, they feel they are beyond all that now. They want to boast their victories and not pretend otherwise!

International Campaign Is Criminalizing Criticism of Israel as ‘Antisemitism’

These pro-Israel people like pledges: they tried to force me to sign a pledge of loyalty to Israel. When I refused, it was trench warfare, hand to hand combat every day I was in the Congress, and the U.S. people never knew that I was fighting to remain independent for them. To make real peace and to find real justice. Here, they have the whole of the U.S. government making pledges to them!!! Unbelievable.-Cynthia McKinney, PhD

Of course, we will resist a ZOG gov just like Cynthia McKinney! I would never give in to something so criminal, evil, and absurd.

Delegates at the 2009 Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism convention in London. The organization issued a declaration calling on governments to use an Israel-centric definition of antisemitism and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.”

ZOG: Delegates at the 2009 Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism convention in London. The organization issued a declaration calling on governments to use an Israel-centric definition of antisemitism and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.”

• May 17, 2017

For two decades, some Israeli officials and Israel partisans have worked to embed a new, Israel-focused definition of antisemitism in institutions around the world, from international bodies and national governments to small college campuses in heartland America. This effort is now snowballing rapidly. As a result, advocacy for Palestinian rights is well on the way to being curtailed and even criminalized as “hate.”

As the world has witnessed the oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, many people have risen in protest. In response, the Israeli government and certain of its advocates have conducted a campaign to crack down on this activism, running roughshod over civil liberties (and the English language) in the process.

The mechanism of this crackdown is the redefinition of “antisemitism”[1] to include criticism of Israel, and the insertion of this definition into the bodies of law of various countries.

Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent), for two decades a campaign has been underway to replace that definition with an Israel-centric definition. That definition can then be used to block speech and activism in support of Palestinian human rights as “hate.” Various groups are applying this definition in law enforcement evaluations of possible crimes.

Proponents of this Israel-centric definition have promoted it step by step in various arenas, from the U.S. State Department and European governments to local governments around the U.S. and universities.

While this effort has taken place over the last two decades, it is snowballing rapidly at this time. The definition is increasingly being used to curtail free speech and academic freedom, as well as political activism.

Furthermore, such politicizing of an important word may reduce its effectiveness when real antisemitism occurs, doing a disservice to victims of true bigotry.

As of this writing, the U.S. Congress has endorsed the distorted definition, the governments of the UK and Austria have officially adopted it (in December and April, respectively), various U.S. State legislatures are considering it, and numerous universities are using it to delineate permissible discourse. Many representatives and heads of other states around the world have embraced the new meaning, even if they have yet to officially implement it.

This article will examine the often interconnected, incremental actions that got us where we are, the current state of affairs, and the public relations and lobbying efforts that are promoting this twisting of the definition of “antisemitism” — often under cover of misleadingly named “anti-racism” movements.

Claims of “Antisemitism” Used to Silence Support for Palestinians

For many years, numerous respected organizations have documented Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights, including killing of Palestinian civilians, abuse of Palestinian children, torture of Palestinian prisoners, confiscation of Palestinian land, and other cases of systematic violence and oppression. Detailed reports have been compiled by Defense for Children International, the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, Foreign Service Journal, Physicians for Human rights, Christian Aid, Human Rights Watch, the National Lawyers Guild, Israel’s Public Committee Against Torture, Israel’s B’Tselem and others.

Israel long claimed that its 1948 creation was on “a land without a people for a people without a land,” and many people may still believe this founding myth. The fact is, however, that the land was originally inhabited by an indigenous population that was approximately 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, and a little under 5 percent Jewish. The Jewish State of Israel was created through the ejection of approximately three-quarters of a million people.

Over the decades since Israel’s founding in 1948, accusations of antisemitism have been leveled against many people who criticized Israeli actions. Indeed, the accusation was used effectively to silence very prominent critics.[2]

However, for most of that time, the meaning of the term itself was not in question. The standard definition was, in Google’s terms, “hostility to or prejudice against Jews.”[3]

Around the turn of this century, though, certain advocates began promoting official and even legal definitions of antisemitism that included various kinds of criticism of Israel.

Conflating Criticism of Israel with Antisemitism

Natan Sharansky, Israeli minister, in 2003: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.” Sharansky’s formulation formed the basis for the new Israel-centric definitions adopted around the world.
Natan Sharansky, Israeli minister, in 2003: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.” Sharansky’s formulation formed the basis for the new Israel-centric definitions adopted around the world.

Unsurprisingly, the new definitions appear to have originated from within the Israeli government, or at least with an Israeli government official.

The definitions adhere to a pattern set by a man named Natan Sharansky, who was Israel’s Minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs and chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Sharansky founded a Global Forum against Anti-Semitism in 2003, stating: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.”

But Sharansky apparently didn’t mean a counteroffensive against just anti-Jewish bigotry, but an offensive against criticism of Israel. The following year he wrote a position paper that declared: “Whereas classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, ‘new anti-Semitism’ is aimed at the Jewish state.”

Sharansky’s paper laid out what he called the “3-D Test of Anti-Semitism.” Sharansky applied the term “antisemitic” to criticism of Israel in three cases. First, he argued that statements that “demonize” Israel are antisemitic — by being, in his mind, unfairly harsh. (Some of those allegedly guilty of “demonizing” Israel are Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Alice Walker, Human Rights Watch, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, French President François Mitterrand, and others.)

Second, Sharansky declared that it’s antisemitic to apply a “double standard” to Israel — in other words, to criticize Israel for actions that other states may also take. However, if one could never criticize, protest or boycott abuses without calling out every single other similar abuse, no one would ever be able to exercise political dissent at all.

Finally, Sharansky said it’s antisemitic to “delegitimize” Israel, or dispute its “right to exist” (a standard Israeli talking point for many years). In fact, insisting Israel has the “right” to exist amounts to saying it had the right to expel Muslim and Christian Palestinians in order to found a religiously exclusive state. (See “What ‘Israel’s right to exist’ means to Palestinians,” by John Whitbeck, published in the Christian Science Monitor.)[4]

Sharansky’s outline provided the pattern for a European agency to create a new definition of antisemitism the next year, 2005 — a definition that would then be adopted by a succession of organizations and governments, including the U.S. State Department.

There is a back story to how this all came about.

Jean Kahn (R) with French President Francois Mitterand. Kahn initiated the creation of the European Monitoring Centre, which released an Israel-centric “working” definition of antisemitism.
Jean Kahn (R) with French President Francois Mitterand. Kahn initiated the creation of the European Monitoring Centre, which released an Israel-centric “working” definition of antisemitism.

This European agency itself was founded and run by a man with important connections to Israel. It was called “The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia,” under the Council of the European Union. A Frenchman named Jean Kahn had convinced European heads of state to create it in 1997.

Kahn had been a President of the European Jewish Congress, elected in a plenary session in Israel, and said the Congress “would demonstrate its solidarity with Israel” and that he hoped European countries would “coordinate their legislation outlawing racism, anti-Semitism or any form of exclusion.”

Kahn was chairman of the Monitoring Centre’s management board and called the “personification” of the agency. Within three years, the Centre issued a position paper calling for the definition of anti-Semitic offenses to be “improved.”

A few years later, Israeli professor Dina Porat took up the effort to create a new definition. Working with her were Kenneth Stern and Rabbi Andrew “Andy” Baker of the American Jewish Committee. Stern reports that when the Monitoring Centre’s then head, Beate Winkler, had failed to deliver the desired definition, Andy Baker “smartly developed a working relationship with her.” Stern and others[5] then created a draft for the Monitoring Centre to use.

Israeli Dina Porat, Kenneth Stern, Rabbi Andrew Baker worked to draft what became the European Monitoring Centre definition of antisemitism.
Israeli Dina Porat, Kenneth Stern, Rabbi Andrew Baker worked to draft what became the European Monitoring Centre definition of antisemitism.

In 2005 the agency issued its “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism,” largely based on that draft. It included an array of negative statements about Israel as examples of antisemitic offenses. While standard dictionary definitions of antisemitism didn’t even mention Israel, fully half of the newly devised Monitoring Centre definition referred to Israel.

Once the Monitoring Centre had created its expanded definition, certain Israel partisans used it to promote similar definitions elsewhere. And while the Monitoring Centre itself continued to term it only a “working” definition and its replacement organization eventually withdrew the definition, in other countries and agencies the expanded definition became official.

In addition, quite frighteningly, proponents pushed successfully to begin applying the Israel-centric definition to law enforcement.

In the United States

The same year Sharansky created his “3-D” antisemitism test — a year after he founded the Global Forum against Anti-Semitism — the U.S. Congress passed a law establishing exceptional government monitoring of antisemitism. The law created a special State Department envoy and office for this monitoring, over objections of the State Department itself.

The law, called the “Global Anti-Semitism Review Act,” included a line that subverted its meaning by enshrining a new definition of antisemitism aligned with Sharansky’s: “Anti-Semitism has at times taken the form of vilification of Zionism, the Jewish national movement, and incitement against Israel.”

The bill was introduced in April 2004. That June, a Congressional hearing was conducted about how to combat antisemitism. A major witness was Israeli minister Sharansky. In his testimony Sharansky proposed his “3-D” Israel-connected definition for anti-Semitism.[6]

State Department officials objected to the proposed legislation, saying the new office was unnecessary and would be a “bureaucratic nuisance” that would actually hinder the Department’s ongoing work. A State Department press release opposing the new office described the many actions that State was already taking against antisemitism.

Despite this opposition, the Senate bill acquired 24 cosponsors representing both parties, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Sam Brownback, Saxby Chambliss and Ted Stevens. Similar bills (here and here) were introduced in the House of Representatives, acquiring 35 cosponsors, again including both Republican and Democratic leaders. The legislation passed easily and quickly became law.

Gregg Rickman, first U.S. antisemitism envoy, later worked for AIPAC.
Gregg Rickman, first U.S. antisemitism envoy, later worked for AIPAC.

The first Special Envoy, Gregg Rickman, endorsed the European Monitoring Centre’s Working Definition in 2008. Rickman’s report called it a “useful framework” for identifying and understanding antisemitism. After Rickman left the State Department, he went to work for the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major Israel advocacy organization that lobbies Congress.

The next Special Envoy, Hannah Rosenthal, took this campaign a major step forward: In 2010 the office officially adopted the European Monitoring Centre’s definition.

Rosenthal was extremely proud of having achieved this “breakthrough” definition. She began making use of it quickly, establishing a 90-minute course on the new antisemitism at the Foreign Service Institute, the training school for diplomats.

“We have now a definition we can train people on,” she told the Times of Israel, “and we’ve been very aggressive in training foreign service officers.”

Hannah Rosenthal adopted the “breakthrough” Israel related definition and promptly used it in training U.S. diplomats.
Hannah Rosenthal adopted the “breakthrough” Israel related definition and promptly used it in training U.S. diplomats.

Rosenthal announced that with the new definition including criticism of Israel, their reporting on antisemitism improved “300 percent,” even though, she said, that didn’t mean that antisemitism had actually increased in all the countries monitored.

The gloves were off. Now fully half of the official U.S. State Department definition of antisemitism had gone beyond the normal meaning of the word to focus on Israel.

Applying the New Definition to U.S. Citizens

The State Department uses the new definition to monitor activities overseas. But once the State Department definition was in place, efforts began to use it to crack down on political and academic discourse and activism within the U.S.

This past December (2016) the U.S. Senate passed a law to apply the State Department’s definition (i.e. the Sharansky-Stern-Rosenthal definition) of antisemitism to the Education Department, for use in investigating reports of religiously motivated campus crimes.

A companion bill for the House is supported by AIPAC, the ADL, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

South Carolina’s House of Representatives recently passed legislation under which the State Department’s definition “would be used in probes of possible anti-Semitism at state colleges and universities.” The state senate will consider this in 2018. If passed, it will mean that the state will now probe criticism of Israel on state campuses.

Similar bills are being considered in Virginia and Tennessee but as of now are tabled. [The Virginia bill was tabled and reportedly will not be considered in 2017. Consideration of the Tennessee bill has also been delayed, but efforts to pass it continue.]

Such efforts are also ongoing in California. In December Democrat Brad Sherman called on the California Secretary of Education to “expand its definition to include certain forms of anti-Israel behavior.” Pro-Israel organizations such as the Amcha Initiative have also been pushing the state legislature for several years to officially adopt the State Department definition. So far these have been defeated but continue to be promoted.

U.S. Campuses

A parallel effort has been occurring on U.S. campuses. In 2003 Sharansky said that college campuses were “one of the most important battlefields” for Israel.

In 2015 University of California President Janet Napolitano (head of 10 campuses) publicly supported adopting the state department definition, after 57 rabbis sent a letter to her and the University Board of Regents promoting the definition.

Student councils or other groups at various universities have passed resolutions adopting the State Department definition, which can then be used to block campus events about Palestine.

An AIPAC official announced at the 2010 convention: “We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government. That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.”
An AIPAC official announced at the 2010 convention: “We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government. That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.”

An ongoing campaign to ensure Israel partisans become influential in student government has supported these efforts. This campaign was announced by an AIPAC leader in 2010: “We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government,” he said. “That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.” (Video here.)

Resolutions referencing the Israel-centric definitions have now been passed by student governments at UC Santa Barbara, UCLA, East Carolina University, Indiana University, Ohio’s Capital University, Ohio’s Kent State, Orange County’s Chapman University, San Diego State University, and other campuses around the country.[7]


An example of these resolutions is the 2015 bill at Indiana University. The resolution denounced anti-Semitism “as defined by the United States State Department” and stated that the student government would not fund antisemitic activities or activities that “undermine the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.” It also said that student government executives and Congress members would undergo diversity training on anti-Semitism.

According to the student newspaper, the bill was written by Rebekah Molasky, a fellow with the international pro-Israel organization Stand With Us. After the resolution was passed, “the bill’s sponsors and outside supporters hugged and high-fived before gathering in the hallway to take a picture to commemorate the moment.”

As evidenced above, such resolutions can now be used to censor student events. The UC San Diego resolution largely replicated the Indiana format, announcing that the student government will not support activities that “promote anti-Semitism” under the new definition, including “denying Israel the right to exist.” Stand With Us applauded the resolution.

In 2012, an organization called the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law was founded and immediately began promoting the new definition. Within a year it launched an initiative to establish student chapters at law schools throughout the U.S. to advance “the organization’s mandate to combat campus anti-Semitism through legal means.” The Center helped push the South Carolina legislation. It is one of numerous organizations promoting the new definition.

(Incidentally, former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis was a leader in the world Zionist movement and worked in public and covert ways to promote it — see here.)

“Thought Policing”

A number of analysts have pointed out some of the many significant flaws with such legislation.

Anthony L. Fisher at writes of Congress’s December law applying the State Department definition to the Education Department: “It gives the federal government the authority to investigate ideas, thoughts, and political positions as violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Fisher continues: “By specifically using the broad language of a 2010 State Department memo attempting to define anti-Semitism, the Senate bill wades into thought policing.”

Attorney Liz Jackson wrote in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times: “Anyone who values the constitutional right to express political dissent should worry about this development.”

NY Times columnist Bret Stephens says Jewish Americans should “do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish State.”
NY Times columnist Bret Stephens says Jewish Americans should “do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish State.”

On the other side of the debate is New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, formerly Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor and before that editor of an Israeli newspaper. Stephens, extremely hawkish on Israel, writes and speaks fervently against the movement to boycott Israel (BDS) and what he says is antisemitism on US campuses and elsewhere. In a Wall Street Journal editorial, he claimed that “anti-Semitism is the disease of the Arab world.”

In 2014 Stephens spoke at the Tikvah Fund, a philanthropic foundation committed to supporting the “Jewish people and the Jewish State,” opining that it would be a scandal if Jewish people failed “to do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish State.”

U.S. and European Lawmakers Pressure Governments to Ban Criticism of Israel

During all this time, parallel efforts to promote the new definition continued in Europe.

In 2009 an organization called the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (ICCA) took up the effort to spread the expanded definition. The group says it brings together parliamentarians from “around the world” to fight antisemitism and lists a steering committee of six European and U.S. legislators.

UK politician (and later Prime Minister) David Cameron signed the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition statement calling on governments to outlaw certain forms of criticism of Israel, including calls to boycott Israel; to regulate criticism of Israel in the media; to monitor criticism of Israel online and elsewhere; and to prosecute critics of Israel under “hate crimes” legislation.
UK politician (and later Prime Minister) David Cameron signed the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition statement calling on governments to outlaw certain forms of criticism of Israel, including calls to boycott Israel; to regulate criticism of Israel in the media; to monitor criticism of Israel online and elsewhere; and to prosecute critics of Israel under “hate crimes” legislation.

The group held a conference in London in 2009 at which it issued a “London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism,” which was signed by then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other heads of state and legislators. This declaration called on governments to use the European Monitoring Centre’s definition and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.”

It was couched in “anti-racism” terms, but when we look at the declaration’s recommendations combined with its definition of antisemitism, one thing becomes clear: In the declaration, numerous lawmakers of the Western world called on world governments to restrict political dissent.

Specifically, they called on governments to outlaw certain forms of criticism of Israel, including calls to boycott Israel; to regulate criticism of Israel in the media; to monitor criticism of Israel online and elsewhere; and to prosecute critics of Israel under “hate crimes” legislation.

Among numerous other demands, the lawmakers declared that governments:

  • “must expand the use of the EUMC [Monitoring Centre] ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’” including “as a basis for training material for use by Criminal Justice Agencies;”
  • should “isolate political actors” who “target the State of Israel;”
  • “should legislate ‘incitement to hatred’ offences and empower law enforcement agencies to convict;”
  • “should … establish inquiry scrutiny panels;”
  • “should utilise the EUMC [Monitoring Centre] ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’ to inform media standards;”
  • “should take appropriate and necessary action to prevent the broadcast of antisemitic programmes on satellite television channels, and to apply pressure on the host broadcast nation to take action to prevent the transmission of antisemitic programmes” (keeping in mind here that the declaration’s definition of “antisemitic” includes various criticism of Israel);
  • “should use domestic ‘hate crime’, ‘incitement to hatred’ and other legislation … to prosecute ‘Hate on the Internet’ where racist and antisemitic content is hosted, published and written” (again keeping in mind what is defined as “antisemitic”);
  • and that “education authorities should … protect students and staff from illegal antisemitic discourse and a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts.”

In 2015 the European Commission created a special position to coordinate work on combating antisemitism and appointed German national Katharina von Schnurbein to the post. Schnurbein proceeded to promote the use of the Israel-centric definition.[8]

UK and Austria Adopt Definition

In December 2016, the UK announced it would formally adopt the Israel-centric definition. It was quickly followed by Austria, which adopted the definition in April 2017. The Austrian justice minister had previously announced that the new definition would be used in the training of new judges and prosecutors.

British Prime Minister Theresa May announced the adoption of the Israel-centric definition at a Conservative Friends of Israel event.
British Prime Minister Theresa May announced the adoption of the Israel-centric definition at a Conservative Friends of Israel event.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May made the announcement during a talk before 800 guests at the Conservative Friends of Israel’s annual lunch.

UPI reported: “The British police are already using this definition[9], which can now also be used by other groups, such as municipal councils and universities. The definition is not a law, but provides a formal interpretation of an illegal act that can serve as a guideline for criminal proceedings.” Shortly afterward the UK’s higher education minister sent a letter informing universities that the government had adopted the IHRA definition and directing them to utilize it.

(The London council quickly followed suit with its own adoption of the definition, and other cities have now done the same. In May the Israel-Britain Alliance (IBA) began asking candidates for Parliament to sign a pledge that they would support the new definition.)

A number of groups objected to the definition, arguing that the definition “deliberately equates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.”

Opponents said it was “vigorously promoted by pro-Israel lobbyists to local authorities, universities, Labour movement organisations and other public bodies.”

They stated that after its adoption there had been “an increase in bannings and restrictions imposed on pro-Palestinian activities, especially on campuses.” Some of the cancellations cited the IHRA definition. Oxford Professor Stephen Sedley wrote in the London Review of Books that the IHRA definition gives “respectability and encouragement to forms of intolerance which are themselves contrary to law.”

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, recipient of the President’s Medal of the British Operational Research Society and Chair of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, said there were many examples of the definition creating a “chilling effect” on institutions’ willingness to permit lawful political activity, “even when the definition was not specifically cited.”

AJC’s Rabbi Andrew “Andy” Baker helped create and disseminate the new definition throughout Europe, Eurasia, the U.S., and Canada.
AJC’s Rabbi Andrew “Andy” Baker helped create and disseminate the new definition throughout Europe, Eurasia, the U.S., and Canada.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which represents all of Europe, Eurasia, the U.S., and Canada — a billion people — was also pushed to adopt the definition at its December 2016 conference.

The American Jewish Committee, which has offices in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Rome, and Warsaw, reported that it had “met with senior European government officials to encourage OSCE adoption of the definition.” However, adoption of the definition has so far been blocked by one member: Russia.

AJC leader Rabbi Andrew Baker wrote that the AJC would now work “to foster its greater use by the individual states of the OSCE and members of the European Union.”

Inter-Parliamentary Coalition’s American Representatives

Two American Congressmen are among the six-member steering committee of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (CCA).

One is Florida Congressman Ted Deutch. Deutch’s Congressional website highlights his support for Israel as well as his work against antisemitism.

Florida Congressman Ted Deutch has pushed the use of the Israel-centric definition to curtail academic freedom and campus political dissent within the United States. Deutch’s website declares him “a passionate supporter of Israel whose advocacy for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship stretches back to his youth.”
Florida Congressman Ted Deutch has pushed the use of the Israel-centric definition to curtail academic freedom and campus political dissent within the United States. Deutch’s website declares him “a passionate supporter of Israel whose advocacy for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship stretches back to his youth.”

According to the site, Deutch “works closely with his colleagues in the House and Senate to… pass resolutions strongly opposing manifestations of anti-Semitism at home in South Florida, across the United States, and around the world.”

The website reports: “Congressman Ted Deutch is a passionate supporter of Israel whose advocacy for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship stretches back to his youth. Ted spent his summers at Zionist summer camp, worked as a student activist in high school and college, and served in leadership roles on several local and national Jewish organizations throughout his professional career. Today, Ted serves as Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s influential Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, where he continues to champion Israel’s security during a time of great volatility in the Middle East.”

Deutch is also a member of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. His ICCA bio announces that he plans to use this position “to continue to publicly condemn anti-Semitism.”

Deutch receives considerable funding from the pro-Israel lobby.

In March Deutch led a bipartisan letter to Trump “Urging Forceful Action on Anti-Semitism.” It demanded ‘a comprehensive, inter-agency strategy that called for the Justice Department to investigate “anti-Semitic crimes” and “ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice.”

Deutch was one of two Congresspeople who introduced the December law to apply the State Department definition to education.

New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith, member of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition, brought Sharansky to testify before Congress about his new definition.
New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith, member of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition, brought Sharansky to testify before Congress about his new definition.

The other U.S. Congressman on the steering committee of the ICCA is Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey. Smith is also a senior member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. According to the website Open Secrets, a large proportion of his campaign donations are also from pro-Israel sources.

Natan Sharansky twice testified at hearings Smith chaired. In a speech at an event honoring Smith for his work against antisemitism, Smith remembered that Sharansky had “proposed what he called a simple test to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. He called it the three Ds: Demonization, double standard, and de-legitimization.”

Spreading the New Definition Under Cover of “Anti-Racism” Movement

UK universities have seen repression of pro-Palestinian activism on an epic scale. In 2007 the UK’s National Union of Students (NUS) adopted the new antisemitism definition at its national conference, when pro-Israel students introduced a motion entitled “AntiRacism: Challenging Racism on Campus and in Our Communities.” Some student unions at various UK universities then did the same.

This was a particularly ironic name for a pro-Israel motion, given that many people around the world consider Israel’s founding ideology, political Zionism, racist. In fact, in 1975 the UN General Assembly specifically passed a resolution that “Zionism is a form of racism.”

(The resolution was revoked In 1991, but not because the world body had changed its mind. In that year President Bush was pushing for the Madrid Peace Conference, which he hoped would end the “Arab-Israeli” conflict. When Israel said it would only participate in the conference if the UN revoked the resolution, the U.S. pressured member states to do just this.)

Through the years numerous entities have affirmed that Zionism is a type of racism, including conferences in South Africa and a recent UN commission which reported that Israel was practicing apartheid. (This report was then removed by the UN Director General, after Israeli and U.S. pressure.)

The UK student actions exemplify a trend that has pervaded this movement since the beginning: Efforts to shut down pro-Palestinian activism, curtail free speech and police thought both online and off are repeatedly packaged as “anti-racism” and sometimes “anti-fascism.”[10]

Campaign for New Definition Overcomes Hiccups

Taken together, these steps towards redefining “antisemitism” to include criticism of Israel, and then ban it, are effectively (and increasingly rapidly) producing significant results in terms of actual regulation and even law enforcement. Nevertheless, there apparently has been some resistance to the change.

In 2013, the successor organization to the European Monitoring Centre (called the European Fundamental Rights Agency) quietly dropped the working definition from its website. Without any public announcement, the definition was simply no longer on its site. When questioned about this, the agency’s director simply said that the organization had “no mandate to develop its own definitions.”

Proponents of the definition were outraged. Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center complained that the agency’s “disowning of its own definition is astounding” and that “those who fight antisemitism have lost an important weapon.” (The Wiesenthal Center is a global organization that declares it “stands with Israel” with offices in Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, Miami, Chicago, Paris, Buenos Aires, and Jerusalem.)

However, the fact that the Monitoring Centre had never officially adopted the definition, and that its successor organization now had apparently discarded it, seems to have been ignored by those who had adopted it.

The U.S. State Department continues to use the discarded version. The only difference is that the PDF that gave its Monitoring Centre origins has been removed from State’s website.

The World Jewish Congress convention 2014, chaired by David de Rothschild, urged “all countries to adopt a binding definition of anti-Semitic crimes” based on the Israel-centric definition.
The World Jewish Congress convention 2014, chaired by David de Rothschild, urged “all countries to adopt a binding definition of anti-Semitic crimes” based on the Israel-centric definition.

The following year, the World Jewish Congress, which represents Jewish umbrella bodies in 100 countries, called on “all countries to adopt a binding definition of anti-Semitic crimes based on the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism developed by the former European Union Monitoring Commission (EUMC) and used in a number of states’ law enforcement agencies.”

IHRA Picks Up the Ball

Other groups stepped into the vacuum and kept the definition alive. In 2016 The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted the definition.

The IHRA consists of 31 Member Countries, ten Observer Countries, and seven international partner organizations. Its chair announced that the IHRA’s goal was to inspire “other international fora” to also adopt “a legally binding working definition.” It’s working: Britain and Austria almost immediately followed suit.

The U.S. Brandeis Center applauded the move, saying that “because the IHRA has adopted it, the definition has now officially been given the international status that it was previously lacking.”

The Brandeis Center reported that this was the “culmination of a process initiated by Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, two years ago, with help from others including Ira Forman and Nicholas Dean of the U.S. Department of State.”

Ira Forman, antisemitism envoy under Obama and formerly of AIPAC, played a pivotal role in the IHRA adoption of the new definition.
Ira Forman, antisemitism envoy under Obama and formerly of AIPAC, played a pivotal role in the IHRA adoption of the new definition.

Forman was the State Department Special Anti-Semitism Envoy under Obama, reportedly led Obama’s reelection campaign in the Jewish community, had worked for Bill Clinton, and had served as Political Director and Legislative Liaison for AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying organization. Nicholas Dean had been the State Department Special Envoy for the Holocaust.

The New York Jewish Week reported that Forman and Dean “played a pivotal role in diplomatic efforts that led to the recent adoption by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance of a Working Definition of Anti-Semitism.”

“This is the first-ever formal international definition of anti-Semitism, and a potentially crucial tool for forcing governments and international agencies to confront and take action against it,” the article continued.

Pressure On State Department to Continue Extra Monitoring

Among much budget slashing proposed by President Donald Trump were cuts to the State Department that would have ended funding for the antisemitism monitoring office and special envoy (though State Department monitoring of antisemitism would continue even after the cuts).

Various organizations are lobbying to keep the office and envoy, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a U.S. organization whose mission is to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people” but which in effect seems to serve as an American extension of the most right-wing elements of Israel’s government. It has a long and infamous history of attacking critics of Israeli policy as “antisemites” and also uses an Israel-centric definition of antisemitism.

The ADL and allies pointed to a rash of bomb threats against Jewish institutions to strengthen their argument that this exceptional office must be funded. A letter with over a hundred signatories was sent to Trump demanding that he keep the dedicated State Department position, a bipartisan letter in support of retaining that special monitor was circulated in Congress, and over 100 Holocaust memorial groups and scholars urged Trump to keep the office.

As this political fight has raged, the ADL, which has a budget of over $56 million, sent out press releases to national and local media around the country reporting that antisemitic incidents have soared. The release was repeated almost verbatim in numerous national media and in individual states (as a random example, a Massachusetts headline declared: “Report: Anti-Semitism on the rise in Massachusetts.”)

However, it is impossible to know how many of the antisemitic incidents reported by the ADL were actually related to criticism of Israel, because the ADL didn’t release the data on which these results were based.

Israeli man arrested for over 2,000 bomb threats.
Israeli man arrested for over 2,000 bomb threats.

In addition, the ADL’s reported spike includes a spate of threats called in to Jewish organizations, schools and community centers that, thankfully, were hoaxes. The vast majority of threats (reportedly to over 2,000 institutions) apparently were perpetrated by an 18-year-old Jewish Israeli who reportedly suffers from medical and mental problems. (This alleged perpetrator is also accused of trying to extort a US Senator, threatening the children of a US official, and a range of other crimes.)

Another individual, an American in the U.S., apparently perpetrated eight hoax bomb threats in a bizarre campaign to get his former girlfriend in trouble.

A Jewish News Service article says the threats by the Israeli teen made up a significant percentage of the ADL’s spike and reported: “The Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) decision to count an Israeli teenager’s alleged recent bomb hoaxes as ‘anti-Semitic incidents’ is prompting criticism from some Jewish community officials.”

An ADL official admitted that the audit is an approximation, saying “the science on it is currently being written.” A regional ADL director said that “this is not a poll or a scientific study,” but rather “an effort to get a sense of ‘what’s going on in people’s hearts.’”

Regarding hard data, the report said that anti-Semitic assaults across the nation had “decreased by about 36 percent.”

The ADL blames various groups for antisemitism, pointing the finger at people of color with claims that Hispanic Americans and African Americans are “the most anti-Semitic cohorts,” at “white supremacists” and at Trump’s election — but not at the Israeli teen responsible for 2,000+ hoax threats that terrorized Jewish institutions, nor at its own distorted, Israel-connected definition.[11]

Claims of increased antisemitism are cited repeatedly in calls for the U.S. government to maintain funding for the special State Department monitoring.

Former US Ambassador to UN Samantha Power tweeted that the entire Trump administration should focus on antisemitism.
Former US Ambassador to UN Samantha Power tweeted that the entire Trump administration should focus on antisemitism.

Former Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and two Democratic congressional representatives, Reps. Nita Lowey of New York and Deutch of Florida, are among those demanding that Trump appoint a new antisemitism monitor and maintain this office at full strength, even while he cuts other federal spending.

Power tweeted: “Anti-semitism is surging in world. Entire Trump admin needs to focus on it & envoy position must be kept.”

Lowey demanded: “The president must show he takes the rise of anti-Semitism seriously by immediately appointing a special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism and fully staffing the Special Envoy’s office.”

In a May 2017 speech, World Jewish Congress leader Ronald Lauder said, “Being anti-Israel is being anti-Semitic.” He announced that the congress “is creating a new communications department, or what you might call Hasborah” to counter this new “antisemitism.”

Dissenting Views

Many Jewish writers and activists dispute Lauder’s contention and oppose the campaign to conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel. An article in Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper points out that “were anti-Zionism a cover for the abuse of individual Jews, individual Jews would not join anti-Zionist groups. Yet many do. Jewish students are well represented in anti-Zionist groups like Students for Justice in Palestine.”

Rabbi Ahron Cohen of Naturei Kartei (“Guardians of the Faith”) writes that “Judaism and Zionism are incompatible and mutually exclusive.” Cohen states that antisemitism is “an illogical bigotry. Anti-Zionism, however, is a perfectly logical opposition, based on very sound reasoning, to a particular idea and aim.”

Cohen argues: “According to the Torah and Jewish faith, the present Palestinian Arab claim to rule in Palestine is right and just. The Zionist claim is wrong and criminal. Our attitude to Israel is that the whole concept is flawed and illegitimate. So anti-Zionism is certainly not anti-Semitism.”


Recently Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper published a column entitled, “An Israeli Soldier Shot a Palestinian in Front of Her Kids. Where’s Her Compensation?”

The article, by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, begins: “For three months, Dia Mansur was certain his mother was dead. He was 15 years old when he saw her collapse in the living room of their home, felled by a bullet fired by an Israel Defense Forces soldier that sliced into her face, tearing it apart. He saw his mother lying on the floor, blood oozing from her mouth…”

Gaza, 2014. Israel’s invasions and shelling of Gaza killed and injured thousands of children and left multitudes homeless.
Gaza, 2014. Israel’s invasions and shelling of Gaza killed and injured thousands of children and left multitudes homeless.

Levy, citing a report by an Israeli human rights organization, writes that from September 2000 to through February 2017, “Israel killed 4,868 noncombatant Palestinian civilians, more than one-third of them (1,793) were children and adolescents below the age of 18.” (More info here.)

He continued: “Thousands of others, who were also not involved in fighting, have been wounded and permanently incapacitated.” (Photos here.)

Shifa Hospital, Gaza, 2014
Shifa Hospital, Gaza, 2014

A few weeks before that report, Ha’aretz published an article that described Israel’s month-long imprisonment of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, one of over 200 Palestinian children taken by Israeli forces in a little over three months. The boy, accused of throwing stones against Israeli soldiers, would have been released from incarceration earlier, except that his impoverished family didn’t have enough money to pay the fine.

In the article, Israeli journalist Amira Haas reported that the boy’s father said that his son “wasn’t how he used to be before he was arrested.” “He used to joke,” the father said, “and he stopped doing that. He talked a lot, and now he is silent.”

Haas wrote that UNICEF had issued a report four years ago that Israel was “extensively and systematically abusing detained Palestinian children and youth.” Today, she reported, “The stories of physical violence, threats, painful plastic handcuffs and naked body searches remain almost identical.”

Sadly, every week there are similar stories.

Israeli soldiers arrest Palestinian boy in West Bank town of Hebron, June 20, 2014. “Human Rights Watch on Monday accused Israel of ‘abusive arrests’ of Palestinian children as young as 11 and of using threats to force them to sign confessions.” – AFP
Israeli soldiers arrest Palestinian boy in West Bank town of Hebron, June 20, 2014. “Human Rights Watch on Monday accused Israel of ‘abusive arrests’ of Palestinian children as young as 11 and of using threats to force them to sign confessions.” – AFP

To the multi-billion dollar network of lobbies advocating for conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, those who work to get such information to the American people – whose government gives Israel $10 million per day – are antisemitic.

Many others of all faiths and ethnicities have a different view.

Sixteen years ago I wrote: “Equating the wrongdoing of Israel with Jewishness is the deepest and most insidious form of anti-Semitism of all.”

It is ironic that it is the Israel lobby that is today doing this equating, and that it has worked to invert the very meaning of antisemitism itself. Rather than denoting only abhorrent behavior, as it once did, today the term is often officially applied to what many consider courageous actions against oppression.

More troubling, still, these lobbying groups are working to outlaw conduct that numerous people (including many Israelis and Jewish Americans) consider morally obligatory.

It seems imperative for Americans who wish for justice and peace in the Middle East, and who oppose Orwellian distortions of language and law, to speak out against this campaign – while we can.

The real aim of Israeli-Saudi alliance

“The warming ties between Israel and US-aligned Arab regimes has come at the expense of solidarity with Palestinians.” “According to The New York Times, Netanyahu’s flirtation with the Saudis and other regional governments is aimed at “subordinating the Palestinian dispute as a secondary issue.”


electronicintifada23 May 2017

On Monday I spoke to Aaron Maté of The Real News about Donald Trump’s first overseas visit as US president.

Watch the video above.

Trump spent two days in Saudi Arabia, where he announced massive weapons deals with an absolute monarchy that has been leading a devastating US-backed bombing campaign against Yemen, killing thousands of civilians over the last two years.

A Saudi-led blockade has caused hunger to millions of Yemenis and brought the country to the brink of famine.

Yemen now faces a cholera epidemic that is spreading rapidly out of control.

The announcement of Trump’s initial $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia sent the stocks of weapons makers soaring.

Israeli-Saudi alliance

On Monday, Trump flew from Saudi Arabia to Israel. He then visited the Western Wall and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, both in occupied East Jerusalem, and held press conferences with Israeli leaders.

On Tuesday, Trump returned to the occupied West Bank for a cursory meeting with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem.

In a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump acknowledged what has long been known: that Israel and Saudi Arabia have formed a tacit alliance whose main target is Iran.

The warming ties between Israel and US-aligned Arab regimes has come at the expense of solidarity with Palestinians.

“There is a growing realization among your Arab neighbors that they have common cause with you in the threat posed by Iran, and it is indeed a threat, there’s no question about that,” Trump said.

But Israeli officials were reportedly displeased that Trump tied the future of Israel’s relationship with authoritarian Sunni sectarian regimes to progress on making peace with the Palestinians.

According to The New York Times, Netanyahu’s flirtation with the Saudis and other regional governments is aimed at “subordinating the Palestinian dispute as a secondary issue.”

Trump’s comments, the newspaper added, in effect tied “the future of the anti-Iran coalition to the Palestinian issue despite Mr. Netanyahu’s longtime efforts to unlink the two.”

Trump reportedly emphasized in private talks with Israeli leaders that Arab rulers had told him they would take further steps to normalize ties with Israel if the “peace process” makes progress.

Occupation violence unabated

Since his election, Trump has repeatedly declared his desire to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but has done nothing in practice to make that remotely plausible.

Israel continues to seize Palestinian land for Jewish-only colonization and to violently suppress the Palestinian population with no consequences from the United States.

On Monday, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy from Bethlehem was shot dead by Israeli occupation forces who claimed he attempted to stab a soldier at a checkpoint in the West Bank. No Israelis were injured.

At least 20 more Palestinians were shot and injured across the West Bank by Israeli forces suppressing demonstrations in support of Palestinian hunger strikers.

Palestinians also observed a general strike on Monday.

Palestinians held protests in the Gaza Strip as well, and one was reportedly shot and injured by Israeli fire across the boundary fence.

As Trump posed for photo opportunities and was scheduled to enjoy dinner at Netanyahu’s official residence on Monday night, more than 1,300 Palestinians were on their 36th day of hunger strike in Israeli prisons.

Dozens, their health sharply deteriorating, have been moved to hospitals and field clinics by Israeli authorities, who continue to reject their demands for basic rights, including family visits, an end to solitary confinement and adequate medical care.

How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Ibn Saud had begun his siege of Jeddah in January 1925 and the city finally surrendered in December 1925 bringing to an end over 1000 years of rule by the Prophet Muhammad’s descendants. The British officially recognised Ibn Saud as the new King of Hijaz in February 1926 with other European powers following suit within weeks. The new unified Wahhabi state was rebranded by the Empire in 1932 as the “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (KSA). A certain George Rendel, an officer working at the Middle East desk at the Foreign Office in London, claimed credit for the new name…

Naming The US Elites

These pro-Israel people like pledges: they tried to force me to sign a pledge of loyalty to Israel. When I refused, it was trench warfare, hand to hand combat every day I was in the Congress, and the U.S. people never knew that I was fighting to remain independent for them. To make real peace and to find real justice. Here, they have the whole of the U.S. government making pledges to them!!! Unbelievable. –
Cynthia McKinney, PhD

By Brother Nathanael Kapner April 24, 2017

FOR SOME REASON…other than for fear of the Jews…pundits tend toward ambiguity when identifying who controls America, and thereby, the Western world.

For when contrasting rulers from the ruled, analysts use terms like “elites,” “globalists,” “corporate bosses,” “special interests,” “presstitutes,” “the deep state,” etcetera.

One way of identifying the “elites” is by using a gauge recommended by Voltaire:

To know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

Just one small swipe at some influential person whose name ends with berg, stein, or vitz, and you’re black-balled, de-funded, nailed to the menorah, and tarred as an ‘anti-Semite.’

Publicists duck Jewish black-balling by employing generic phrases. Alex Jones uses “globalists;” Paul Craig Roberts, “presstitutes;” and Gerald Celente, “elites,” while I simply say “JEWS.”

As a former Jew growing up in an upper middle class/B’nai B’rith oriented synagogue, I use an extensive, all-embracing brush for identifying those who rule over the goys.

I mark out an expansive net that holds all the fish that swim through financial, political, and informational waters.

Someone has to name the names since ambiguities and generic phrases get us nowhere when combating the pervasive evil of Jewry.

WHEN IDENTIFYING THE ELITES, the phrase “Synagogue of Satan” surfaces.

A racial/religious entity (Synagogue) with evil and universal dominion (Satan) is seen.

This entity has layers of power that merge with each other – distinct, but united in its malicious effects.

The layers encompass the financial; the political; and the informational, which includes the media, press, and education. Each layer is run by JEWS.

The financial realm, namely the Fed and Goldman Sachs, has the Jews Stanley Fischer, Janet Yellen, and Gary Cohn dominating it.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild once said: Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.

The Fed and Wall Street, (which underwrites the stocks of the Military/Industrial complex), cuts the paychecks of war criminals like Mad Dog Mattis and Herbie McMaster.

In the political realm, Jews with BILLIONS at their disposal: Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, and Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations’ head, Malcolm Hoenlein, dominate.

Every hack on Capitol Hill has to play ball with big JEW money or his career is over.

In the informational realm, Jews like Sumner Redstone (b. Murray Rothstein), Robert Iger, Aviv Novo, and Brian Roberts, OWN the TV venues. View Entire Story Here & Here.

Jews—like their father, the devil—are liars. They publish “lying news” NOT “fake news.”

What can be done to see the Synagogue of Satan bite the dust?

It won’t happen by calling its members “elites,” “globalists,” and “presstitutes.”

The Neo Con Song

Related imageThe Neo Con SongRelated image

Neocons are the bloodthirsty war criminals who have destroyed seven countries, murdered, maimed, and displaced millions of Muslim peoples, and sent millions of refugees from the neocon wars into Europe. None of these war criminals are protected from terrorist attack. If the alleged “Muslim threat” was real, every one of the war criminals would be dead by now, not the innocent people sitting in Paris cafes or attending parties in California.

Neocons are the unhumans who created on purpose the “war against terror” in order to gain a weapon against Russia and China. You can witness these unhumans every day on talk TV and read them in the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the British, German, Australian, Canadian, and endless Western newspapers.

The Imperialist myth of the Sunni-Shia divide

The Saudi family dictatorship fears the Iranian example of a democratic political system within a Muslim constitutional framework. Iran’s example threatens the justification of al-Saud family rule. Soon after the revolution in Iran the Sauds started a war by proxies against the country. The Iraqi-Iranian war was instigated and financed by Saudi money with the help of the U.S. and British oil interests. When that war failed to defeat Iran the Saudis moved their fight into a sectarian framework. They depict the Iranians as Shia unbelievers who are not real Muslims. They claim that their own Sunni-Wahhabi sect represents a majority view in the Muslim world. This is far from the truth even though Saudi money is doing its best to convert mainstream Sufi-Muslims societies like Indonesia into Wahhabi protectorates. It is funny how “western” analysts repeat the “Sunni majority” claptrap but never point out that Shia Muslims are actually the majority in the relevant Persian Gulf region.

TEHRAN —“Mr. Trump arrived in the region at the time when he saw 45 million Iranians participating in the elections,” Mr. Rouhani said. “Then he visited a country that I doubt knows the definition of elections. The poor things have never seen a ballot box.”

 May 21, 2017 Trump Puts US on Sunni Muslim Side of Bitter Sectarian War with Shias
President Trump called on 55 Muslim leaders assembled in Riyadh to drive out terrorism from their countries. He identified Iran as a despotic state and came near to calling for regime change, though Iran held a presidential election generally regarded as fair only two days previously. Almost all of the 55 Muslim rulers and leaders in the vast hall in Riyadh will have breathed a little easier on hearing Mr Trump’s repeated call “to drive out terrorism”, since they have always described anybody who opposes their authority as “terrorists”.
He denounced Hezbollah and lined up the US squarely on the side of the Sunni against the Shia in the sectarian proxy war that is tearing apart the Middle East.***

During the Iraq war the US ‘sided’ (ostensibly) with the Shia, making “Sunnis oppress the Shia” the centerpiece of their propaganda. Before that, there was no discernible permanent sectarian conflict (only occasionally). The US created it for the usual imperial reasons.

It’s true that Iran conducts independent foreign policy and is considered an enemy, and SA and the US coexist in a sort of symbiosis. But this has nothing to do with any sectarian or ethnic shit. Garden variety geopolitics.***

In Bahrain (circa March 2011), both Shia and Sunni opposition leaders come together, holding a sign reading “No Sunni, No Shia: One unified nation.”

During the period of European rule over Rwanda, the Belgian colonial administrators of the territory accomplished an extraordinary feat in their subjugation of the local population – the deliberate manufacture of new ethnic divisions.

By formulating ethnic categorizations based on subjective judgments of Rwandans’ height and skin colour, the Belgians sought to keep the Rwandan people at odds with one another and subservient to them. Entirely fabricated histories and genealogies were concocted for the “Hutu” and “Tutsi” peoples, although these terms themselves had been taken from the dustbin of Rwandan history and had had little effective meaning for hundreds of years.

This strategy of divide-and-conquer eventually resulted in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, a bloodbath which shocked the conscience of the world and claimed the lives of roughly 800,000 people. Hutus and Tutsis, themselves only recently fabricated identities, had come to believe in a false narrative in which they had been in opposition to one another since the dawn of time.

Today it is increasingly common to hear talk of the existence of a “1,400 Year War” between Sunni and Shia Muslims. In this narrative, the sectarian violence of today is simply the continuation of an ancient religious conflict rooted in events which transpired in the 7th century. While some Muslims themselves have recently bought into this worldview, it would suffice to say that such beliefs represent not only a misreading of history but a complete and utter fabrication of it. While there are distinct theological differences between Sunnis and Shias, the claim that these two groups have been in a perpetual state of war and animosity throughout their existence is an absurd falsehood.

The conflict now brewing between certain Sunni and Shia political factions in the Middle East today has little or nothing to do with religious differences and everything to do with modern identity politics. Just as in Rwanda, Western powers and their local allies have sought to exacerbate these false divisions in order to perpetuate conflict and maintain a Middle East which is at once thoroughly divided and incapable of asserting itself.

False continuities

Analyses of the roots of sectarian conflict in the Middle East tend to look at the historical schism between Sunnis and Shias as the original driving factor behind present-day tensions. In this reading of events, the 680AD Battle of Karbala in which the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (who are particularly revered by Shia Muslims) were killed was merely the first battle in a long and continuous sectarian conflict which today is being played out in Syria, Lebanon and other countries throughout the Middle East.

As described by the Saudi writer Abdullah Hamiddadin, this explanation of contemporary events is as absurd as explaining modern tensions between Turkey and the EU as being rooted in the ancient conflict between King Charles and the Empress of Byzantium. Positing that present-day political rivalries can be explained by examining ninth-century conflicts between European powers is transparent nonsense. However, the same logic is readily applied to conflicts within the Muslim world.

Indeed, while modern political factions often make reference to theological differences, the usage of symbolism and rhetoric which draws upon the distant past (a tactic employed by political opportunists around the world) is very different than the existence of an actual continuity between ancient history and the present. However, thanks to the efforts of well-funded religious demagogues – themselves either ignorant of history or cynical manipulators of it – this patently ridiculous explanation of world events is gaining some purchase even among Muslims themselves.

Remembering history in the Middle East

For those who would seek to shamelessly fabricate a historical narrative in order to serve their venal political interests, it is worth restating some basic realities about the nature of sectarian relationships in the Middle East. While over a millennium of cohabitation the various religious communities of the region have experienced identifiable ups-and-downs in their relations, the overall narrative between them is vastly more of pluralism, tolerance and accommodation than of hard-wired conflict and animosity.

For centuries, Sunnis and Shias (as well as Christians, Jews and other religious groups) have lived closely intertwined with one another to a degree without parallel elsewhere in the world. Even where they have exerted power through distinct political structures, the argument that this has equated to conflict does not stand up to even a cursory analysis. While the Sunni Ottoman Empire and Shia Safavid Empire experienced their share of conflict, they also lived peaceably alongside one another for hundreds of years, even considering it shameful to engage in conflict with one another as Muslim powers.

Furthermore, despite seething protestations to the contrary from zealots of all types, “sects” have hardly been separately self-contained entities over history. Shia and Sunni Muslim scholars have long engaged in dialogue and influenced the religious thought of one another for centuries, blurring the already largely superficial distinctions between the two communities. As a legacy of this, today the greatest seat of learning in Sunni Islam also teaches Shia theology as an integrated school of thought.


Murtaza Hussain is a Toronto-based writer and analyst focused on issues related to Middle Eastern politics.

9/11: The Truth was out by 2002

“You can’t understand what’s been going on around the world with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand that the two countries have this secret arrangement.”

I was skimming through comments from an article I just read about the Soldiers in Afghanistan who had urinated on victims they had killed. We all remember that. The author was defending the soldiers because the “terrorists” (in their own country which was being militarily invaded by US which was never mentioned), had bombed some of their friends in their unit previously.

The author is appalled by the public hostility towards the soldiers at the time. The article appalled me! The uniformed reader level was astonishing, as if all these years and events never passed! I posted this link at the site and then thought I would post it here, for old times sake. I have been a fan of Justin Raimondo forever.

March 8, 2002 by Justin Raimondo

In late November, the Washington Post ran a story that stopped me dead in my tracks: “60 Israelis on Tourist Visas Detained Since Sept. 11,” but it was the subhead that really got my attention: “Government Calls Several Cases ‘of Special Interest,’ Meaning Related to Post-Attacks Investigation.” In addition to the 1000-plus Middle Easterners of the Muslim persuasion swept up in Ashcroft’s post-9/11 dragnet, it seems, some 60 Israelis were in custody.

And these were no ordinary tourists: INS officials testified in immigration court hearings that this group was “of special interest to the government” – the same argument used to justify the detention of Arabs in connection with the investigation into 9/11. Shortly thereafter, in a column dated 11/28/01, I asked: “What, exactly, is the meaning of this?” Today, I am relieved to note, the rest of the media is finally catching up to and asking the same question.


While my own answer has developed over at least half a dozen subsequent columns, the core of my thesis has remained essentially unchanged. As I put it:

“As long as 60 Israeli citizens are being held – under conditions of great secrecy – in connection with the 9/11 investigation, it is no longer tenable to dismiss the possibility of an Israeli angle in this story.”

The Post story went on to describe the Israeli detainees as having served in special anti-terrorist and intelligence units. “Something tells me these guys are no ordinary tourists,” I averred.

While “we just don’t know” because of the secrecy surrounding the government’s actions, I thought that the whole point of the Ashcroft round-up was not only to sweep up potential suspects but to gather information that could lead them to Al Qaeda’s underground network in the US. Therefore, I theorized,

“It could be that the Israelis, or at least some of them, fall into this category: while not being directly involved, maybe they know something. Nothing else could account for the government’s ‘special interest.'”


The suggestion of an Israeli connection to the events surrounding 9/11 did not spring, full blown, like Athena from the head of Zeus. It had been hovering in the background, implied in odd accounts such as the one about the group of Israelis picked by the FBI after they were spotted in Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, laughing and giving each other high-fives as the World Trade Center burned on the other side of the river.

In an astonishing story in the Bergen Record, we learn that 5 men described as “Israeli tourists,” were picked up 8 hours after the WTC attack, “carrying maps linking them to the blasts.” “…[S]ources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot.

‘There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted,’ the source said. ‘It looked like they’re hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.'” According to this account, the 5 “tourists” had been picked up by local police after receiving the following alert from the FBI:

“Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center.
 Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.”


Then there was the story about the two employees of the Odigo Company, an Israeli-based “instant-messaging” software company, with New York offices in the vicinity of the WTC, who received messages in the hours before disaster struck that the World Trade Center would be hit. I was so skeptical of this report, published in Ha’aretz, an Israeli daily newspaper, that I wrote the author: he confirmed the contents of these mysterious missives and cited his sources.

In this context, the Washington Post story fit into an eerie pattern: it was not the final but the definitive piece of the puzzle: the piece that, once found and put in place, evokes an exclamation of “so that‘s what it is!” I was alone, at the time, in raising the possibility of an Israeli angle to the story of 9/11 – but not for long.


On December 11, Fox News ran the first of a four-part series by Carl Cameron that offered yet more evidence to support my contention that the Israelis had some rather specific foreknowledge of the 9/11 atrocity. Citing sources in law enforcement, Cameron dropped a bombshell:

“A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States. There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they [sic] Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it.

A highly placed investigator said there are – quote – ‘tie-ins.’ But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, – quote – ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified.

I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’ Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism.”

The detained Israelis, reported Cameron, had been part of a vast spy operation that had very possibly been tracking the hijackers, and had both the means and the opportunity to discover the terrorist plot. Over four nights, he detailed extensive Israeli penetration of US defense and government facilities revealed in the documents of a secret task force within the government that has been collecting evidence on this case since the early 1990s.


Posing as “art students” selling cheap handicrafts and paintings, as many as 120 young Israelis – the majority of whom “stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units” in the Israeli army – made contact with US government officials and personnel in “hundreds of incidents and towns across the country.”

Indeed, there had been so many news reports in local media, concentrated especially in Texas and Florida, detailing this activity that the National Counterintellligence Center (a dot-gov site) issued the following alert:

“In the past six weeks, employees in federal office buildings located throughout the United States have reported suspicious activities connected with individuals representing themselves as foreign students selling or delivering artwork. Employees have observed both males and females attempting to bypass facility security and enter federal buildings.”


These “students,” the NCC observed, who “have been described as aggressive,” didn’t seem too interested in selling anybody anything, and instead seemed intent on simply gaining access. Two were arrested (in Texas) and, lo and behold, it was discovered that their work visas and green cards were counterfeit.

One particularly eerie aspect of all this is these “students” turning up at “the private residences of senior federal officials under the guise of selling art.” On October 2, KHOU-TV of Houston, Texas, reported that, earlier in the year, these guys were caught sneaking into “federal buildings and defense sites,” and, in Dallas,

“The so-called students hit early this year at the city’s FBI building, the Drug Enforcement Administration and at the Earle Cabell Federal building, where guards found one student wandering the halls with a floor plan of the building.”


The Fox News exposé also reported on the near-total penetration of US communications facilities by Israel, through two “private” Israeli telecommunications companies, Amdocs, Ltd., and Comverse Infosys, which, together, handle virtually all the billing records and government wiretaps in the US. Indeed, many of the “art students” not only had “intelligence expertise,” but also worked for Amdocs “or other companies in Israel that specialize in wiretapping.”


Cameron’s report, which was immediately denied by the Israelis, spread pandemonium throughout the government, and official spokesmen stonewalled. Ari Fleischer was unusually laconic, referring questions from reporters to an unresponsive Justice Department and other equally uncooperative government agencies. As for the rest of the American media – a stunning silence. You could hear a pin drop. As Cameron put it in an interview with CSPAN:

“The biggest story of our time, of Israel spying on all branches of the government, on all our intelligence agencies – in the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], the DEA and the White House itself, is not picked up by the leading newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.”


Ah, but the Post, at least, would eventually be forced to pick up the story, if only to serve as a conduit for official government denials. In the meantime, for months, the only place you could read about this story was on, and specifically right here in this space: that is, here, and here, and here, and here – and also here, and here. Not to mention here. (And don’t forget here.) Until, finally, the story was picked up overseas, by LeMonde, a major French newspaper, which based its story [go here for the French version] on a report published in the Online Intelligence newsletter.

The editor of the newsletter, Guillaume Dasquié – co-author of Bin Laden: The Hidden Truth – was recently taken to task in this space for positing the 9/11 conspiracy as being part of a plot by Saudi Arabia, which, after all, “since the 18th century … has been focused on conquering the world.” I am glad to see, however, that the direction of his investigation has now taken a radically different turn….


This turn was helped along, it seems, by yet another “leak” from a US government agency, this time the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Dasquié had somehow gotten his hands on a classified 61-page report drafted by an interagency task force charged with summarizing information gleaned from the nearly 120 Israelis rounded up in the wake of 9/11.

The DEA, it seems, took the lead in the investigation because its Office of Security Programs – responsible for internal security – first stumbled on “unusual behavior of young Israeli nationals who had gained access to DEA circles.” As it turned out, nearly all these “art students” belonged to a particular school of art – that is, if espionage and spying in general can be considered an art, albeit a black one.


What I like best about Online Intelligence is that it names names,

“A few of the operatives are well known in the Israeli intelligence community. The report cited the names of Peer Segalovitz (military registration number 5087989) and Aran Ofek, son of a renowned two-star general in the Israeli army. The network targeted some of the most sensitive sites in the U.S., such as Tanker Air Force Base near Oklahoma City.

Indeed, the U.S. Air Force’s Office of Special Investigation sent a letter to the Justice Department on May 16 of last year to ask for assistance in a case against four Israelis suspected of spying: Yaron Ohana, Ronen Kalfon, Zeev Cohen and Naor Topaz.”


According to the DEA, Israel’s underground army in the US consisted of “around 20 units composed of between four and eight members each.” More names are named: Michael Calmanovic headed up the team in Irving, Texas, while Florida was the domain of Hanan Serfaty. Legum Yochai had charge of the Miami operation. Online Intelligence also notes the Amdocs connection: it seems these “art students” “cultivated contacts with Israeli information technology companies based in the US and serving as regular suppliers to various U.S. federal agencies, such as Amdocs” and others.

The Fox News series is cited, by Online Intelligence and Le Monde, and the former even provides a convenient map of the Texas chapter of the “art students” underground apparatus, complete with not only names, but arrival dates, corporate connections, when and where they were arrested, and their specific functions in the Israeli military-intelligence apparatus. How much more evidence do we need before the editorialists and the pundits start calling government officials on their lies – and Congress begins an investigation?


As I said in my first column on this subject, written before Fox News expanded on the story and introduced it to a wider public, “truth will out” in spite of government stonewalling and obsessive secrecy:

“In these days of the Internet, and the instant dissemination of information, the gatekeepers have to resort to quasi-legal means to keep the truth from coming out. But it will come out, sooner rather than later – in which case, the question, ‘Haven’t we had enough of Israel?’ may be definitively answered.”

This story was really too big to keep under wraps for long, which is why I kept flailing it week after week, certain that sooner or later it would find its way into the major media and have a decisive impact on the public debate over this war, and our relations with the rest of the world in general. It is a nice feeling to be vindicated, and, if you’ll permit me to indulge myself for a moment, let me just remind my regular readers: you read it here first!


As the embargo on the Israeli spy story began to break down, with reports from the British media filtering into the US and Canada, the Washington Post – the original source of the news that 60 Israelis had been detained – ran what is fated to become the prototypical denial coming from the US and Israeli governments:

“‘This seems to be an urban myth that has been circulating for months,’ said Justice Department spokeswoman Susan Dryden. ‘The department has no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage.'”

An “urban myth” – oh, that’s rich! Confronted with the evidence, the denialists equate documented reports from reputable news sources with stories of alligators in the New York City sewer system. Faced with a leaked government document that reveals names, places, and military identification numbers, government spokesmen resort to characterizing the (so far unknown) leaker as a “disgruntled” DEA employee who single-handedly wrote the memo.

We don’t know what person or persons authored the DEA task force report on Israeli spook activity in the US prior to 9/11, but, in any case, what loyal American wouldn’t be disgruntled at this administration’s increasingly unsuccessful effort to bury this deeper than the lowest rung of Hell?


As the new revelations were met with a barrage of denials in Washington and Israeli consulates around the country, Dasquié stuck by his story. The FBI was engaging in sophistry, he said, when it denied that the “art students” had been arrested for carrying out espionage on behalf of a foreign power in the US: all were expelled, the FBI piously averred, for routine visa violations. But that is precisely how a cover-up of spying by a “friendly” government would be accomplished, Dasquié points out: especially by the Israel-friendly Bush administration, which is doing everything it can to tamp down the growing scandal. Haul them into immigration court, get them out of the country quick – and no one’s the wiser. Except, for once, they are….


Ms. Dryden’s smug arrogance in dismissing serious charges as “urban myth” may have backfired. Denigrating your opponent when he has the goods on you is not a smart strategy. As long as US and Israeli officials continue to lie straight-faced, while gullible journalists look to find a reason to believe government lies, Intelligence Online is threatening to publish the leaked DEA report in its entirety:

“‘It seems irresponsible for us to publish it, but if the denials go on, we could put the report on our Internet site and in so doing possibly blacken the names of the people most exposed,’ the editor of the Intelligence Online site, Guillaume Dasquié, said. … ‘The document we have in our possession details not only the identities of the members of this network, but also their activities in the Israeli army, and even their serial numbers in the intelligence services, their passport numbers and their validity, and their visas and their validity.”

Au contraire, messieurs Dasquié, et al, it would be irresponsible to refrain from publishing it. Don’t we have a right to know the full context of the biggest terrorist attack in American history – an attack that signaled the start of a rapidly expanding war? As for “blackening the names of the people most exposed” – isn’t that what we mean by justice?


But of course the responsibility for all this goes much higher than the son of an Israeli general and a few high-ranking intelligence officers – including responsibility for the ongoing cover-up. That is why we are seeing both the US and Israeli governments going into full “spin” mode, the signal that a real panic is going on behind the scenes. This should provide us with plenty of entertainment for the next few weeks, and I see by this item in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that the fun has already started….


Reiterating the basic facts of the story – Israeli spies penetrating government facilities posing as “art students” – the Sun-Sentinel reports that, in South Florida, these suspicious characters were employed by an outfit known as “Universal Art,” with addresses in South Miami and Southrise:

“On Wednesday, there was no sign of a company called Universal Art Inc., at 10873 NW 52nd St. in Sunrise. The address in Florida incorporation documents came back to a light industrial complex next to the Sawgrass Expressway and south of Commercial Boulevard. No one answered the door, and several occupants had not heard of the company. The company’s officers, Yitzchak Shish and Chava Sagi, are not listed. They were not among those who were deported….”

Nobody answered the door, eh? Well, then we ought to be knocking a little harder. And if no one answers, then why not break down the door and see who or what is inside? After all, the authorities haven’t hesitated to do this in the case of Arab-Americans and other non-Israeli Middle Eastern visitors and immigrants. Why the reluctance in this case?


As the hijackers were training for their deadly mission in South Florida, the resident Israeli cell, all of whom lived nearby, could have easily kept a close watch on their activities. If anyone ever catches up with Yitzchak Shish and Chava Sagi, perhaps we will learn more about what the Israelis knew about the events surrounding 9/11, and when they knew it. But if we’re depending on the FBI and our own intelligence services to find these two, and make their story public, then I’m afraid we are in for a long wait indeed.

Zionism, the world’s curse

Charles “Chuck” Schumer is a Zionist American politician, the senior United States senator from New York and a member of the Democratic Party. Zionists are in key positions throughout our gov and work for Israel

Zionism is an inherent demonic ideology that can’t be reformed or even humanized to represent authentic Judaism, since the very essence of Zionism represents the ultimate antithesis of truth, justice, peace, and even humanity.

Hence, coexisting with Zionism would necessitate that non-Jews accept a dehumanized status of constantly persecuted slaves, without freedom, without dignity and without a future.

Isn’t this what millions of Palestinians have been experiencing since the misbegotten birth of Israel?  As the US turns more into Israel everyday, what causes us to think that we, non Zionists and non Jews are any different than the Palestinians? As non Jews and Zionists we are considered enemies as we would oppose their rule over us. Besides us, Israel’s enemies are all Semites as the real Semitic people are an exposure to the Semitic charade of the Ashkenazi non Semitic Jews.

Image result for palestinians in cages

Ashkenazi Jews are the new white supremacists

The visual tactic of isolating an idiot White guy to the far end of a “diverse” group is commonly used in the Jewish-dominated ad world — as in the ATT television ad above  Mike King does not mention that the only blue -eyed  kid in the group is the Ashkanazi Jew in the middle.

 By Mike King

Here’s an interesting short discussion as to why Google promotes white-genocide, taken from Mike King’s Tomato-Bubble website.

Notice the position of the two white guys and the white Christian girl.

Everyone has some sort of logo on their shirt — indicating that they belong to some greater group or cause — except for the two non-smiling, isolated and crippled White boys who are barely dangling on either end.  They are nothing.

The lone White Christian girl is sandwiched between the Indian tranny and the tall Black boy she will “hook up with” as the dispossessed pathetic little White boy with the cane looks on helplessly. She has no suitable White partners to marry or to mate with here because all of the White boys are either lame or queer.

In the background, a shadowy mob flashes devil’s horn signs. Wow! Jewish-run Google’s message couldn’t possibly be anymore “in-your-face” than this — “Die, White Man, die!” It is indeed “the Kalergi Plan” — a long term scheme based upon genocidal hatred of European Man.***

Some of the Jewish population have expressed suspicions of Israel involved in eugenics, promoting blond hair and blue eyes in Israel. I read it years ago I am sorry I cannot produce a source for that statement.

The larger picture:

Ashkenazi Jews are the new white supremacists

Image result for what does a real semitic jew look like

(Left) The “purest” surviving remnant of the Children of Israel identified by CMH tests is the tribe of Black Jews in India, the Bene Israel and the Black Jews of Cochin, who show a genetic affinity not only to Ethiopians and Yemenis, but also to the tribe of Black Jews in South Africa, the Lemba, whose relation to the ancient Hebrews has also been confirmed by the presence of high frequencies of the CMH. Most Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews (Right) lack this signature and in fact have been shown to be genetically related, not to Semites, but to Gentiles: Kurds, Turks, East Europeans, etc.

All the Israeli Prime Ministers have ancestry from the Russian Empire (also including Lithuania and Belarus).

Image result for ben gurion jews with hitler mustaches

Jewish congress: ALL white guys a few sporting Hitler mustaches!

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, called the Semitic Jews (Arab) “human dust with no Jewish or human culture.” Such opinions permeated Israeli society. Middle Eastern or “Mizrahi” emigrants were kept in transit camp longer than Ashkenazi (European Jews, not Semitic).

All of them from the Russian Empire, not a Semite among them.

Image result for israeli leaders are always white

Szymon Perski with Pres. Obama. Although it is said that Shimon Perez is a Sephardi Jew, that is, of Middle Eastern origin, his family name certainly does not reflect it. Obama was hatched from a CIA egg so what does it matter where he is from?

Israel’s striving to be a Western country and demeaning the culture of its True Semitic Mizrahi citizens has dislocated those citizens from their own Judeo-Arab identities, and has helped make Israel a misfit state in the Middle East. The Ashkanazi Zionist Jew’s goal seems to be genocide against Christians and Semites in general.

Ashkanazi Israeli Jews and child trafficking of Semitic immigrants

Image result for Israel’s stolen babies

As many as 8,000 babies were seized from their families in the state’s first years and sold abroad. The parents whose babies were abducted had arrived in the new state lured by promises that they would find in Israel a permanent sanctuary from persecution. The stolen babies were not randomly seized. A very specific group was targeted: Jews who had just immigrated from the Middle East. Most were from Yemen, with others from Iraq, Morocco and Tunisia.

The Ringworm children

Image result for the ringworm children

By the early 1950s, Israel had absorbed most of the Holocaust survivors and other immigrants from western countries.  These were generally the preferred Ashkenazi Jews, who were the nation’s elite.

It was then that Jews from Arab lands began arriving in great numbers.  David Ben Gurion knew he needed great numbers of Jews to come to Israel in order to counter the demographic threat posed by Israel’s Palestinian population (those who hadn’t been expelled during the Nakba).  That’s why he accepted and encouraged the Arab immigration, despite the fact that the newcomers’ Sephardi heritage was considered defective.

Israel allowed one senior health official, Dr. Chaim Sheba, to conduct a massive program of unnecessary medical treatments, at enormous expense, which actually killed many of the victims.  At that time, many children developed ringworm, a non-lethal condition of fungal origin which affected the scalp.  Unlike in other countries, 100,000 Jewish (and Palestinian) Arab children were irradiated in order to treat the condition.

While medical protocol of the day directed that no technician receive a dose higher than .5 Roentgen, those treated could received a higher dose.  A lethal dose was considered 200 Roentgen (R).  The children treated received individual doses of 350R.  Sometimes they received two doses (for a total of 600R).  6,000 of the victims died within the first year or so after treatment.  To this day, many of the remaining victims suffer cancers, epilepsy, infertility and other brain disorders.  Even their children have been impacted through genetic abnormalities passed on from one generation to the next.

More Reading: Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European