Israeli land confiscations accelerated in the 1970s and led Palestinians to organise the first coordinated demonstrations in the Occupied Territories on 30 March 1976, during which 6 Palestinians were killed. This date has been marked ever since as “Land Day”.
The secret Interior Ministry Koenig Memorandum, written shortly after the 1976 Land Day rallies, called for
diluting existing Arab population concentrations” to “ensure the long-term Jewish national interests”.
This officially marked the implementation of Ben Gurion’s plans of ethnic cleansing to make Israel a de facto Jewish state. Treatment of native Arab Muslims and Christians ever since merely confirms this policy, with forced Jewish loyalty oaths and second class services and laws for non-Jews.
This year’s 36th annual Land Day rallies saw Israeli security forces shooting dead a 20-year-old man, and wounding 37 stone-throwers in the Gaza Strip and around Jerusalem, using live ammunition, rubber bullets, tear gas and stun grenades. Israeli forces were put on high alert on the frontiers with Lebanon and Syria, but there were no reports of anyone nearing the frontier fences. In fact, the Israeli Defence Forces were relieved at the relatively small numbers of protesters.
But there is little for them to cheer about. Israeli Brigadier General Yoav Mordechai said, “The Nakba and Naksa days are ahead of us, and that is where the challenge will be.” Nakba (disaster) Day, the day after Israeli independence day, is 15 May, and Naksa (retreat) Day, when Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, previously controlled by Jordan and Egypt, is 5 June.
During Nakba Day commemorations last year, thousands of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria marched towards the ceasefire borders with Israel. Fifteen Palestinians were killed and hundreds wounded, and more than a hundred protestors from Syria managed to breach the fence and enter the Golan Heights. One even made it all the way to Tel Aviv.
Land Day is now formally commemorated in a Global March to Jerusalem, protesting the Judaisation of East Jerusalem as Israel prepares to make Jerusalem its Jews-only capital. According to organisers, more than 600 institutions from 64 states were involved in planning the march. Protests also took place outside Israeli embassies in European and Arab countries. Backers of the march include former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohammed and former Anglican Archbishop of South Africa Desmond Tutu. Organisers planned to send convoys of vehicles to Israel’s borders simultaneously from Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Jordan’s demonstration attracted 15,000, included four rabbis from Neturei Karta. “We want the world to know that the Jewish religion does not accept the occupation and the oppression of the Palestinian people. It is against the views of Jews around the world who are true to the Torah,” said Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss.
We are here to mark Land Day, and tell the world not to blame Jewish people for the crimes of Zionism,” Rabbi Ahron Cohen said. “Judaism and Zionism are two different concepts.”
Numbers were smaller in Lebanon, as Lebanese security forces attempted to prevent a repeat of last year’s fatal border protests. About 200 foreign activists, including two more rabbis, arrived at Beaufort Castle to join the southern Lebanon rally. In Syria, despite the civil war, protesters rallied in Damascus in solidarity with both the Palestinians and Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Egypt had planned demonstrations, but they were called off due to heightened security and the tense political situation there.
To mark Land Day, Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison for his role during the Second Intifada, called on Palestinians to launch a popular resistance campaign against Israel and for the Palestinian Authority to stop peace negotiations and all coordination with Israel in the economic and security realms.
Land Day, of course, is all about land. Appropriately, 30 March 2012 is the first anniversary of the Stop the Jewish National Fund (JNF) campaign aimed at ending the role of the JNF in expanding illegal settlements by displacing Palestinians, stealing their property, and then covering this up with tax-exempt donations from diaspora Jews. This campaign is a key element in Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activism. The JNF uses greenwash to advertise itself as an environmental movement, planting fast-growing non-native firs on razed Palestinian villages to hide Israeli crimes. Israeli parks include a Leisure corner at Nesher Park, Canada Park, American Independence Park, JF Kennedy Memorial, and Coretta Scott King Forest.
The Stop the JNF campaign fights this, even doing “flash” actions in the Israeli parks, nailing notices to trees to identify the destroyed Palestinian villages, as well as lobbying foreign governments to end the JNF’s tax-exempt status. British Prime Minister David Cameron was successfully pressured to end his status as “Honorary Patron” of the JNF last year. Stop the JNF also has a “Plant a Tree” programme in Palestine to replant indigenous trees.
In the build-up to Land Day, throughout February and early March, student solidarity groups marked the 8th Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) at 120 universities in 40 cities around the world, from Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and Albuquerque to Yaffa and Zurich. At Boston-area universities Israeli activist and filmmaker Shai Carmeli-Pollak screened his 2006 documentary “Bilin Habibti” about Israel Defense Forces violence. Members of Brandeis University SJP marked their first annual Israeli Apartheid Week with a hunger strike to draw attention to Palestinian Khader Adnan’s 66-day hunger strike in protest of his detainment without charge. Good news: the international media spotlight on the case pushed Israeli officials to agree to free Adnan in April.
At the University of Amsterdam, Shir Hever, an Israeli economist at Jerusalem’s Alternative Information Centre, gave a series of lectures
Could the economic policies of Israel be considered a form of Apartheid?”
At Glasgow University, Israeli anthropologist Jeff Halper, co-founder of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, spoke on “Israeli Apartheid: The Case For BDS”. At the University of Liverpool, the Corporate Watch research group unveiled a new source book Targeting Israeli Apartheid. In London, a Beats Against Apartheid event included performances from hip-hop artists Lowkey, Mic Righteous and Awate.
British and Canadian politicians were furious. In Canada, the Ontario legislature unanimously condemned Israeli Apartheid Week.
If you’re going to label Israel as Apartheid, then you are also attacking Canadian values,”
Conservative legislator Peter Shurman told Shalom Life.
The use of the phrase ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’ is about as close to hate speech as one can get without being arrested, and I’m not certain it doesn’t actually cross over that line.”
In the UK, thought police were called on to investigate comments made at Middlesex University’s Free Palestine Society IAW forum by Liberal Democrat Peer Jenny Tonge and former US marine Ken O’Keefe. O’Keefe is alleged to have incited racial hatred by comparing Jewish supporters of Israeli crimes to Nazis in their treatment of Jews.
The decent Germans of World War Two, what did they do when the Nazis came to power and instituted their policies? Did they do enough to stop the Nazis? No, they didn’t. What are the Jewish people doing right now? Are you doing enough to stop your racist, apartheid, genocidal state?”
Baroness Tonge agreed with O’Keefe telling the audience at that Israel would “not last forever” and would “lose support, and then they will reap what they have sown”.
Israel, the United States and Greece conduct Noble Dina drill in the Mediterranean
In the first week of April 2012, Israel, the United States and Greece conducted the “Noble Dina” drill on the eastern side of the Mediterranean Sea. Led by the U.S. Sixth Fleet, Noble Dina involves simulations of combat against submarines, air battles and protection of offshore natural gas platforms. This comes shortly after February, when Israel and Cyprus consolidated a military alliance aimed at securing control of the large gas fields recently discovered in the seabed between the two countries. Turkey, Lebanon, and Northern Cyprus had consolidated a counterweight alliance. Now Greece—a leading world player in oil transport—is taking sides.
American Message to Turkey
Meteora, Greece — Hanging Alliances
Noble Dina is less innocent than it looks. Until 2009, Israel’s Navy, the U.S. Sixth Fleet and the Turkish Navy conducted a yearly exercise called “Reliant Mermaid.” This drill was cancelled since 2010, and all military cooperation between Turkey and Israel was frozen following the deterioration in the relations between these two former allies, especially after the Freedom Flotilla Affair. This year, Greece was invited to participate in the renewed drill, which was renamed Noble Dina. By accepting, Greece informally announced its joining the Israeli alliance. According to Greek reports, the exercise began on March 26 at an American military base in Crete. Participating in the exercise are a Greek navy destroyer and submarine, an Israeli Navy sailing vessel and several U.S. Sixth Fleet battleships, supported by Israeli, Greek and American fighter jets and helicopters. Part of the exercise will take place off the coast of Turkey, near the Greek island Mais and will continue off the southern coast of Cyprus before concluding in Haifa’s port on April 5. The enemy forces will have characteristics similar to those of the Turkish air force. The drill is a not very subtle message to Turkey.
This substantial change in the Eastern Mediterranean alliances supports changes that took place in the last two decades. Traditionally, Greece supported the Palestinians against Israel. Only in 1990 the two countries upgraded their relations to the status of embassies, and shortly after a limited defense agreement was signed between the two countries. In October 2010, following the deterioration in the relations between Turkey and Israel, the Israeli and Greek air-forces trained jointly in Greece, signaling that things began to warm up significantly between these two countries. The ongoing Noble Dina drill is cementing their defense agreement and clearly aiming it at Turkey.
The New Alliances
Turkey is not watching the developments statically; its cooperation with Lebanon and Northern Cyprus on the issue of the gas fields was announced recently. They consider the exploitation of the findings by Israel (see Greece’s Fadeaway: Iran and Israel Battle over Cyprus and Gas, Oil … Uranium) as a casus belli event. On September 5, 2011, Lebanese Foreign Minister Adnan Mansor, sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, rejecting Israeli claims on the maritime border between the two countries. Lebanon has warned that it will go to war to defend its claim to the gas fields. Iran is clearly supporting Lebanon in several ways and has delivered supporting statements on Lebanese ownership of some of the gas fields. Turkey has announced that it would not allow underwater drills in Cypriot waters, clearly citing military preventative actions. The Turkish intervention is the result of Cyprus being divided between the Republic of Cyprus in the south and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
In November 2011, Cyprus announced it would explore its undersea natural gas wells in cooperation with Israel; this was the trigger for Netanyahu’s visit to the island in February. The agreements announced between the countries—including military ones—indicate that Israel has shifted its main ally in the area from Turkey to Cyprus. This alliance is supported by an Israeli ally sitting on the backlines of Turkey and Iran: Azerbaijan (see Azerbaijan-Israel: A Shia—Jewish Alliance). This country can provide logistic support in case of a war, as well as being an oil source. Semi-independent Kurdistan may become a relevant member of this alliance under certain circumstances. Now, Greece is on. And Greece means NATO.
Thus, two clear bands had been created around the gas field issue: Turkey-Lebanon-Northern Cyprus-(Iran), and Israel-Cyprus-Greece-(Azerbaijan). Which band is supported by NATO? If violence erupts during the London Olympic Games, the latter will have no spectators. These two alliances at war will win any new version of the Roman Coliseum or Greek Olympics. Especially since lions are not used anymore in sport events.
Oil greed drives the West. We are reminded of that time and again with every attack staged by NATO; the most recent example is Libya (see NATO’s Terror Marshals). United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was adopted on March 17, 2011; it formed the alleged legal basis for the NATO attacks on Libya. The resolution authorized the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians. NATO attacks were anything but a non-fly zone; civilians were violently killed instead of being protected. NATO violations began right at the beginning of the war, when British commandos were captured in Eastern Libya and thrown out of the country by the rebels. Afterwards, NATO attacked civilians, schools, houses and apparently everything else in Libya, in sharp contradiction to its mandate. The terrorist attacks were so large that bringing a list of NATO’s violations would be impossible in this format. On August 5, 2011, a daily summary made by Venezuelan teleSUR revealed that 1118 people had been hit in 1600 civilian targets. The mass murder was conducted under the command of two men: Giampaolo Di Paola—Chairman of the NATO Military Committee—and Anders Fogh Rasmussen—Secretary General of NATO. They violated their mandate; every soldier obeying their commands committed war crimes and deserves to be put on trial by an international court. Eventually, Libya was defeated, and NATO countries gained access to cheap oil for a generation or two. In similar events that occurred in Afghanistan, James Petras said: (“Afghanistan: Why civilians are killed”): “Success,” according to the imperial world view is measured internationally by the number of client rulers; nationally by the number of flags pinned to the war maps denoting ‘secure cities;’ and locally by the body counts of massacred families.
Now, the emerging conflict over the Mediterranean gas fields (the last one discovered in February 2012 includes oil) may signal the breakaway from the organization of a substantial member. The USA and Greece are obviously supporting Israel and Cyprus on the issue of the new gas fields. That is despite a recent hiccup in the Greece-Iran relations. On February 26, 2012, an odd media battle took place in Iran. Different agencies reported and denied that Iran was blocking the shipment of 500,000 barrels of crude oil to Greece, in retaliation for European Union sanctions. After the initial report by the Fars news agency, the news item was denied by the Iranian Student’s News Agency, and then also by Greek officials. Greek authorities were extremely fast to react, saying that everything was in accordance with signed deals between Greece and Iran. If the incident had been an accidental error, Greece would probably have ignored the Iranian internal press. The fast reaction showed Greece was under pressure. It needed the Iranian oil. Considering this, a more intriguing option must be considered. Maybe Iran sent a subtle message to Greece to stay out of the new Israel-Cyprus alliance. It worked in the short term, but in the long term, Greece is rearranging its alliances (more details in Greece’s Fadeaway: Iran and Israel Battle over Cyprus). Yet, the Greek and American reactions to the issue of the gas fields are odd. Israel is not a NATO member. Turkey is. Their support of Israel against Turkey is—at least—a violation of Article 5 of the NATO Charter, and probably of many others. This is so since the core of the NATO treaty is that member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. Article 5 says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all; it was invoked only once in NATO’s history, as the justification for the American attack on Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11. Yet, the USA and Greece seem to be taking a stand against a NATO member—Turkey—by supporting a non-member in its belligerent conflict against the member.
Probably, we will see further support of Israel by NATO; to the extent that Turkey may be kicked out of the organization. The same violent oil-greed that drives NATO may bring it to its end—at least in its actual format—for the joy of all peaceful people around the world. Behind the pretty words about freedom and democracy, the West is proving again that its only God is named Greed, that its words are worthless, that’s its treaties are nothing but dust in the wind. What counts to them is the weight of their gold in Zurich’s vaults.
Tzipi Livni loses leadership to former IDF Chief
Three and a half years after she barely won the leadership of Ariel Sharon’s Kadima Party, on March 27, 2012, Tzipi Livni lost the party’s leadership to her contender in the last two elections, former IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz. Although Kadima won the most seats in the 2009 elections under her leadership, it became the leading opposition party to the actual Likud-led coalitional government. This revolution in Israel’s largest political party is just the first disturbance in the political arena before the 2013 elections; more are expected.
Out of nowhere, Tsipi Livni was elected as a member of the Knesset for the Likud party, in the general elections held on May 17, 1999. Her sudden appearance there was enough to prove her credentials to the Israeli public. Any formal mention that she was Mossad would have been superfluous; yet, reliable rumors appeared in the newspapers claiming she had been a low-ranking Mossad agent. In the Israeli jargon, the statement was clear. She had not been an officer like Victor Ostrovsky and probably held a position similar to the one of “Cindy,” the code name for Mossad agent Cheryl Bentov. The latter, apparently posing as a bar-girl, played a key-role in the kidnapping of Mordechai Vanunu by Israel in 1986. Bar-girl or not, in Israeli political life, a Mossad agent has the right (or maybe the information needed to blackmail others) to bypass the regular political path and to land as a prince in parliament, right next to the top. “Etzel” is the Hebrew acronym for “HaIrgun HaTzvai HaLeumi BeEretz Israel,” the “National Military Organization in the Land of Israel.” It is part of what it is referred to in Hebrew as “HaMishpaha HaLohemet,” literally meaning the “Warring Family.” Widely known for its violent attacks against innocents, like the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (1946) and the Dir Yassin Massacre (1948), it became the predecessor of the Herut (“Freedom,” now Likud) party. Worryingly, both of Livni’s parents were prominent members of the Warring Family. Eitan Livni—her father—was Etzel’s Chief Operations Officer. He married Sara Rosenberg—a fellow member of the organization—in what became the first official marriage in the State of Israel. Tsipi Livni grew up among people that in modern terms would be classified as “terrorists.”
Born in Tehran, Shaul Mofaz based his military career on a perfect record in the IDF Brigade 35, the Paratroopers Brigade. He served there from soldier to commander, including participation in Operation Entebbe. In 1998, he was appointed IDF Chief of Staff. In 2002, he performed his last operational parachuting, this time into the post of Minister of Defense; he landed there by appointment of Ariel Sharon. It was only natural that he would become the competitor to the other parachuted leader in Ariel Sharon’s Kadima Party, Tsipi Livni. In the 2008 elections—which followed Ehud Olmert resignation—Livni won the leadership with less than 1% of the votes over Mofaz. Following her failure to bring Kadima—the largest party in the Knesset—to form a government her leadership was contested again. This time, Mofaz won by a landslide, with 62.3% of the vote, compared to 37.7% for Livni. The latter won majority only in her hometown, Tel Aviv. This was a bad omen for her, since Tel Aviv voters usually oppose the majority vote in Israel. Have we witnessed this week the rising of Israel’s next Prime Minister?
However, not only Kadima is in trouble. The current Minister of Defense Ehud Barak’s obsession with an attack on Iran has political reasons. He is in a desperate political situation. Despite the fact that being Minister of Defense transforms him into the second most important politician in Israel, Barak is fighting for his political life. And he is losing. After winning back the leadership of the Labor party, Barak was sworn in as Minister of Defense on June 2007, as part of Prime Minister Olmert’s cabinet reshuffle. During December 2008 through January 2009, Barak led (as defense minister) Operation Cast Lead, which led to Israel being defined as a terror state. In the 2009 elections, the Labor Party he led won just 13 out of the 120 Knesset seats, making it the fourth largest party. Barak reached an agreement with Netanyahu under which Labor joined the governing coalition, and he retained his position as Defense Minister. In January 2011, Labor threatened to force Barak to leave the government, following disagreements with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policies. In reply, Barak formed a breakaway party, Atzmaut (Independence), which enabled him to maintain his loyal Labor MK faction within Netanyahu’s government.
Barak’s preemptive move against the Labor party was successful on a tactical scale. He stayed in the government and in the same position. However, it was a strategic disaster. His new party has little chance of entering the next Knesset. If he is lucky, he may get the minimum possible number of Knesset members. If he is unlucky, he will stay out. In any case, even if Netanyahu—his brother in arms—wins the next elections, Barak is unlikely to get again his beloved Minister of Defense position. A party of two or three Knesset members has no chance of getting that senior position in the subsequent government.
Unless—of course—he proves himself once again as a war hero, attracting votes from IDF soldiers, especially from the reservists. This effect is well known in Israeli politics. Many years ago, Lieutenant General Rafael “Raful” Eitan, who led the First Lebanese War, entered the Knesset with a newly formed party; his name was so attractive to the military-related electorate that he got 8 seats in parliament. The new party was mockingly known afterwards as “Raful and the Seven Dwarves,” because nobody remembered the names of the other 7 members. Barak needs a war for this strategy to succeed; Iran may provide the perfect excuse. However, a few days ago, the USA Thwarted an Israeli Attack on Iran. Thus, Barak is desperate.
Does it matter?
In the current political configuration there is little doubt Netanyahu would be Israel’s next prime minister even after the 2013 elections, though his coalition may change. The main change may come through the appearance of Yair Lapid (see Torch Sets Israel Afire) as a member of the coalition. Netanyahu is not fond of Barak as a senior partner; recently he sent one of his senior ministers— Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s current Minister of Finance—to openly attack Barak’s Ministry of Defense fiefdom (seeWar Declared on Barak). Barak has been proven to have little ideology and no scruples; his next move may be joining Kadima as second in command after Shaul Mofaz, or making an alliance between the two parties. In such a way, a counterweight to Netanyahu would be formed, and we will witness a more interesting campaign.
However, does this matter? In one of the past elections, one of the slogans used by Shas—an ultra-Orthodox party, see “Decider of the Generation” is Dying—was “Right and Left, Only Sand and Sand.” “Sand” is often used in Hebrew as a euphemism for something common, not special. Weekdays are generally referred to as “sand days.” Shas message in its slogan was that left-wing and right-wing parties were all the same, that the answer was in the religious Jewish world (see Humanism Fanatics; Gullible Christians for a related topic). In one angle of the issue they were right: all Jewish parties in the Knesset are Zionists. Invariably all of them are infiltrated by the Shin Beth and host incredible numbers of former senior military officers. Hence, it is very difficult to differentiate between their ideologies. Moreover, the decisions of the political level running the country are not based on the ideologies voted for by the people, but on secret talks in bunkers suffocating in by cigarette smoke. Netanyahu or Barak, Livni or Mofaz, all of them are just “sand and sand.” Israel internal political wars will continue to lead into regional wars aimed at proving who the Warring Family’s best son is. “Cain” seems to be the eternal Jewish answer to this question.
As the Islamic Awakening or Arab Spring comes of age, Tunisia and Egypt glimmer like diamonds unearthed from the rough: prized jewels placed into the quillion of an unsheathed Scimitar. A symbolic sword of truth raised in a belated battle to purge MENA (Middle-East and North Africa) of it’s corrupt, Anglo-American-Israeli backed, tyrants. But look elsewhere; and the branches of Algeria, Bahrain and Libya combine to make a crown of thorns that bleeds MENA, and seeks to dampen the revolutionary hopes of Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E.
Yemen, one of the great civilisations of the Islamic world, has always been at the hub of the Arabian Peninsula. Mentioned by name and blessed in Hadith, this rich and fertile land rose to prominence in 632 A.D. during the tenure of Iranian governor Badhan, whose leadership inspired 20,000 new Muslims from Sana’a, Taizz and Zabid to volunteer for the fledging Caliphate of Abu Bakr (ra). Home to the grand dynasties of Najahid, Zaidi, Sulayhid, Mamluk, Ayyubid, Ottoman, Rasulid, Tahirid and Kathirid: Yemen, under Umar ibn Rasul (1229–1250), saw a massive influx of students and scholars who arrived to attend over 200 schools and the world renowned Zabid University. An organised, professional army also managed to stem the tide of European terrorism in the 16th–17th centuries; safeguarding Yemen’s shores to repel the Portuguese armada and discourage an invasion by the British Empire.
But a power vacuum after the long and successful rule of Imam Al Mutawakkil (1644–1676) saw small separatist movements spring up around the country. Petty squabbles, promoted and exacerbated by the British, soon became protracted schisms that foreign invaders would exploit to the point of armed conflict. And so, as Yemen crumbled along tribal & sectarian lines, it was only a matter of time before her strategically vital port of Aden fell into British-Rothschild hands.
By 1919, World War I had hacked Yemen to pieces; with lacertilian schemer T.E. Lawrence weaving a web of deception not dissimilar to the con he’d pulled in Palestine months earlier: i.e. England would use the brave, but far too trusting, Yemeni Arabs to fight the Ottoman Turks on their behalf (which they did), and in return, England would leave Yemen to the Yemenis (which they didn’t). The British, eager to plant a stooge and rape the Sultanate dry, imposed their king and were soon in receipt of the region’s abundant crude oil supplies and natural wealth. The British-Rothschild backed monarchy and its supporters grew rich and powerful, as ordinary Yemenis struggled to survive in an ever-deteriorating state of poverty and squalor.
Yemen’s first revolution began on 4th June 1944-1948: The British backed puppet king was promptly deposed, but the people’s victory was short lived. As his successor, armed by the British-Rothschild cartel, mounted an aggressive countercoup that devastated the ancient capital of Sana’a and re-imposed colonial rule.
Another revolution was sparked off in 1961, with the assassination of the British backed king and a series of street battles that became the opening salvos of a near decade long civil war. Having lost Iran to their American acomplices in ’53 and humiliated by Egypt’s revolutionary leader Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Suez Crisis four years earlier, the British government would do all they could to maintain a stranglehold on Yemen for their Rothschild overlords. And so, replicating tactics used by the British army’s notorious ‘Black & Tan’ regiment in 1920s Ireland; they committed a catalogue of heinous crimes against the Yemeni people: The Empire’s campaign of terror saw them randomly kidnap and detain citizens, close down Trade Unions, ban the Yemeni worker’s newspaper and open fire on TUC strikers at a civil rights demonstration on the 24th September 1962. Britain’s dirty war soon spread to the South towards Aden, where troops massacred scores of Yemeni civilians as the RAF bombed towns and villages to protect U.K-Rothschild oil interests. The war raged on, with Arab freedom fighters making considerable gains against the ruthless, but increasingly beleaguered, British invaders.
By 1967, the Brits, after 128 years of bloody occupation, had finally had enough and retreated en-masse. Three years later; The Yemen Arab Republic was formally recognised by its belligerent neighbours in Saudi Arabia. Hero of the revolution; Qahtan ash-Shaabi became Yemeni president and the war, it seemed, was over.
Alas, by 1969; Yemeni plutocrats had overthrown ash-Shaabi and Yemen spent the next 11 years as a theatre for the Cold War paradigm: North Yemen (Saudi-Capitalist) and South Yemen (Russian-Communist) fought a number of pointless battles that only served to facilitate a series of military coups, foreign interventions, countercoups and assassinations.
In 1979, Colonel Ali Abdullah Saleh, an ex-military governor in Taizz, became President of Yemen and chalked up an initially well received, but ultimately despised, 34-year reign that would never have ended; had not the revolution forced him from office. Mr. Saleh, not unlike those Yemenis who squandered the victory of ‘67, all but signed away his nation’s sovereignty after Israel did 9/11. Subserviently giving up Yemeni airspace for savage, U.S. drone terror attacks against his own people, burying the economy in a mountain of ever increasing, Rothschild owned debt. And turning Yemen into a quasi-vassal state; slavishly accepting American aid to bolster ‘Central Security Forces’ for domestic use in the U.S.-Israel’s fraudulent ‘war on terror’. A conflict so perverse, that Mr. Saleh often had to invoke that modern day ‘Operation Gladio’; ‘Al Qaida’, to persecute political opponents, keep the aid coming in and justify his participation in the scam.
By the time Wikileaks cables confirmed the Yemeni government’s collaboration with U.S.-Israeli terrorism, Mr. Saleh had no credibility left to lose. Even the sly, somewhat crass, revelation that he’d turn a blind eye to a whiskey smuggling cartel from Djibouti, provided “…it was good whiskey” wasn’t needed to incite Yemen’s orthodox Muslim population to rebel. In fact, Yemenis had come to expect such cringe-worthy asides from a corrupt, increasingly irrelevant, American lackey. And with bullet ridden bodies piling up long before Western puppet Tawakal Karman’s ‘Day of Rage’ on 2nd February 2011, a populist revolt was all but guaranteed. Simply put, the Yemenis were tired of it all; the corruption, the subservience to the U.S.-Israel and furious at how Mr. Saleh had continuously betrayed their trust to appease a handful of Ivy League carpetbaggers in Washington.
President Ali Abdullah Saleh would rule just long enough to see the Yemeni proletariat reject North-South machinations, defy calls to ally themselves to any tribal or sectarian front and witness the brutal, U.S. trained and armed ‘Central Security Forces’ routed by Ansar Al-Sharia Mujahidin in Zinjibar and Aden.
Isolated and left to whither on the vine, Yemen is an easy target for criminal regimes in the West: Invaded, destabilized and looted at will since the fall of the Ottoman Empire; today, Yemen stands on the brink of its most important revolution to date: The battle to reclaim her identity and re-establish the rule of law. But as washed up imperial powers desperately try and throttle every popular revolution from Tahrir Square to Wall Street. Protestors know all too well that whilst they may’ve survived the first onslaught; every small victory carried a heavy price, with over 1,870 Yemenis killed in the struggle, many shot dead by ‘Central Security Forces’ or bombed in U.S. drone terror attacks.
And yet the newfound focus and resolve of ordinary Arabs, represents an incredible tidal wave of defiance that boldly undermines U.S.-Israeli hegemony. One which provokes the skittish, Anglo-American-Israeli crime gang into making stupid moves like launching an entire fleet of terror drones to assassinate 31-year old Yemeni-American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki or attempting to impose Saleh’s right-hand man; Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi in any post-revolution government. But at the back of their minds, the Rothschild regimes always knew this day would come; that the people’s truth would extinguish their lies and how revolution is the physical manifestation of that truth: in words and gestures, action and intent. Soumaya Sharafia, a young protestor from Taizz, declares her compatriots will to resist in spite of all the setbacks: “Our revolution will not be taken away from us by the political parties or powerful people”, she states in a quiet but clear voice. “We’re the ones who’ll decide our future: This is the revolution of the people and the will of the people is divine inspiration”.
Ali Abdullah Saleh may have got the GGC brokered immunity deal he craved, but he and his ilk were judged in the court of public opinion, and found guilty as charged. The revolution may not have gone according to the hopes and wishes of the Yemni people. But if Yemen restores her link with the new MENA, abandons the restrictive edicts of tribalism, and stands with the Global South in opposition to the failed and convulsing U.S.-Israeli dogma. Then not only does this revolution mean more than the one in ‘48 but also represents an opportunity to make good on the gains of ‘67. Yemen may, at times, look like a revolution in turmoil, but courage in the midst of crisis will, God willing, transform a muted, somewhat disappointing end to a violent struggle into a vibrant, joyous and long term victory for the region.
A reply to Laura Stuart…
Laura Stuart’s March 30th article “Baroness Cox is Pro Israel and Anti Islam” complains about the anti-Muslim, pro-Israel, views expressed by a member of Britain’s House of Lords, Baroness Caroline Cox. She concludes the best hope for Palestine solidarity is appealing to Muslims.
I respectfully disagree. I feel that the approach current in British Palestine circles, and defended on this site, a combination of Islamic and socialist narratives, won’t play in Peoria.
1. Caroline Cox claims that radical Islam is the third onslaught of ‘totalitarian evil’, following fascism and communism. Laura Stuart calls this ‘Islamophobia’. It might be more effective to criticise her ladyship (Caroline, not Laura) for factual inaccuracy, rather than political incorrectness:
a. The Baroness fails to distinguish carefully between the small cluster of Sunni Muslim organizations which really hate the West, and the much larger number of Islamic movements which have no intrinsic quarrel with European civilization, and
b. obscuring the interests of the Western countries, which is to drive a wedge between
- the anti-Western Islamic radicals, and
- those which only oppose Jewish supremacy, and
c. she exaggerates the power of the aforementioned anti-Western groups, and
d. she parrots the Zionist narrative which amalgamates all radical Islamic parties.
2. But the blanket charge ‘Islamophobia’ reinforces that amalgam. It makes it sound like its Western people against Muslims, which makes Western support for Israel look rational.
3. The most effective criticism of Baroness Cox and the other Western politicians who grovel to Jewish interests, is not their opposition to a minority, but their betrayal of the interests of the majority.
4. It’s true that Muslims around the world tend to be critical of Israel. Most of the 38 countries which don’t recognise Israel are Muslim, but
5. this lack of recognition has not weakened Jewish supremacy in Palestine, because the much more powerful Western countries support Israel unconditionally.
6. In Western countries, emphasizing Zionist ‘Islamophobia’ is often useless, because
- Muslims already know about it, and
- non-Muslims tend not to care, especially since September 11th, 2001.
Even if you believe ’9/11 was an inside job’, most people, including yours truly, don’t. The following points might be more persuasive to the public:
- Jews didn’t ethnically cleanse Palestine because it was populated mostly by Muslims, but because it was populated mostly by non-Jews
- Jewish racism toward Arabs appears to coincide with old-fashioned European chauvinism, but in fact, it is an expression of hostility toward most of humanity, white Europeans included.
The difference between the dominant current in Palestine solidarity, and the approach I advocate, can be summarised in the persons of British socialist MP George Galloway, and of American conservative congressman, Ron Paul, the only candidate who wants to reduce aid to Israel (to zero). Which of these two approaches represent the best long-term investment for the liberation of the Palestinians?
Leftism obscures the issue. Israel is not a tool of imperialism; it does not protect the oilfields; it is not a forward base; it does not fight for America. On the contrary; its chickenhawk agents send our sons and daughters to war on its behalf. It consumes at least 30% the US aid budget (JVP 2004). It is a cuckoo in the nest, an albatross around the neck.
Aid to Israel is the gift that never stops taking. Wallowing in victimology, hypocrisy and ingratitude, its supporters exploit the openness of the Western political, communication and education systems, to undermine the universalist, enlightenment values on which they are based, and to turn them into tools of Jewish tribal power. Political correctness tries to make the above observations unthinkable.
Exaggerating the similarities between Israeli policies and Western ‘colonialism’ is ineffective, and perhaps that is why Jewish leftists insist on doing it. Palestine solidarity, in the ‘imperialist’ countries, might be more cogent if it tried to make their populations aware of, not ashamed of, their interests. In the Israel/Palestine question, it is not class interests which divide us.
Stuart, L. (2012). Baroness Cox is Pro Israel and Anti Islam.
Jewish Voice for Peace (2004). US Military Aid to Israel.
Göran Rosenberg (1) puts forward two ethnocentric arguments in an article published in the Swedish daily newspaper, SvD. It is the final article in a discussion on circumcision.
The first is that the proposed ban on circumcision,
“… targets, with great precision, mainly the Jewish minority in Sweden …”
But surely Göran it affects Swedish Muslims too, and ultimately, as a matter of principle and ethics, also the mildest forms of genital mutilation of girls? Is it not simply a case of Jews wishing to preserve their position as God’s own people by sex-marking themselves as “the chosen”? If this is indeed so important, is there really no other kind of “christening” that could serve the same purpose?
Secondly, you say that the very fact that the proposed ban is raised by “…persons and groups within society that lack any direct contact with the issue….”, is an expression of “ethnic and cultural hectoring.” As with your first point, this argument also lacks principle and ethics. If all minority interests in Sweden were observed at the expense of public interest, we would find ourselves in a minorities´ dictatorship instead of a society that prioritises public interest, albeit not categorically.
Surely there must always be a balance between public interest and minority interest – even for Jews? You seem to be saying that only the arguments put forward by a group that represents minority interests should be taken into account, which, to me, seems contradictory. I would appreciate more clarity here.
You argue, too, that
A child’s christening cannot be undone either…”
There are indeed good reasons for waiting until adulthood before choosing a religion. However, is there not a difference between permanent physical interference in a child’s sex-organs and a christening?
Freedom of religion can never mean that everything done in the name of religion can be ethically excused, not even elements which, during the course of history, have become “culture”, something which Jews debating the subject are quick to point out in the case of Islam and Muslim culture.
Albeit much good has also been done in the name of religion, appalling historical and contemporary examples, regardless of which religion, should give us food for thought.
1. Göran Rosenberg is one of the most prominent Jewish writers in Sweden. His book The lost land: A personal history, 1996, is translated to several languages.
In the above clip I elaborate on Ali Abunimah’s attitude towards history and culture.
I contend that since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols, we are entitled to ask ourselves who are the Jews and what is Judaism and Jewishness? In my work I try to grasp the role and the impact of Jewish culture on Israeli and Jewish politics – something I believe necessary to bring peace to the region and beyond.
But Ali Abunimah doesn’t agree. In reference to a talk I gave at the Stuttgart One State Conference (Dec 2010), he suggested that history and politics are detached from culture – an unusual approach which contradicts all recognized, intellectual and philosophical understandings of humanity, history, politics as well as culture.
Abunimah says “Talking about Jewish culture, is wrong because such arguments can be made about anyone. We could blame German culture for the history of Germany…”
Someone should tell Abunimah that this is exactly what intellectuals, historian and political scientists do. They search for the origin of political thoughts in culture, ideology, religion and heritage. For instance, those who study the Nazi eratry to comprehend the impact of Wagner, the German symphony, Protestant culture, German philosophy, Martin Luther’s “The Jews And Their Lies”, Hegel and the German Spirit, German Early Romanticism, Lebensphilosophie, Heine, Athens vs. Jerusalem and so on.
It is obvious to me that, Abunimah didn’t think it through. However, it is never too late to admit a mistake and get it right.
To view Atzmon’s Stuttgart presentation follow http://youtu.be/MlvaN2c-Oto
Hilarious reading on Tony’s Blog about how angry he is that people tried to close down his book launch.
In particular the behaviour of the Police, in contacting the owners of halls to try and get them to cancel meetings because of such threats is an attack on freedom of speech. If the Police believe there is a threat their duty is to deal with those who cause the threat. I hope they adopt the same attitude to the March for England on April 22nd.
Just in case anyone reading this doesn’t know who Tony Greenstein is you can read about Tony and his services to Harry’s Place here.
I will post this video clip which talks about the kind of Jewish cells that Tony Greenstein operates in and who work hard to deny other peoples freedom of speech
Strange that Tony now recognises facism when he himself is on the receiving end of it instead of being the perpetrator.
I am not going to charge Tony for this free publicity on deLiberation for his book but in case anyone is interested you won’t find it on Amazon
Your search “tony greenstein” did not match any products.