zaterdag 7 september 2019

9/11 & The Road To Hell

9/11 & The Road To America's Orwellian Hell

Next week will be the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Politicians and bureaucrats wasted no time after that carnage to unleash the Surveillance State on average Americans, treating every person like a terrorist suspect. Since the government failed to protect the public, Americans somehow forfeited their constitutional right to privacy. Despite heroic efforts by former NSA staffer Edward Snowden and a host of activists and freedom fighters, the government continues ravaging American privacy.

Two of the largest leaps towards “1984” began in 2002. Though neither the Justice Department’s Operation TIPS nor the Pentagon’s Total Information Awareness program was brought to completion, parcels and precedents from each program have profoundly influenced subsequent federal policies.

In July 2002, the Justice Department unveiled plans for Operation TIPS — the Terrorism Information and Prevention System. According to the Justice Department website, TIPS would be “a nationwide program giving millions of American truckers, letter carriers, train conductors, ship captains, utility employees, and others a formal way to report suspicious terrorist activity.” TIPSters would be people who, “in the daily course of their work, are in a unique position to serve as extra eyes and ears for law enforcement.” The feds aimed to recruit people in jobs that “make them uniquely well positioned to understand the ordinary course of business in the area they serve, and to identify things that are out of the ordinary.” Homeland Security director Tom Ridge said that observers in certain occupations “might pick up a break in the certain rhythm or pattern of a community.” The feds planned to enlist as many as 10 million people to watch other people’s “rhythms.”
The Justice Department provided no definition of “suspicious behavior” to guide vigilantes. As the public began to focus on the program’s sweep, opposition surfaced; even the U.S. Postal Service briefly balked at participating in the program. Director Ridge insisted that TIPS “is not a government intrusion.” He declared, “The last thing we want is Americans spying on Americans. That’s just not what the president is all about, and not what the TIPS program is all about.” Apparently, as long as the Bush administration did not announce plans to compel people to testify about the peccadilloes of their neighbors and customers, TIPS was a certified freedom-friendly program.
When Attorney General John Ashcroft was cross-examined by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on TIPS at a Judiciary Committee hearing on July 25, he insisted that “the TIPS program is something requested by industry to allow them to talk about anomalies that they encounter.”But, when George W. Bush first announced the program, he portrayed it as an administration initiative. Did thousands of Teamsters Union members petition 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over “anomalies”? Senator Leahy asked whether reports to the TIPS hotline would become part of a federal database with millions of unsubstantiated allegations against American citizens. Ashcroft told Leahy, “I have recommended that there would be none, and I’ve been given assurance that the TIPS program would not maintain a database.” But Ashcroft could not reveal which federal official had given him the assurance.
The ACLU’s Laura Murphy observed, “This is a program where people’s activities, statements, posters in their windows or on their walls, nationality, and religious practices will be reported by untrained individuals without any relationship to criminal activity.” San Diego law professor Marjorie Cohn observed, “Operation TIPS … will encourage neighbors to snitch on neighbors and won’t distinguish between real and fabricated tips. Anyone with a grudge or vendetta against another can provide false information to the government, which will then enter the national database.”

On August 9, the Justice Department announced it was fine-tuning TIPS, abandoning any “plan to ask thousands of mail carriers, utility workers, and others with access to private homes to report suspected terrorist activity,” the Washington Post reported. People who had enlisted to be TIPSters received an email notice from Uncle Sam that “only those who work in the trucking, maritime, shipping, and mass transit industries will be eligible to participate in this information referral service.” But the Justice Department continued refusing to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee who would have access to the TIPS reports.
After the proposal created a fierce backlash across the political board, Congress passed an amendment blocking its creation. House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-Tex.) attached an amendment to homeland security legislation that declared, “Any and all activities of the federal government to implement the proposed component program of the Citizen Corps known as Operation TIPS are hereby prohibited.” But the Bush administration and later the Obama administration pursued the same information roundup with federally funded fusion centers that encouraged people to file “suspicious activity reports” for a wide array of innocuous behavior — reports that are dumped into secret federal databases that can vex innocent citizens in perpetuity.
Operation TIPS illustrated how the momentum of intrusion spurred government to propose programs that it never would have attempted before 9/11. If Bush had proposed in August 2001 to recruit 10 million Americans to report any of their neighbors they suspected of acting unusual or being potential troublemakers, the public might have concluded the president had gone berserk.

Total Information Awareness: 300 million dossiers

The USA PATRIOT Act created a new Information Office in the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In January 2002, the White House chose retired admiral John Poindexter to head the new office. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explained, “Admiral Poindexter is somebody who this administration thinks is an outstanding American, an outstanding citizen, who has done a very good job in what he has done for our country, serving the military.” Cynics kvetched about Poindexter’s five felony convictions for false testimony to Congress and destruction of evidence during the investigation of the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages exchange. Poindexter’s convictions were overturned by a federal appeals court, which cited the immunity Congress granted his testimony.
Poindexter committed the new Pentagon office to achieving Total Information Awareness (TIA). TIA’s mission is “to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists — and decipher their plans — and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts,” according to DARPA. According to Undersecretary of Defense Pete Aldridge, TIA would seek to discover “connections between transactions — such as passports; visas; work permits; driver’s licenses; credit cards; airline tickets; rental cars; gun purchases; chemical purchases — and events — such as arrests or suspicious activities and so forth.” Aldridge agreed that every phone call a person made or received could be entered into the database. With “voice recognition” software, the actual text of the call could also go onto a permanent record.
TIA would also strive to achieve “Human Identification at a Distance” (HumanID), including “Face Recognition,” “Iris Recognition,” and “Gait Recognition.” The Pentagon issued a request for proposals to develop an “odor recognition” surveillance system that would help the feds identify people by their sweat or urine — potentially creating a wealth of new job opportunities for deviants.
TIA’s goal was to stockpile as much information as possible about everyone on Earth — thereby allowing government to protect everyone from everything. New York Times columnist William Safire captured the sweep of the new surveillance system: “Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book, and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as ‘a virtual, centralized grand database.’” Columnist Ted Rall noted that the feds would even scan “veterinary records. The TIA believes that knowing if and when Fluffy got spayed — and whether your son stopped torturing Fluffy after you put him on Ritalin — will help the military stop terrorists before they strike.”
Phil Kent, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, an Atlanta-based public-interest law firm, warned that TIA was “the most sweeping threat to civil liberties since the Japanese-American internment.” The ACLU’s Jay Stanley labeled TIA “the mother of all privacy invasions. It would amount to a picture of your life so complete, it’s equivalent to somebody following you around all day with a video camera.” A coalition of civil-liberties groups protested to Senate leaders, “There are no systems of oversight or accountability contemplated in the TIA project. DARPA itself has resisted lawful requests for information about the Program pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.”
Bush administration officials were outraged by such criticisms. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared, “The hype and alarm approach is a disservice to the public…. I would recommend people take a nice deep breath. Nothing terrible is going to happen.” Poindexter promised that TIA would be designed so as to “preserve rights and protect people’s privacy while helping to make us all safer.” (Poindexter was not under oath at the time of his statement.) The TIA was defended on the basis that “nobody has been searched” until the feds decide to have him arrested on the basis of data the feds snared. Undersecretary Aldridge declared, “It is absurd to think that DARPA is somehow trying to become another police agency. DARPA’s purpose is to demonstrate the feasibility of this technology. If it proves useful, TIA will then be turned over to the intelligence, counterintelligence, and law-enforcement communities as a tool to help them in their battle against domestic terrorism.” In January 2003, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) learned that the FBI was working on a memorandum of understanding with the Pentagon “for possible experimentation” with TIA. Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Security Paul McHale confirmed, in March 2003 testimony to Congress, that the Pentagon would turn TIA over to law-enforcement agencies once the system was ready to roll.
DARPA responded to the surge of criticism by removing the Information Awareness Office logo from the website. The logo showed a giant green eye atop a pyramid, covering half the globe with a peculiar yellow haze, accompanied by the motto “Scientia est Potentia” (Knowledge is Power).

Shortly after DARPA completed a key research benchmark for TIA, Lt. Col. Doug Dyer, a DARPA program manager, publicly announced in April 2003 that Americans are obliged to sacrifice some privacy in the name of security: “When you consider the potential effect of a terrorist attack against the privacy of an entire population, there has to be some trade-off.” But nothing in the U.S. Constitution entitles the Defense Department to decide how much privacy or liberty American citizens deserve.
In September 2003, Congress passed an amendment abolishing the Pentagon’s Information Office and ending TIA funding. But by that point, DARPA had already awarded 26 contracts for dozens of private research projects to develop components for TIA. reported, “According to people with knowledge of the program, TIA has now advanced to the point where it’s much more than a mere ‘research project.’ There is a working prototype of the system, and federal agencies outside the Defense Department have expressed interest in it.” The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is already using facial recognition systems at 20 airports and the Transportation Security Administration is expected to quickly follow suit.
Two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo sent a secret memo to the White House declaring that the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches was null and void: “If the government’s heightened interest in self-defense justifies the use of deadly force, then it also certainly would justify warrantless searches.” That memo helped set federal policy until it was publicly revealed after Barack Obama took office in 2009. Unfortunately, that anti-Constitution, anti-privacy mindset unleashed many federal intrusions that continue to this day, from the TSA to the National Security Agency to the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.

vrijdag 6 september 2019

De Zionistische Meute 16

A Nazi is a Nazi, he be a Jew or otherwise, and it is a false sentiment of the Jewish people to condemn Nazism and condone (vergoelijken van. svh) Jewish fascism. 

Protest by the Jewish socialist group Hashomer Hatzair, 13th March, 1946, at a secret meeting of the Hagana, which would become the core of the Israel Defense Forces.

Kort samengevat weten we nu dat de Amsterdamse antiekhandelaar Constant Vecht als overtuigde marxist dertien jaar lang streefde naar een radicale breuk met de geschiedenis. Toen die eenmaal onmogelijk bleek, en hij overspannen was vertrokken als hoofdredacteur van het stervende communistische dagblad De Waarheid, vond hij al snel in het zionisme een nieuw ideologisch geloof dat zich baseert op een millennia-oude fabel over een uitverkoren volk van een Joods opperwezen dat Israel als beloofd land schenkt, op voorwaarde dat ‘gij niets’ zult ‘laten leven, dat adem heeft.’ 

Met andere woorden, Constant Vecht, die als jongeling het lot van de mensheid drastisch wilde veranderen, en vandaag de dag als bejaarde de toekomst van ‘het jodendom’ ingrijpend wil hervormen, heeft weinig tot niets van de geschiedenis geleerd. Ik vrees dat Constant als zelfbenoemde ‘half-jood’ tevens te weinig historische kennis bezit. En wat hij weet is niet doorleefd. Ik stel dit met nadruk omdat ik me niet kan voorstellen dat iemand bij zijn volle verstand en met een ontwikkeld inlevingsgevoel het door en door misdadig zionisme kan steunen.

Constant Vecht. Bejaarde Marxist en Kapitalist.

Te lang heeft de buitenwereld deze criminele organisatie geaccepteerd en gesteund, dan wel getolereerd. Daar moet een eind aan komen omdat het huidige, met kernbommen en andere massavernietigingswapens uitgeruste, agressieve zionisme inmiddels een gevaar voor de hele mensheid vormt. Met wat voor terroristische bende we hier te maken hebben blijkt allereerst uit de zionistische geschiedenis. Hoewel er tientallen goed geïnformeerde studies hierover zijn verschenen, beperk ik mij ditmaal tot slechts één, namelijk het  boek dat ik het meest recent heb gelezen, te weten State of Terror. How terrorism created modern Israel (2016) van de Amerikaanse auteur en violist Thomas Suárez, een werk dat de vooraanstaande Joods-Israelische historicus Ilan Pappé kwalificeerde als een ‘tour de force,’ gebaseerd: 

on diligent archival research that looks boldly at the impact of Zionism on Palestine and its people in the first part of the 20th century. The books is the first comprehensive and structured analysis of the violence and terror employers by the Zionist movement, and later the state of Israel, against the people of Palestine. Much of the suffering we witness today can be explained by, and connected to, this formative period covered thoroughly in this book. 

Hoofdstuk 7, handelend over de de ‘deling’ van Palestina, begint met een verhelderend citaat van Kermit Roosevelt junior, kleinzoon van president Theodore Roosevelt. In 1948 zei Roosevelt junior tijdens een uiteenzetting voor de prestigieuze National War College in Washington dat ‘Amerikanen zich niet de mate realiseren,’ waarmee:

partition was refused as a final settlement by the Zionists in Palestine, [nor the conviction among Zionists that] they must not only have all of Palestine, but Trans-Jordan, part of Syria and Lebanon, parts of Iraq and parts of Egypt as well.

Kermit Roosevelt, was niet de eerste de beste, maar in 1953 de organisator van de CIA-staatsgreep in Iran, waarbij de  Perzische democratie werd vernietigd. Suárez, die zich baseert op een langdurige studie van officiële Amerikaanse en Britse documenten, citeert uit CIA-archieven. Zo bericht hij dat:

The day before the UN Partition vote (in 1947. svh), the CIA reinforced earlier warnings:

‘Even the more conservative Zionists will hope to obtain the whole off the Nejeb [sic] [Negev. svh], Western Galilee, the city of Jerusalem, and eventually all of Palestine. The extremists demand not only all of Palestine but Transjordan as well. They have stated that they will refuse to recognize the validity of any Jewish government which will settle for anything less, and will probably undertake aggressive action to achieve their ends.’

Dat in tegenstelling tot de Joden de Arabieren, inclusief de Palestijnen, onbuigzaam waren in hun eisen, is bekende zionistische propaganda, zoals ondermeer blijkt uit het volgende: 

Meanwhile at the UN, Arab representatives — whose request to have the legality of Partition reviewed by the International Court of Justice had already been denied — took advantage of a twenty-four hour reprieve granted them to put forth a conciliatory alternative. They proposed, in vain, a single democratic nation with what the Times described as ‘a constitution similar to that of the United States.’

Intussen waren de tot de tanden toe bewapende, goed  geoefende zionistische milities met grof geweld bezig met het etnisch zuiveren van Palestina. Suárez:

There were bombings of Palestinian homes, cafés, bus queues, and a cinema, and there was more of the anti-Jewish violence that had begun to resurface by mid-August when the UNSCOP recommendations were formalized. Most Palestinians, however, appear to have resigned themselves to the new dynamics, and wanted simply to get on with their lives. Cunningham (Britse Hoge Commissaris van Palestina. svh) described ‘the initial Arab outbreaks’ as ‘spontaneous and unorganized... more demonstrations of displeasure at the U.N. decision than determined attacks on Jews.’ The Arabs’ main weapons, Cunningham pointed out, were ‘sticks and stones,’ and the unrest would likely have subsided had it not been that the settlers ratcheted up the provocation. Until then, ‘the Arab Higher Committee as a whole, and the Mufti in particular,’ wanted non-violent resistance — boycott — and ‘were not in favor of serious outbreaks.’ The British military cited several cases ‘of Mukhtars (burgemeesters. svh) of Arab villages visiting the adjacent Jewish settlements and insisting that they want to remain on friendly terms with their Jewish neighbors.’ Palestinian anti-British violence, which had ceased by 1939, did resurface on a small scale, though the British security forces reported that it ‘should not be considered... part of a deliberate plan, and in many cases the Mukhtars have apologized profusely for damage and casualties... the Arabs as a whole are loath to start hostilities.’ 

Peaceful Palestinian protest also marked the aftermath of the Partition vote. On the 5th of December, about 1,300 Palestinians in Gaza — Muslims and Christians, men and women — carried banners that read ‘Down with Truman and Down with Partition.’ Near Khan Yunis, 3,000 – 4,000 Palestinians demonstrated for four hours and then sent a delegation to speak to the police. A thousand Palestinians walked in peaceful procession in Kefar Saba against Partition. The Jewish Agency’s defiance of Resolution 181 (VN-resolutie waarbij Palestina verdeeld werd. svh) was visible within a week of the vote, with its decision that ‘a number of “national institutions,” including the Chief Rabbinate’ would not be within the borders it had agreed to, but illegally in Jerusalem, in the UN-administered international zone. Intelligence reports in mid-December betray how soon after the Partition vote the British themselves acknowledged the UN’s promise of a Palestinian state to be fraudulent. One secret report warned of ‘the illegal appropriation of land in PALESTINE by the Jews in order to est[ablish] new settlements’ on land designated for Palestine. Another British report, a scant two weeks after Resolution 181, stated outright that the promised Palestinian state would never be, that ‘it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity.’ The British were already aware that Ben-Gurion was collaborating with ‘an Arab ruler,’ King Abdullah of Jordan.

Dit laatste om te voorkomen dat er een zelfstandige Palestijnse staat zou ontstaan op het grondgebied dat de Verenigde Naties had toegewezen aan de Palestijnse bevolking. De etnische zuivering van Palestina was al lang vóór het uitroepen van de staat Israel nauwgezet voorbereid. Het verdrijven van ongeveer 94 procent van de toenmalige inwoners van Palestina, de gehele christelijke en islamitische Palestijnse bevolking, is uitgebreid beschreven in gedegen historische studies van gezaghebbende Joods-Israelische historici als Simha Flapan, Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris, etc. Hoe extremistisch het streven van de zionistische leiding al in een vroegtijdig stadium was, blijkt ondermeer uit het feit dat reeds in juni 1919 David Ben-Goerion, de grondlegger van de zelfbenoemde 'Joodse Staat,’  schreef:

Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can bridge it… We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.

In 1937 schreef dezelfde David Ben-Goerion in een brief aan zijn zoon:

Ik ben een enthousiaste aanhanger van de joodse staat, ook als dat betekent dat we nu Palestina moeten verdelen, want ik ga er van uit dat een gedeeltelijke joodse staat niet het eindpunt is maar het begin... De formering van een staat, ook al is het nog maar een gedeeltelijke staat, zal de grootste bijdrage zijn aan onze kracht, en een machtige uitvalsbasis vormen bij ons historische streven om het gehele land te bevrijden.

Met andere woorden: tussen het streven van de ‘linkse’ Ben-Goerion en de ‘rechtse’ Netanyahu bestaat geen enkel wezenlijk verschil. Dit werd nog eens in 2004 onderstreept door de bekendste Joods-Israelische historicus, Benny Morris, toen hij verklaarde dat 'Ben-Gurion was right... Without the uprooting (verdrijving. svh) of the Palestinians a Jewish state would not have arisen here.'

Die etnische zuivering begon in eind 1947 begin 1948, een feit dat volgens Benny Morris: 

is based on many documents... most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.


From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer (verdrijving. svh). There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created… Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist.

Voor degenen die de boeken van Morris niet gelezen hebben, het begrip 'transfer' is een eufemisme voor etnische zuivering. Met andere woorden: Israel heeft volgens zijn meest vooraanstaande historicus -- en de eerder genoemde 'nieuwe historici' -- met grootschalig geweld en 'terreur' tenminste 750.000 Palestijnse burgers verdreven, waarna ze, zonder enige compensatie van Israel, in vluchtelingenkampen terechtkwamen, aangezien de vluchtelingen in strijd met het internationaal recht en talloze resoluties van de Verenigde Naties van Israel niet mochten terugkeren. Deze situatie duurt nu al 70 jaar.

Met een typerende onverschilligheid beweerde de zionistische historicus Benny Morris vervolgens: 

under certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.

Het was kennelijk allemaal onvoldoende geweest, want de huidige extremisten onder de zionisten hebben felle kritiek op Ben-Gurion. Zo stelt Morris, die tot het Israelische progressieve kamp werd gerekend, het volgende: 

Ik denk dat [Ben-Goerion] in 1948 een ernstige historische fout maakte. Hoewel hij het demografische vraagstuk begreep en de noodzaak van het vestigen van een joodse straat zonder een grote Arabische minderheid, werd hij tijdens de oorlog bang. Op het laatst aarzelde hij… Ik weet dat dit de Arabieren en de ruim denkenden en de politiek correcte types verbijsterd. Maar mijn gevoel is dat deze plaats rustiger zou zijn en minder lijden zou kennen als de zaak eens en voor altijd opgelost was geweest… Als aan het eind van het liedje mistroostig blijkt te zijn voor de joden dan zal dit zijn omdat Ben Goerion de verplaatsing in 1948 niet voltooide. Omdat hij een groot en veranderlijke demografische reserve op de Westbank en Gaza en binnen Israël zelf achterliet. 

Kortom, ook de laatste 150.000 Palestijnen hadden in 1948 verdreven moeten worden om een etnisch zuivere 'Joodse staat’ mogelijk te maken. De etnische zuiveringsideologie vormt een continuïteit in het zionistische denken. Deze feiten zijn, volgens Morris:

based on many documents... most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.

Ook Wikipedia benadrukt dat:

Ben-Gurion stated his belief that partition would be just the beginning. The sentiment was recorded by Ben-Gurion on other occasions, such as at a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938, as well as by Chaim Weizmann. In the letter, Ben-Gurion wrote:

‘Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country? My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.... This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.’

Ben-Goerion eindigde zijn brief met de volgende verzekering: 

I feel no conflict between my mind and emotions. Both declare to me: A Jewish state must be established immediately, even if it is only in part of the country. The rest will follow in the course of time. A Jewish state will come.

Israel kan zich vanaf het allereerste begin boven de wet stellen. Het grootschalig terrorisme van het zionistisch regime kan tot op de dag van vandaag ongestoord en in volle hevigheid doorgaan dankzij het feit dat het regime door het Westen gesteund wordt. De rest is slechts hasbara van zionistische propagandisten, zoals die van het CIDI. 

De werkelijkheid staat haaks op de indoctrinatie van deze, door een Joods-Israelische geleide, club. In zijn boek State of Terror zet Thomas Suárez uiteen dat in de beginjaren:

Israel’s expulsions of non-Jews continued ‘at the whim of the Israeli police or District Administration,’ as Ambassador Kirkbride (Britse ambassadeur in Jordanië. svh) put it, and by making life so miserable that it is ‘impossible for any Arab to contemplate spending a lifetime under Israeli rule.’ But if stories of abuse ‘reduced the earlier determination of the refugees to go home,’ it did not stop them. Many tried, despite risking beatings, torture, rape, and murder. In mid-1949, an IDF intelligence officer spoke of the ‘hundreds’ of Palestinians attempting to return home to the villages of Western Galilee (which was supposed to be part of Palestine, not Israel) that were rounded up and ‘liquidated by military order’ — tied to a tree and shot in the head being one documented method. In his study of declassified Zionist archives, Benny Morris determined that Israeli troops more or less routinely beat captured infiltrators [people attempting to return home], sometimes torturing them, and occasionally raped and/or murdered them. This continued with impunity because of ‘the pervasive attitude among the Israeli public that Arab life was cheap,’ and that the killing, torturing, beating, and raping of Arab infiltrators was, if not permitted, at least not particularly reprehensible... Statehood did not end the rape of Palestinian girls and women by Israeli soldiers: in 1950, Ben-Gurion still referred to an IDF battalion that ‘is prone to’ raping and murdering Arab girls. 

On 22 August, 1949, Israeli soldiers kidnapped a Bedouin girl just after machine-gunning dead a man for sport as he fled, unarmed, up a sand dune in fear, and killing six of the Bedouins’ camels. They took the girl, whose age was estimated to be as young as ten but was probably about fifteen, to the IDF camp and began by a public humiliation, stripping her naked and making her stand under a water pipe as the men rubbed her body with soap. Three soldiers then raped her. After the Sabbath meal, the platoon commander got involved: he ordered soldiers to cut her hair and wash what was left in kerosene, and for her again to be displayed naked under the shower pipe. The girl was then gang-raped over a period of three days, at times leaving her unconscious. Pecking order was decided by the commander: Squad A raped her on day one, Squad B on day two, Squad C on day three. When they finished, they dug her grave right in front of her eyes before shooting her. In 2003 this atrocity surfaced in the Israeli and British press, reported as though it were a dark secret newly unearthed, a regrettable aberration of the fledgling state, terrible but singular (zeldzaam. svh). The state was insulated (niet verantwoordelijk gesteld. svh) at the expense of the late war’s Jewish survivors: these were IDF soldiers, yes, but they were World War II Displaced Persons, and thus they were something apart, of ‘low professional and moral level,’ as it was reported. Yet Ben-Gurion’s elite Palmach was notorious for mass murder and rape, and ‘cultured officers' were specifically cited by soldiers as eager participants in such grisly crimes. Thus the settler state’s final violence against the girl was the exploitation of her memory for the state’s ritual absolution, spinning her murder as an original sin by a wayward relative, the sin now buried in the Negev along with its nameless victim. 

Three Palestinian children, two girls and a boy, were abducted from the Gaza Strip by Israeli soldiers on 16 March, 1950. The soldiers gang-raped both girls, then murdered all three children. When the villagers responded to the atrocity with an ambush on an IDF car, Israel ‘defended’ itself: it mortared the village. A twenty-six year old Palestinian woman captured by an Israeli patrol near the Armistice line five months later, on 15 August, was accused of picking fruit on the Israeli side of the Line (though it was her family’s grove). She was taken to a police station and raped by four Israeli constables. When both the Red Cross and UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. svh) confirmed the charge, Israel accused the ICRC of disseminating ‘anti-Israel propaganda’ and called for the removal of the Red Cross representative. Another organization with which Israel was frequently at odds was the Mixed Armistice Commission (MAC), created by the United Nations to supervise the truce that ended the 1948 war. Composed of separate organizations for each of Israel’s four de facto borders — Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt — each of the five countries had a representative, and UN observers monitored the borders and investigated complaints. Records demonstrate that complaints were given a fair hearing and investigators were thorough, though the MAC had no power of enforcement. One of the early issues the MAC investigated became known as the Wadi Araba incident. 

In the first days of June, 1950, eighty-seven half-dead naked men and boys as young as seven began turning up on the western frontier of southern Jordan, the Wadi Araba desert region to the south of the Dead Sea. They were the survivors of about one hundred twenty ‘infiltrators’ seized by Israel in various parts of the land under its control and marched into this desert to their likely deaths. Approximately thirty-four of the victims perished, among them at least two girls, one who did not survive the desert and another who the IDF shot dead when she attempted to escape the death march. Israel had conducted such forced marches during its 1948 ethnic cleansing, in which children and the elderly in particular perished along the way. The Wadi Araba expulsion was exceptional, however, in that many of the victims survived when found by Bedouin and Arab Legion patrols, and their stories were documented and corroborated. Two years into Israeli statehood, these accounts offer an unparalleled examination of Palestinian ‘infiltrators’, who they were, their motivations, how Israel dealt with them, and how Israeli media reported it. Since they were arrested over a wide area and over a period of several months, we can assume that they are a representative sampling of these unfortunate people. Three chroniclers interviewed the survivors: a representative from the International Red Cross, a Belgian observer from the MAC, and a correspondent from The Observer (UK). Fifty-one survivors are accounted for in forty-nine interviews. Their stories closely corroborated. In late May, the prisoners were collected into a camp at Katra (near Rehovot) — ‘a concentration camp... run on Nazi lines,’ as Ambassador Kirkbride described the facility. All were suffering from extreme malnutrition; many had been tortured. Early on the morning of Wednesday, 31 May, they were blindfolded and loaded onto two trucks, with no water or other supplies, and driven south with the escort of Israeli soldiers fore and aft. Later in the day, they reached a military camp which they surmised was near Beersheba. An Israeli woman from a southern kibbutz was a chance witness to their arrival. 

‘Two large trucks arrived, packed with blindfolded Arabs (men, women, children)... The way the Arabs were crowded together [on the trucks] was inhuman... Those of us standing nearby had witnessed no bad behavior on the part of the Arabs, who sat frightened, almost one on top of the other. [Then one or more of the soldiers] jumped up and began to... hit [the Arabs] across their blindfolded eyes and when he had finished, he stamped on all of them and then, in the end, laughed uproariously and with satisfaction at his heroism…’

‘I ask,’ the woman from the kibbutz finished, ‘does this not remind us exactly of the Nazi acts towards the Jews?’

Having already endured the long drive in the heat, the prisoners asked for water. The Israeli soldiers brought water and — the Palestinians’ blindfolds now removed so that they could see — ‘poured it away on the ground in front of the Arabs.’ None of the roughly sixty people in each of the two trucks were allowed to descend, not even ‘to relieve nature.’ Blindfolded again, they were trucked several more hours. About midnight, blindfolds removed, they found themselves at ‘completely uninhabited desert.’ The soldiers ordered them to walk into it. As summarized from the interviews, 

‘The general direction indicated to them seemed to be south-east. They were told that anyone who ran north would be shot. This procedure was then applied, the men being taken forward in groups of four. As each party ran off into the darkness, bursts of fire were opened on them by the Jews.’

The interviewers described the spot as ‘one of the hottest, wildest and most utterly desolate areas in the world,’ and ‘is infested by snakes, wolves and hyenas, so that the missing persons may well have been eaten by wild animals.’ The post nearest to where they were released was Dhahal, about ten miles away, but none of them found it in under 36 hours since it lay east-north-east. ‘Others walked 25 to 28 miles and climbed a range of mountains 3000 feet high, before arriving at inhabited country in the vicinity of Shobek.’ 

All were weak from hunger and extreme thirst. Many were suffering from torture, including beatings, whipping, teeth smashed off by rifle butts, hearing loss from beatings on the ears, and fingernails torn out. Some adults who collapsed along the way had to be abandoned by those still conscious in order to save the children among them. Yet the Wadi Araba incident might have slipped by little noticed had the journalist Philip Toynbee not been passing through Amman and heard of the survivors. The Observer published his shocking account in which Toynbee, who had been a supporter of Zionism, now compared the Israeli regime to Nazi Germany.

Who were these ‘infiltrators’? All but four of the survivors interviewed (these representing 42.5% of those pushed into the desert) had been ethnically cleansed by Israel and were attempting either to reach the West Bank from Gaza, or to reach their homes in an attempt to rejoin their families or retrieve property (hidden cash or grain). Starvation resulting from Israel’s ethnic cleansing was the common driving force, fathers or sons hoping to save their starving families. For two of the remaining four, the desert march was itself their ethnic cleansing; they had escaped the 1948 purge. The last two were chance outsiders, a man from Sudan making a pilgrimage to Hebron, and a student at Al-Azhar University in Cairo en route to his home in Tira to get money to complete his studies.

After Toynbee’s exposé, the Jerusalem Post repeated the government denial. These ‘infiltrators’ posed a grave threat to Israel, yet they had been well treated. Still with three hours before sunset, they had been released to an Arab Legion post directly in front of them. As Israel denied everything publicly, it placated US unease by claiming that an investigation was in progress — and indeed, an internal Israeli memo advised the government simply to ‘promise an inquiry in order to settle things down.’ 

Belangrijk te weten is dat Israel in mei 1949 als VN-lid werd toegelaten op voorwaarde dat het de Palestijnse vluchtelingen zou laten terugkeren, aangezien:

Israel vowed that it would pursue ‘no policies on any question which were inconsistent with… the resolutions of the Assembly and the Security Council.’ There had been five major points of concern about Israel's admission: its position toward internationalization of Jerusalem, its position on refugees, its stand on borders, its willingness to observe U.N. resolutions, and its failure to apprehend the assassins of Count Folke Bernadotte (daders waren Joodse zionisten. svh). Scandinavian countries complained that Israel's report to the United Nations on Bernadotte's assassination had been unresponsive and failed to show a serious effort to apprehend the culprits.

Aan geen van deze voorwaarden heeft Israel voldaan. Dankzij  het feit dat de Joodse natie is uitgegroeid tot een huurlingenstaat in dienst van westerse elitebelangen wordt het door de EU en de VS gesteund, zowel politiek, economisch, diplomatiek als militair. Zodoende kan het zionistische regime blijven handelen alsof het boven de wet staat, hetgeen onder een toenemend aantal wereldbewoners vanzelfsprekend een groeiende afkeer veroorzaakt. Hiervoor waarschuwde al in 1945 de joods-Duitse politiek theoretica Hanna Arendt toen zij erop wees dat ‘de Zionisten de joodse nationale emancipatie volledig afhankelijk’ hadden gemaakt 

van de materiële belangen van een andere natie. Het feitelijke resultaat was een terugkeer van de nieuwe beweging naar de traditionele methoden van shtadlonus (de vroegere ‘hofjoden’ svh), die de Zionisten ooit eens zo bitter hadden gehaat en zo fel hadden gehekeld. 

In het verleden werd de weerzin tegen Joodse Europeanen mede gevoed door de rol van deze ‘shtadlonus,’ die Europese vorsten geld leenden om gehate oorlogen te voeren, en die het lucratieve recht hadden verworven namens de heersers belastingen te innen van een vaak armlastige boerenbevolking. Hier zien we opnieuw een continuïteit in de Joodse geschiedenis. Arendt concludeerde dan ook dat: 

slechts dwaasheid een beleid [kan] dicteren dat vertrouwt op bescherming van een verre imperiale macht (de VS. svh) terwijl het de welwillendheid van de buren verspeelt (de Arabische volkeren. svh).

Desondanks is het zionistisch regime in Israel, gesteund door een rijke lobby van joodse westerlingen, doorgegaan met deze volstrekt immorele politiek die de begrijpelijke afschuw van niet-joden doet toenemen, en trouwens oook van een groeiend aantal jonge joodse Amerikanen dat de gewetenloosheid van de meeste Joden in Israel niet langer meer met hun geweten in overeenstemming kan brengen. Inderdaad:

'A Nazi is a Nazi be he a Jew or otherwise, and it is a false sentiment of the Jewish people to condemn Nazism and condone Jewish fascism.Volgende keer meer daarover en over de rol van de zelfbenoemde 'half-jood' Constant Vecht. 

In tegenstelling tot Constant Vecht erkent Israel deze Afrikaan en deze mensen uit China wel als volwaardige Joden. God's wegen zijn ondoorgrondelijk en zelden aangenaam.

Nazi Crimes of the Self Proclaimed Jewish State Sulaiman Ahmed @ShaykhSulaiman NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY DID 11:59 a.m. · 15 jun. 202...