The summer of discontent is upon us. Whether we will find ourselves witness to direct exchange of fire or targets of another global counter-insurgency sweep is anyone’s guess. This time in 2020 the most massive abrogation of human and civil rights (temporary privileges granted to selective populations at different levels) in recorded history was accelerating on the highway to Hell, paved by the psychopathic oligarchy and the pharmaments industry. In the first half of 2024, distorted, partial, and self-serving disclosures and omissions have animated what remains of critical faculty in the West.
Predictably, at least for those few who learned no later than 2001 to trust nothing governments and corporations say or do, the schedule of lies—both by commission and omission—has been released for public assessment. Almost without exception, the assertions made by those who opposed both the state of siege and the subsequent mass poisoning of approximately a billion people have been verified in fragmentary form. The arbitrary nature and futility of the measures even for their ostensible purpose have been admitted. The genetic engineering origins of the alleged pathogen have also been licensed for public chatter. A recent report attributed to Establishment mouthpiece, Reuters, claims that covert US military operations included an Internet campaign to discredit China’s Sinovac injections, presumably to protect Pfizer market share. An “anti-vax” attack on the Philippine government was supposedly launched to discourage Filipinos from taking the Chinese prophylaxis. Such an “anti-vax” operation in the former US colony persisted while in the rest of the West those critical of the de facto mandatory injections were actively suppressed. Perhaps one should not rush to attribute so much value to this revelation.
The concern about the competition in the injection market, also known as vaccines or biologics (a term used to evade certain legacy regulatory conditions that survived the gutting of public institutions for assuring safe food and drugs) belies a confidence in the underlying official myth upon which the so-called COVID-19 pandemic is based. Hence one can see how these disclosures trigger gossip habits among critics, diverting their attention from the core issues.
Starting with the basic deception at the end of November 2019, there were early analysts like Larry Romanoff in Shanghai (aka Moon of Alabama I believe) who provided a clear breakdown of the alleged spread of whatever pathogen(s) were attributed to the first December days in Wuhan, Hubei province. Numerous other, meanwhile forgotten or ignored observers pointed to the coincidence of the World Military Games and a strangely ill US contingent. The suppression of reports by a medical practitioner in Washington State, early in the run-up to the all out war, has also been forgotten for all intents and purposes. Other observers pointed to the peculiar and not entirely explained role of a US agent, ostensibly on behalf of the paramilitary Centers for Disease Control, who had been seconded to China until shortly after the alleged outbreak when she suddenly returned to the US. Here it should be noted that the general ignorance of the standard literature on covert action became apparent. Aside from a few early commentators, there were hardly any reactions to these reports. All focus turned to pseudo-medical debates about transmissibility of animal viruses to humans and security conditions in biological experimentation laboratories. The obvious signals of covert action were scrupulously ignored or merely overlooked. David Martin remained one of the diligent open source researchers who refused to ignore the accumulated twenty years of overt-covert action. None of the mainstream and much of the conformist alternative media perpetuated the navel contemplation by which every event in the world is measured.
For example, while attention was focussed on the Japanese cruise ship in quarantine almost no questions were raised as to how a Wuhan “infection” became lethal for several high-ranking Iranian officials. Despite the well-known assassination campaign by the settler-colonial regime in Palestine and its principal patron on the Potomac, virtually no one discussed the possibility of a complex synchronisation of belligerence. The repeated occurrence of extraordinary livestock infections in China have yet to reach common consciousness in the overall story. Meanwhile the role of the Italian NATO Gladio squads in bombing the Bologna railway station (2 August 1980, killing 85 and wounding over 200) is public record. Aside from the fact that the OSS/CIA and Italian organised crime (aka the Mafia) have been running Italian politics since 1944, one needs no imagination to contemplate a scheme by which the Bergamo “covid” deaths in old-age facilities could have been perpetrated. The COVID-19 “pandemic” is entirely consistent with the NATO “strategy of tension” executed by Gladio units throughout Europe in the 1970s and early 1980s.
In short, before launching a dilettante debate about healthcare policy and pandemic preparedness, the facts on the ground already discredit any such starting point. On the contrary, while there continues to be speculation about “lab leaks” and “blow back”, there is little consistent discussion about the actual events in sequence and their political context.
What can be called the COVID counter-insurgency is really a sequel to the 2001 Global War on Terror triggered by relatively minor state terrorism using US military grade anthrax and followed by the highly profitable demolition of the World Trade Center towers in New York City. As has been argued elsewhere, we are in the midst of a world war, and it is against us. The euphemism “hybrid warfare” actually designates the systems approach to global counter-insurgency. The so-called “Great Reset” is better named “Phoenix 8.0”—the “infrastructure” to be neutralized is the bulk of humanity itself. While the weblogs surge with daily fear reports and reminders of what our psychopathic 1% “could do” little attention is directed to what they have done and are doing.
Admittedly there has to be some reason to wake every morning and not reach for some means of self-destruction. Yet in the midst of a crusade, the “infidels” have to know that they are dealing with religion and religious fanaticism and not misguided or mistaken neighbours whose only vice is too much money or power. That said, the ultimately political nature of the present struggle should not be forgotten. A political struggle is always collective even if not uniform. The hybrid quality of the offensive can be seen in the way overt military action, e.g. the war in Ukraine (as well as a hundred others with no exposure) and the mass murder of indigenous inhabitants in the reservations established by European settler-colonialists in Palestine are part of the same action that was launched in 2020—although demonstrably in the active planning and rehearsal phase since 2001!
Whether or not there was a novel virus and whether or not it leaked (deliberately) or was deployed ought not to be ignored but relegated to the details bin. “The virus” did not do anything—people did. More attention ought to be given to some hundred biological weapons laboratories operated by the US under contract in every country bordering Russia or China where foothold can be obtained. Jeffrey Sachs can be taken at his word when he confirms publicly what the record has long shown– that NIH (and CDC) are the cover for the massive US pharmaments industry, developing weapons against enemies both foreign and domestic. Global health threats are just the next stage in the jargon of hybrid warfare that started in 1913. The purpose of hybrid warfare or counter-insurgency is population control. Territorial control follows naturally. Population control means the exercise of force, physical, psychological, personal and environmental to manipulate the target humans at whatever scale is deemed necessary to achieve strategic objectives, e.g. power over natural resources, space, energy, “elimination of useless eaters”, etc. The crucial innovative success of the past four years has been enhanced scalability. Moreover through years of highly selective hyper-indoctrination, the COVID counter-insurgency could be launched without B-52 bombing strikes. However assassinations were and remain an essential part of mission tactics.
A series of articles posted in Dissident Voice and Global Research in 2020, 2021 and 2022 describe these operations in conceptual detail. Repeating them here would add only length.
The principal barrier to political analysis and after-action deliberation lies in the trauma of mass deaths. That is also part of the overall strategy. The oligarchy that waged saturation bombing against Germany, Japan, Korea and Vietnam, just to name the most egregious cases, learned that this does not break civilian morale. Instead they adopted the lesson of concentration camp management, namely that senseless death from disease, malnutrition, and other quasi-natural phenomena, even though induced by an aggressive external force, is far more traumatic. The trauma is compounded by the psychological torture of incarceration itself, especially irrational and arbitrary discipline imposed in prison-type conditions.
Failure to understand the degree to which the healthcare system has been integrated into the military-industrial (pharmaments) complex over the course of a century, i.e., Rockefeller control over medical education and certification finally established by the end of WW2 (when the WHO was established to internationalise it), prevents many serious critics from distinguishing between healthcare and state-ordered euthanasia. Trust in the Marcus Welby, Ben Casey, or Doctor House versions of in and out patient medicine has sustained a Disneyland view of the hospital and the virtually extinct GP. Here Lars von Trier’s 1994/1997 mini-series The Kingdom would be a far more instructive story.
Morticians and whistleblowing staff along with less naive medical experts repeatedly pointed to systematic malpractice perpetrated by hospital administrations for pay. Physicians in private practice have long been discouraged from practicing proper diagnosis and preventive care by state and private health insurers who only pay for treatments and expensive technology. The amount of money – bribery – paid throughout the North American and European hospital and outpatient “healthcare” apparatus to sustain the illusion of a pandemic—which was only so defined by a deliberate alteration of the international health regulations to accommodate the scheme—has yet to be measured. Add to this the amounts of bribery paid to obtain exclusive, mandatory deployment of the definite biological weapon: the genetic engineering injection euphemistically called a “covid vaccine”.
So far what we have is the fundamental collapse of anything resembling a popularly accountable government at any level and its entire appropriation by financial interests (hedge funds, private equity, banks etc.) armed to the teeth with the world’s most powerful propaganda apparatus and legions of brainwashed terrorists.
This war is far from over. One of the few Germans conspicuous for his attempts to integrate all these levels of hybrid warfare, eschewing distractions but collecting all details that might help explain the incoherent and contradictory aspects of this war, Reiner Füllmich, has been held in German maximum security prison for the past six months after he was kidnapped in Mexico by secret police assets. Having established in open court (Göttingen regional court) that the charges of embezzlement and dereliction of fiduciary duty upon which he has been held were not only fraudulent but baseless on their face, the presiding judge simply amended the charges and insisted that he would be found guilty of something else. Documents disclosed establish that Füllmich was kidnapped, charged and incarcerated by conspiracy of the German secret police. Others have already been silenced, bankrupted or driven into exile. During the active phase of the counter-insurgency fatal “accidents” neutralized several of the more prominent opposition, just in Germany. There has been no tally of the political assassinations in other countries. However, it is reasonable to say that large numbers of those in hospital did not die from a “virus” but from institutional violence, to paraphrase Johan Galtung.
The most well-trained response to the above is to deny that there is sufficient proof. Denial is also derived from the apparent absence of some “plan” that could have produced this result. Was it all just for money? Could these folks really have planned to cull a billion or so people from the herd? Not everybody was injured or died from the injections. It was an unprecedented emergency, hence mistakes could be expected. Certainly all these well-meaning medical professionals did not go to work to kill the old and infirm isolated in their factories. Some of our best friends are doctors.
These objections miss the point of counter-insurgency, covert warfare and hybrid operations. The psychological control which is the ultimate aim of hybrid/ counter-insurgency operations derives from what must be called a “conversion”. Conversion is different from conquest. Conquest seizes the land but leaves the people. Conversion seizes the people, the land follows. Conversion is accomplished through trauma, destruction of the knowledge base of the target, and injection of a new structure to replace the knowledge base destroyed. That is the technology of Christendom, Christian mission.
Moreover the trauma not only destroys the knowledge base it undermines the target’s capacity to distinguish internal and external phenomena. No deception is ever perfect. Therefore it is necessary to create and maintain sufficient doubt and uncertainty in the target so that he or she is unable to stabilise any explanation for events and circumstances to which he or she has been subjected. This is what torture aims to do. Helplessness, although also an illusion, is a powerful means of self-control. Conviction replaces empirical experience and all facts become deniable. William Colby, while Director of Central Intelligence, explained to the US Congress the meaning of plausible deniability. Then he was only referring to the actions of the Agency. Since 2020, Western society has been restructured entirely along those lines. So began the years of living deniably.
Cover from A Photographic History of the Palestinians 1876 – 1948, by Walid Khalidi
Or rather, Zionist friends need a company. What a difference the smallest word in the English language can make to the meaning of a sentence. In fact, Zionist friends, as we shall see, love a good limited guarantee company.
The social media platform formerly known as Twitter recently alerted those who were interested that some leading lights in the media had incorporated a Limited Company called British Friends of Israel Limited. This prompts many questions, the first of which is: why would you need a Limited Company to assert your friendship with anyone or, in this case, anything? All countries are things, by the way, and we’ll discuss the interesting similarities between countries and companies, such as how both come into being to fulfil the needs of their stakeholders and how both can cease to exist when they fail to meet those needs.
So who are the directors of this Zionist-friendly company? They are:
Laura Dodsworth – she of the ‘free’ mind; a purportedly passionate anti-nudger who just happens to have teamed up with a professional nudger to warn you about the dangers of being nudged.
Ian Rons – IT guy and fellow ‘free-speech’ traveller of Toby Young. Rons was a director of the Free Speech Union at its incorporation but has since resigned his position.
Glancing at this list of British Zionists, you’d think that free speech hobby-horsing is a prerequisite for entry into the Zionist hall of infamy. And in a perverted way, it just might be, because the most effective way to subvert a civic good is to wear its mantle while twisting a knife into its back. If you’re going to plot the death of free speech and avoid suspicion for its murder, why not make like Machiavelli and publicly declare your undying love for the very thing you are privately killing? This is the basic modus operandi of Zionism. When you look at legislation being passed in the Western World, it would appear that Zionism is succeeding in defining all anti-Zionist speech and activism as antisemitic.
However, the onslaught of oppressive gaslighting has provoked a groundswell of moral indignation that no laws can suppress. The majority of people across the world have sent a clear signal to Zionist lobbyists and the governments under their spell that anti-genocide is not antisemitism. And the more Zionists try to muzzle their opponents’ expression of outrage over genocide, the more outraged we get.
Have company or country, will travel…but eternal life is not promised
British Friends of Israel’s articles of association state the company’s objects are “to support British Jews, to oppose antisemitism both in the UK and abroad, and to support Israel’s right to exist.” Are we to infer that the world might not be in such a mess today if it were more widely known that racism could be tackled by fiercely brandishing a Memorandum and Articles of Association, printed on high-quality 200gsm coated paper? As someone with a financial background, it’s exhilarating for me to think Young and his pals are perhaps pioneering a social justice movement in which a well-crafted Memorandum and Articles of Association could become a cross for vampires like Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson. And while a limited company is more often than not chosen as a vehicle for financial transactions and giving a tidy bank account a safe home, I refuse to entertain any cynical thoughts that these upstanding Zionist pillars of the community could be motivated by a tawdry preoccupation with financial gain of some sort.
On the subject of Israel’s right to exist, I will say that a country is on shaky ground if it, and its supporters, have to assert its right to exist. I am prepared to wager substantial sums of money that no Englishman alive today has ever had to assert, publicly or privately, England’s right to exist. A country’s right to exist does not derive from its assertion of a right to exist; it derives from everyone else’s conscious and unconscious acceptance of its existence, in the presence of which there is no need for the assertion, which only serves to emphasise deep insecurity over its right to exist!
Companies and countries aren’t that dissimilar in that they are vehicles formed by groups of people (small in the case of the former and larger in the case of the latter) to serve the goals and ambitions of the people who formed them. Both are formed and led by tiny cabals – shareholders and directors in the case of companies; revolutionaries, politicians and ‘elites’ in the case of countries. They both invite people to ‘buy into’ their venture to make it successful – employees and customers in the case of companies, and citizens in the case of countries. And crucially, when the factions and participants that make up each of these entities cease to get along, they break up, and the shareholders, directors and employees (in the case of companies), or politicians and citizens (in the case of countries) abandon the original vehicles and jump on board new ones.
Neither companies nor countries, as vehicles set up by people to serve either business interests (in the case of companies) or national myths and the agglomeration of power in a nation state (in the case of countries), have a right to exist. When things don’t work out between the parties and the profits aren’t delivered or national power structures disintegrate, the vehicles disintegrate and new ones have to be formed. That observation as it relates to countries should not be construed as an attempt to denigrate national sovereignty per se, but countries do fall apart and when they do, no professed right to exist can save them.
I spent the first 12 years of my life living in a vehicle called Rhodesia. It was predicated on a privileged ethnic minority arrogating to itself the right to rule over an ethnic majority. That ghastly ideology died a death in 1980 and the country called Rhodesia died with it. Everyone was pretty excited when the new vehicle called Zimbabwe hit the road. Well, everyone except the people who had crashed the previous vehicle. Israel is based on a similarly ghastly concept of an ethno-nationalist colonial settler state, and it too is destined to crash and burn. In short, a country has no more of a right to exist than a company, and history is replete with examples of countries whose disintegration negates such a purported right.
Do not interpret my expression of a view that a country has no right to exist as a wish to see harm done to its inhabitants or citizens. My view is that a rogue state should be peacefully reconstituted under a new contract that is just and equitable for all parties. Israel is undoubtedly a rogue state that is in desperate need of reconstitution. Israel knows that too, because it wouldn’t keep telling everyone that it has a right to exist unless it knew that the only crutch on which it relies for its existence is the illegitimate patronage of history’s most obnoxious bully – the US-NATO empire.
The vehicle called Israel was constituted to clear the land previously called Palestine of its indigenous inhabitants, Palestinians, who had been there for centuries. That is the contract between the State of Israel and its citizens, and that is what keeps its citizens strapped into a dangerously unsafe vehicle that went off the rails from the moment it was conceived. It was in fact born in a fiery furnace of terrorism and ethnic cleansing. In 1948, a minority (roughly 30%) of European Jewish settlers set out to achieve their goal of ethnic cleansing, but failed to finish the job. For 76 years since, virtually all of the strife within Israel has been over how to rid themselves completely of the remaining Palestinians and to somehow have this grisly deed rubber-stamped by an international court of public opinion. October 7th 2023, was the pretext Israel’s passengers and drivers (citizens and state) needed to unite and complete the longest drawn-out ethnic cleansing in modern history, and to do so without compunction; to drop the pretence that they cared about whether genocide was a crime against humanity.
By their fruits and friends ye shall know them
If there is any truth in the aphorism that one can judge a person by the company (pun intended) they keep, then what does it say about these six high-profile personalities who have chosen to be friends with Israel? By now, you’re getting a sense of the character of Israel and its founding ideology, Zionism, but we can go a bit further. Israel, insofar as how it governs its inhabitants, is not based on any principles of justice, fairness and equality. It is based explicitly on a state for Jews to the exclusion of all others, and it predicates its very survival and existence on the total marginalisation, and ultimately extinction, of non-Jewish people within the borders of the land it stole in 1948. Don’t take my word for it; here’s what its longest serving Prime Minister affirmed after that principle was reinforced in 2018 with new legislation to remind non-Jews of their place in Israel, or rather that they had no place there:
“According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and only it”. [emphasis added]
“Texts such as the Nationality Law…have deep origins stretching back to the beginning of the Zionist settler-colonial project in Palestine… In order to grasp fully the significance of the law and its impact on the ‘1948 Palestinians’ (Palestinian citizens of Israel) one has to elaborate on the applicability of the settler-colonial paradigm in the particular case of Zionism… The settler-colonialists are white Europeans who were encouraged or forced to leave Europe due to persecution and who settled in someone else’s homeland… Their main challenge was the presence of indigenous populations and indigenous peoples in the newly coveted homelands. The encounter with the indigenous people activated what the late Patrick Wolfe called ‘the logic of the elimination of the native’… In Palestine, the presence of indigenous people led to ethnic cleansing operations that began in the mid-1920s and culminated in the 1948 Nakba… The white European settlers also saw themselves as the ‘new indigenous’ and portrayed the indigenous as ‘aliens’. This self-indigenisation of the European settler and de-indigenisation of the native in the case of Zionism was carried out in the name of the Bible. And, thus, a secular Jewish settler movement created a ‘new homeland’ by using a sacred religious text, the Bible.” [emphasis added]
In explaining why I believe Zionism, and therefore the State of Israel in its current guise, is fundamentally abhorrent, I will draw on the words of Professor David Miller, partly because they express my own sentiments very well, but also because his legal battle for free speech has some relevance to the British Zionist and supposed free-speech advocate, Toby Young, who made some disappointing but entirely expected statements about Miller. I will discuss this in more detail in Part II.
Professor David Miller was persecuted by his employer, the University of Bristol, for expressing anti-Zionist political speech. He was dismissed from his post for stating the plain and simple truth about Zionism:
“Zionism is and always has been a racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing. It is an endemically anti-Arab and Islamophobic ideology. It has no place in any society”.
Dr Miller challenged his employer, taking a case to the Bristol Employment tribunal. In making his case, he needed to prove that his anti-Zionist belief was coherent and cogent, qualifying as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.
Dr Miller succeeded in his claims of direct discrimination, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. While it was not the Tribunal’s place to endorse Miller’s views or comment on his analysis, it acknowledged that his arguments on the nature of Zionism were in fact “coherent and cogent” and that he “is an academic with expertise in Zionism and the Zionist movement ”.[i]
Miller’s characterisation of Zionism is borne out by the historical record. The aim of Zionism, as outlined by its founder Theodor Herzl in 1896, is not in dispute:
“The Idea which I have developed in this pamphlet is a very old one: it is the restoration of the Jewish State.” [ii]
This in and of itself would not have been problematic had the formation of a Jewish state not entailed migration to a land already peacefully inhabited, and the expulsion of those inhabitants who had been there for centuries. Miller explained to the Tribunal that “his opposition to Zionism is not opposition to the idea of Jewish self-determination or of a preponderantly Jewish state existing in the world, but rather, as he defines it, to the exclusive realisation of Jewish rights to self-determination within a land that is home to a very substantial non-Jewish population”. [emphasis added]
Tracing the arc from Balfour in 1917, to UN partition stitch-up in 1947, to genocide in 2024
Describing the non-Jewish population as “very substantial” is an understatement when getting across the point about the Zionists’ choice of land for setting up a Jewish state. The slogan the Zionists hit upon to motivate Jews in the diaspora to emigrate to Palestine was: a land without people for a people without land. Not only was this a bare-faced lie, it was the beginning of the dehumanising colonial animus toward Palestinians; they aren’t people as far as Zionists are concerned. And the current war criminals have not been shy to publicly profess their dehumanisation of the entire Palestinian people, calling them animals. This public dehumanisation of Palestinians seems to be a prerequisite for high office in Israel.
At the time of the signing of the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, which marked Britain’s intention to hand Palestine over to Jewish Zionists, Palestinian people, whether Christian or Muslim, comprised over 90 per cent of the population of Palestine, and owned about 97% of its land.
The declaration is so insulting that it did not even recognise 90% of the population as Palestinian. Instead, they were termed “non-Jewish”. It was drafted by the British Government and the Zionist Organisation, with the US giving its assent to the final draft. Pause and imagine China and Russia setting up a French state in England and calling the English people the ‘non-French’. As insulting and injurious as the Balfour Declaration was to the indigenous Palestinian people, the Zionists wanted the language of their impending displacement of Palestinians to be far clearer than the declaration implied.
This is trivia to a British Zionist. A British Zionist is someone who typically complains bitterly about uncontrolled immigration into Britain today while ignoring the fact that uncontrolled immigration of European Jews into Palestine between 1917 and 1945 resulted in Zionist terrorist militias, representing a 30% minority (from the roughly 10% in 1917), violently displacing 750,000 Palestinians and then stealing their land using a land-theft vehicle called the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Or perhaps that is precisely why British Zionists complain bitterly about uncontrolled immigration into Britain today – they know only too well that the kind of immigration they look upon favourably in the context of Israel could, if replicated, result in their own replacement here.
On the role of the JNF, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his account of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine explains that:
“Founded in 1901, the JNF was the principal Zionist tool for the colonisation of Palestine. It served as the agency the Zionist movement used to buy Palestinian land upon which it then settled Jewish immigrants.”[iii]
By 1948, at the time of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the Jewish community had acquired only 5.8% of the land in Palestine.[iv] That changed in 1948 when over 500 Palestinian villages were wiped off the map by well-organised and well-armed Jewish terrorist militias. Between April and May of 1949, Pappe records that the response of Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, “was to intensify the settlement of Jewish immigrants on the confiscated land and in the evicted houses…Ben-Gurion again appointed a more cabal-like body that soon encouraged hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants from Europe and the Arab world to seize the Palestinian homes left in the towns and cities and to build settlements on the ruins of the expelled villages.”[v]
On the role of the JNF, Pappe writes:
“It was the Settlement Department of the JNF that decided the fate of destroyed villages once they had been flattened: whether a Jewish settlement or a Zionist forest would take its place. Back in 1948, the head of the department, Yossef Weitz, had reported to the Israeli government: ‘We have begun the operation of cleansing, removing the rubble and preparing the villages for cultivation and settlement. Some of these will become parks.’…Weitz proudly reported that he remained unmoved by the sight of tractors destroying whole villages.”[vi]
That is why Zionism is inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial. That is why, in Professor Miller’s words, it “necessarily calls for the displacement and disenfranchisement of non-Jews in favour of Jews, and it is therefore ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide in pursuit of territorial control and expansion.” [emphasis added]
The story of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine isn’t just about a colonial project. It is also the story of how powerful Zionism is and the ruthlessness with which it has operated from its very inception. By 1917, the Zionist movement had garnered enough power to broker a deal that saw the British empire hand over Palestine in the Balfour Declaration in exchange for Zionists lending their influence to encourage the US to enter World War I on the side of Britain, enabling the Allies to defeat Germany. [vii]
By the end of World War II, Zionism was powerful enough to nobble the UN to pass a General Assembly resolution giving a 30% minority a disproportionate 55% of Palestine.[viii] This from an institution whose purported founding principle was the self-determination of peoples. An organisation that should have put its weight behind fair and democratic elections in which all the inhabitants could create their own independent country instead greenlighted a coup that empowered a minority settler population to ethnically cleanse a majority population. The UN was strangled at birth by the hand of Zionism. The UN is a tool of powerful vested interests and has been since its birth.
The US State Department was vehemently opposed to the UN’s partition plan but it was overruled by a Truman administration in thrall to Zionism. The head of the State Department’s Division of Near Eastern Affairs warned that:
“US support for partition of Palestine…can be justified only on the basis of Arab and Jewish consent. Otherwise we should violate the principle of self-determination which has been written into the Atlantic Charter…and the United Nations Charter…Even a United Nations determination in favour of partition would be, in the absence of such consent, a stultification and a violation of the UN’s own charter.”[ix] [emphasis added]
The warnings went unheeded because, in the words of Evan Wilson, a career diplomat who had been US Consul General in Jerusalem, Truman had been largely motivated by “domestic political considerations”. Undersecretary of State James Webb in a despatch to Secretary of State Dean Acheson noted that “past record suggests that Israel has had more influence with the US than has US with Israel.”[x]
The only practical purpose the UN partition resolution served was to galvanise the Zionist movement in Palestine into mobilising their militias for an attempted full conquest of Palestine, which was its goal from the beginning. 55% of Palestine, though a grave injustice to the Palestinians, was never enough for the Zionists.
That UN General Assembly resolution was not a binding resolution and, as international jurist Henry Cattan concluded in his 1988 book The Palestine Question, “the partition resolution was not legally effective or binding on the Palestinian people.” Arab requests to refer the question of UN jurisdiction over the Palestine situation to the International Court of Justice were rejected, leading Cattan to the ineluctable conclusion that “such avoidance of international law constituted a denial of justice which deprived the partition resolution of any juridical value.”[xi] The Palestinians were subjected to a stitch-up of Biblical proportions, and it matters because there is a traceable arc from that stitch-up 77 years ago to the genocide today.
The fact that Zionism might never have existed had it not been for centuries of antisemitism is obviously not a sound moral basis for the acceptance of Zionism. I would never seek to diminish the suffering of Jewish people over the ages, but nor would I wish to transfer it to another group. To argue that Zionism is a legitimate response to antisemitism is to argue that two horrific wrongs could make a right. It was in fact this very same psychological illness of trying to right wrongs with more wrong that found its expression in the eagerness of Europeans to launder their Holocaust guilt by sacrificing Palestinians on the altar of Zionism. It was an exchange of one racism for another. And 76 years later, we are witnessing another genocide. It is no coincidence that it is being perpetrated by the descendants of the first victims, and it is no coincidence that it is being fully supported by the descendants of the perpetrators of the first crime.
There is thus an intimate, indeed incestuous, relationship between the Holocaust, the 1948 Nakba and the current genocide in Gaza. There is a school of thought that forbids any comparison of the events and practices leading up to the Holocaust and the Holocaust itself with the 76- year-long oppression of Palestinians and the genocide in Gaza now in progress. And given the generational intertwining of causes, victims and perpetrators, and the evidence of the planned destruction of an entire population in Gaza today, it is hard to fathom the rigidity of thought that seeks to bar such a comparison. The question today seems to me to be: how can you not compare them?
Having said that, I am personally not interested in a detailed technical comparison of these two horror stories. Does one really need to put the suffering of each group on the scales to forensically establish which evinces more horror? Is it necessary, meaningful or dignified to quibble over the maths of body counts and the relative horror of the different methods of extinguishing life? Not only do I not have the stomach for it, but if the purpose of such a comparison is to determine which group has suffered more, how does one look the ‘losing’ group in the eye and tell them that they have not suffered as much as the other group?
The media which serves the powers that birthed and support Zionism has spent 76 years gaslighting the world into believing the problem is fiendishly complicated and intractable. Colonial land theft, which was the vile realpolitik of the 19th and early 20th century, is not difficult to understand once the facts are presented. Nor is it beyond the wit of the average person to appreciate that everything that has happened in Palestine and Israel since 1917 is a straightforward story about a colonisation project and an indigenous people’s resistance to it. Every single war, the illegal occupation, the illegal settlements, the apartheid state, every single failed ‘peace negotiation’, October 7th 2023 – all of these are logical consequences of, and a continuation of, the West’s final colonisation project of the 20th century.
As for the intractability of the problem, to the extent that a resolution is elusive, this is a direct result of Israel’s success, with the full backing of the US, British and EU empire axis, in creating ‘facts on the ground’ — i.e. making the 1948 colonisation and ethnic cleansing irreversible by settling the stolen land and studiously avoiding the two-state solution to which Israel and its US patron deceitfully paid lip service. We are now witnessing the logical conclusion of a plan whose goal, from its very inception, was to create an ethno-nationalist Jewish state by ethnically cleansing a majority-established indigenous population. The sickening end-point of that goal is the current genocide of the descendants of the people whom the Zionist militias failed to ethnically cleanse in 1948.
Israel, sick as it is, is desperate to achieve this because failure to do so brings it closer to a one-state solution. And that is the only morally acceptable solution that remains – equal rights for all within the borders of the state now called Israel and the occupied territories of Palestine. The choice before the world now is to either halt the genocide and create the framework for equal rights for all, including the reversal of the illegal post-1967 settlements, or to allow Israel to complete its genocide. The seriously defective moral compass of a Zionist points to the latter.
On the matter of whether there is a genocide now occurring in Gaza, the overwhelming evidence of the genocidal intent of the Israeli leadership and its practical implementation prompted the International Criminal Court to accept South Africa’s application demanding that Israel take necessary steps to stop a genocide from happening. The International Criminal Court is now seeking arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister, his minister of defence and senior ranking members of Hamas for war crimes. Israel’s military objectives in Gaza are patently clear. It seeks the total annihilation of Palestinian life in Gaza by making it uninhabitable through the total destruction of its civilian infrastructure, and killing huge numbers of people by bombing and the deployment of starvation as a weapon of war. The body count keeps rising and yet, with approximately 35,000 dead, mostly women and children, British Zionists refuse to acknowledge the scale of the barbarity.
Amos Goldberg, professor of Holocaust History at the department of Jewish history and contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is not in doubt that a genocide is happening in Gaza.
“What is happening in Gaza is genocide because the level and pace of indiscriminate killing, destruction, mass expulsions, displacement, famine, executions, the wiping out of cultural and religious institutions, the crushing of elites (including the killing of journalists), and the sweeping dehumanization of the Palestinians — create an overall picture of genocide, of a deliberate conscious crushing of Palestinian existence in Gaza.”
He is not some isolated crackpot either. The only way to deny that a genocide is happening is to convert to the crackpot cult of Zionism. This is perhaps the only genocide in history which is being so openly broadcast to the world, both by the perpetrators themselves and by the endless and gruesome media footage reaching billions on a daily basis. No formal trial is necessary since the evidence has been made publicly available in real time. If a trial to prosecute for war crimes were to be held, it ought to be the shortest in history.
Even the international criminal justice system that was “built for Africa and thugs like Putin” [time stamp 19:07] is trying to issue arrest warrants for its allies, Israel’s Prime Minister and Defence Minister. These words were those of an unnamed US empire representative sent to intimidate the ICC prosecutor, thereby ironically confirming that every single high-ranking official in the US-NATO empire is a thug.
The ICJ rulings and recent ICC moves to prosecute Israeli war crimes are testimony to the depths to which Israel has sunk (and it had already reached rock-bottom in 1948, though most did not know it then), but they should not be construed as sincere efforts to instigate effective justice. Welcome as they are, the truth is that they are cynical moves for self-preservation – Israel’s breaches are so transparently and outrageously illegal that doing nothing would guarantee the death knell for these fake defenders of justice set up to window-dress the New World Order NATO-owned justice system that has yet to feel the collars of Bush, Blair and other Iraq war criminals. But the mere fact that they are doing something, however ineffective, confirms that Israel’s actions have elicited such revulsion that it has even succeeded in forcing its own side, the Empire’s own policemen, to wave a billy club at it.
If British Zionists were capable of empathy for anyone outside their tribe, they would have to acknowledge that an equivalent loss of life in the UK would entail 1.1 million deaths. But their position is clear – the value of a Palestinian child’s life must not be placed on par with an Israeli child’s life or a British child’s life. This of course is the sentiment that drives all crimes against humanity – that certain lives have more value than others. This is how Zionists justify the genocide of Palestinians as revenge for Hamas’ attack on 7th October.
Nevertheless, the writing is on the wall for the 76-year-long Zionist gaslighting project. In America, probably the most Zionist brainwashed population on the planet, 56% of Democrat voters believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, while the percentage nationwide is 40%. Some 70 % of all American voters support a permanent ceasefire and de-escalation of violence in Gaza. Zionism has only ever had two weapons in its armoury – violence and deception. The role of deception is to justify the violence, and now that the deception is losing its power, the public’s acceptance of the violence is no longer holding.
Israel is not a country. It is a 76-year-old torture chamber to which the Palestinian people have been condemned for the crime of not having any friends in high places when the land they had peacefully inhabited for centuries was being traded under their noses without their consultation. Israel is an abomination that British Zionists have chosen to call a friend.
I’ve stressed so far that to understand Zionism, and to understand who Young and Company have chosen as their friend, you have to understand the spark that lit the fire in 1896, the fuel added to the flame in 1917, the UN partition stitch-up of 1947, and the bonfire of 1948. The weighty tomes analysing every single major event after 1948 serve as a detailed post-mortem of the wreckage that followed. Those tomes are important because they explicate the cardinal sin of 1948, from which there is no turning back and no remission. But the essence of what is required to appreciate the moral bankruptcy of Zionism lies in the history between 1896 and 1948, and that history is thoroughly documented by Ilan Pappe in his work The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by reference to the historical record, and the statements and actions of the Zionist terrorists at the time.
Deciding where to start the clock on this whole sordid mess is another way of asking: who started it? Zionists like to start the clock on the conflict in around 70 AD with the fall of Jerusalem. So, while Part II of this essay will return to the directors of the little friendly British Zionist company to examine the contradiction between their desire for freedom at home and oppression abroad, it will also deal with the absurdity of the Zionist claim to an ancestral right to the land of Palestine and whether such a claim has any moral or legal force. And since 7th October has prompted Zionists to wallow in attempts to extract pro-Hamas confessions from anti-Zionists, we’ll take a look at why no-one loves Hamas more than a bred-in-the-bone Zionist.
[ii] Theodor Herzl writing in Der Judenstaat in 1896: https://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/
[iii] Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, One World Publications Limited, 2006, Ch 2, pg. 17
[iv] Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, One World Publications Limited, 2006, Ch 2, pg. 18
[v] Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, One World Publications Limited, 2006, Ch 9, pg. 214
[vi] Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, One World Publications Limited, 2006, Ch 9, pg. 220/221
The summer of discontent is upon us. Whether we will find ourselves witness to direct exchange of fire or targets of another global counter-insurgency sweep is anyone’s guess. This time in 2020 the most massive abrogation of human and civil rights (temporary privileges granted to selective populations at different levels) in recorded history was accelerating on the highway to Hell, paved by the psychopathic oligarchy and the pharmaments industry. In the first half of 2024, distorted, partial, and self-serving disclosures and omissions have animated what remains of critical faculty in the West.
