Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Kerry in panic as Damascus and Moscow are retaking Aleppo

  • Acting US Administration is still trying to reach an agreement with Russia, given which siege of Aleppo would be stopped in return for division of the Syrian opposition and terror groups. As the Washington Post reported, with a reference to representatives in the State Department, namely John Kerry, the Secretary of State, is dealing with it. He keeps making every effort to reach a deal with Russia on the Syrian Aleppo, despite his soon stepping down.
  • Kerry realizes that Trump may reach quite another type of agreement with Moscow, he may go the length of a deal which would leave the Syrian opposition to the mercy of fate and would place Washington squarely on the side of the president Bashar al-Assad.
  • Among those efforts aimed at prompt achievement of an agreement with Russia on Syria phone talks between Kerry and his Russian colleague Sergey Lavrov are named, as they were carried out 2 times a week. Beside that, he has had negotiations on the issue with the US allies in Abu Dhabi this month and calls to engage Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and even Iran in negotiations.
  • Meanwhile, the Syrian government troops have significantly advanced for the last two days towards eastern areas of Aleppo. Most of buildings have been liberated from Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist gangsters. Thousands of civilian residents have been withdrawn from combat areas with the help of the Syrian Arab Army and its allied forces on the ground.
  • Kerry is in panic, as the rest of ‘cannibals’ of the Obama’s administration.


Maj. General Suhayl Al-Hassan in photos demonstrating the elegant triumphs of his Republican Guards.  (Thanks, Khaled)

They are leaving East Aleppo by the thousands.  Some estimates are putting the number of citizens now under the protection of the Syrian Army at over 3,000.  Half of the number is children leaving with their parents.  Of interest to all of you is the fact that 180+ rodents have taken advantage of secure corridors to depart East Aleppo for Idlib.  Based on information from our sources, all the escaping rodents are Syrians.  No such permission has been given to foreigners.  Any foreign terrorist attempting to leave will be arrested and executed on the spot.  This is especially true for Saudi Arabians, Qataris and other forms of simian trash.

Syrian soldier in Aleppo watching the last rodents departing. (Thanks, Khaled Nawaz Al-Nouri)
AL-BAAB:  The Syrian Army is only 5 kms now from the frontier town of Al-Baab.  This will be a watershed moment in the history of this conflict in that it will bring the Turkish Army and the Syrian Army into possible direct confrontation.  At a minimum, it will pit the Turk-supported terrorists of the FSA against the SAA.  If, as I suspect, the FSA is destroyed, it might bring in the Turks to save them.  Once this happens, Russia will intervene on Syrian soil essentially barring NATO from any excuse to assist Ankara.  As of right now, the SAA is supported by the YPG.  The army is at Tal ‘Unayb and Sha’aalamoving toward Irziq which overlooks Al-Baab.   Another report informs us that the SAA is only 1km away from forces aligned with Turkey under the title of “Euphrates Shield”.
I am sure many of you have been reading about the pandemonium sweeping the rodent cells in what parts of Aleppo they are still holding.  We have reports of intercepted communications describing raging conversations over non-secure lines expressing an absolute breakdown in morale and faith in terrorist commanders.  According to Wael in Latakia, one such exchange contained a mention of ‘Abdullah Al-Muhaysini:
Voice of Commander:  “Don’t trouble yourself with things that don’t concern you.  Al-Shaykh ‘Abdullah is working on it with our Turk brothers.”
The response from the beleaguered terrorist field commander in Aleppo sounded:
“F&^%$#K this Saudi!   What’s he going to do?  Pray for us?”
This morning I received a report that the Syrian Army has faced off with the Turk-supported Turkestaani militias and the “FSA”.  This is taking place at a village called Al-Azraq (northwest of Al-Baab) which is viewed by all sides as critical for the liberation of Al-Baab.  The PYG is very much involved with the SAA.  The PYG has wrested control of a village called Allooshaa from the FSA yesterday near Manbij.  The SAA reportedly now controls the following villages, all conquered during the last 10 days:  Baabinis, Tal Shu’ayr, Haleessa, Al-Shaykh Kayf, Jawba, Nayrabiyya.
Al-Shaykh Sa’eed:  Another important Aleppan base for the terrorist rodents was liberated this morning by the Syrian Army.  Al-Shaykh Sa’eed saw its last vermin leave last night abandoning all fortifications and arms caches.
Image result for abu muhammad al-jaulani
Al-Jawlaani seen smiling in this picture.  He’s not smiling today.
The leader of the terrorist Alqaeda franchise in Syria, Abu Muhammad Al-Jawlaani, (real name: Usaamaa Al-‘Absi Al-Waahidi) is so terrified by the new developments in Aleppo that he is now defying Ankara’s goodwill by sending the second-ranking leader of the Nusra group to Al-Raqqa to meet with agents of ISIS.  The purpose of sending Abu Maariyyaa Al-Qahtaani is quite obvious:   he wants to bury the hatchet and begin a new era of cooperation with ISIS in order to preserve what he has left of his cannibal criminal group.  There are no hints yet as to what the emissary has accomplished and we don’t know what position ISIS has staked out as far as leadership is concerned.  What we do know is that both groups are on their way to oblivion.
It appears Al-Qahtaani traveled from Turkey by way of the village of Qasr Ibn Wardaanin Homs, a place conquered by ISIS after ejecting Jund Al-Aqsaa from it about 3 months ago.   From intercepted communications between the groups, it appears ISIS gave assurances that the second-ranking leader would not be harmed by ISIS.
 خبر وتعليق... حلب تعانق جيشها العربي السوري 
With planning going on apace in Damascus, the SAAF is preparing the way for a massive assault on Hama and Idlib.  As we reported months ago based on exclusive information from our sources, 10,000 Afghan and Iranian volunteers are in position to descend down into the Waadi Al-Ghaab to take back Jisr Al-Shughoor.  The only impediment now is the village of Kobaani which the Turks are desperate to hold at all costs.  During the last 4 days, the SAAF has struck Mork, Sukayk, North Sooraan, Khaan Shaykhoon, Al-Tamaani’a, north Abu Dhuhoor.  Reports are that many Jaysh Al-Fath leaders have been killed in the aerial attacks with scores of vehicles destroyed and fortifications brought down.
DAMASCUS:  ZIONIST AIR ATTACK HITS NOTHING.  This Wednesday morning, Zionist aircraft flying over helpless Lebanon, fired four rockets at the village of Sabbooracausing no damage and destroying nothing.  Syrian news reports speculate that the attack was meant to buttress the failing morale of Zionism’s major Islamist ally, Nusra/Alqaeda, which is now seeking an alliance with ISIS, as we wrote herein-above.  The Zionist press claims the attack was on a weapons delivery to Hizbollah.
الطيران الاسرائيلي يقصف منطقة الصبورة بريف دمشق
(Photo courtesy of the Ba’ath Party)
Note the Syrian-developed thermal sight on our T-72 tanks and how it has changed the way urban warfare takes place in Syria. (Thanks to John, Esq.)
Afraa Dagher shows us how our SAA has to smuggle citizens out of East Aleppo to escape America’s “moderate” cannibals:
Related Videos
Related Articles


On November 28, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and its allies officially surrendered the western Ghouta towns of Khan al-Shih and Zakiyah to government forces. In total about 3,000 militants and civilians were set to be evacuated to Idlib province from these villages via green buses. Militants had handed over at least two ZSU-23-4 Shilka guns and other military equipment the Syrian army.
On November 29, the advance of Syrian government forces continued in eastern Aleppo. Following the previous gains, the Syrian army, Liwa al-Quds and other pro-government groups have further pushed to the militant held area and liberated Talat al Barakat and the Scientific Research housing area south of Jabal Badro and launched fresh operations at Tareeq al-Bab and at the Ma’saraniyah Youth Housing
The army also keeps the option to split the remaining pocket into two, launching an advance in the direction of Aleppo Citadel. The control over strategic Police Hill in Marjeh allows government forces to launch such an operation.
Government engineers are working to relaunch the water pumping station in the Suleiman al-Halabi Neighborhood that was liberated from militants yesterday. “Moderate rebels” had used the control over the station to cut off the water supplies to the local population of Aleppo, punishing people avoiding to support adherents of al-Qaeda-style democracy. When the station is relaunched, the water crisis in Aleppo will end.
Separately, the Syrian army and the Kurdish YPG jointly waved flags over the highest building in the Bustan al-Pasha Neighborhood, confirming the recent facts of cooperation between two forces in Aleppo area. Following militants runaway from northeastern Aleppo, Kurdish YPG forces had entered some areas and filled the vacuum. Now, Syrian government forces and Kurdish YPG units have a joint-control over some points in Bustan al-Basha, al-Halek and Ayn al-Tell.
At the same time, the Syrian army and the Kurdish YPG advanced against Turkey-led militant coalition east of Aleppo city and captured the village of Azraq from it, deploying roughly 5km from al-Bab. With recent reports about airstrikes on the Turkish military by the Syrian Air Force in northern Syria and ongoing heavy clashes between Turkish forces and YPG units east of al-Bab, the army-YPG advance in the area delivers a major blow to Ankara’s hopes of military expansion in the war-torn country. In other case, this could lead to further military escalation if the Erdogan regime decides to deploy more military force to achieve its goals in Syria.

JP: Fires and Hizbullah!

In the past few days the “Israelis” faced one of the worst brushfires in the Zionist history. Nearly a thousand hectares of forests and rural areas have been destroyed in the illegal settlements of Zichron Ya’acov, Neveh Shalom, Modi’in, Neveh Ilan and Nataf. Tens of thousands were evacuated from their illegal places in the Haifa area alone.

JP: Fires and Hizbullah!
“Israel’s” under-staffed firefighting forces were confronting day and night to stop the flames from spreading.
Meanwhile, firefighters and equipment from abroad provided important backup.
What were to happen if “Israel’s” emergency teams were forced to deal with a large-scale brush fire while facing a missile offensive launched by Hizbullah from southern Lebanon?, the Jerusalem Post wonders.
According to the paper, this is not a far-fetched scenario. Depending on the season, a barrage of rockets and missiles landing in the occupied territories could easily spark a major brushfire bigger than the one that spread across the occupied lands over the past few days. If Katyusha rockets landed in dry brush after a long period of drought at a time of high winds, they could easily ignite huge fires.
The paper further claimed that “if Hizbullah were to launch a major rocket and missile offensive against “Israel”, the “Israeli” response would likely be particularly devastating, not because “Israel” relishes destroying south Lebanon, but because the Hizbullah has purposely placed a large amount of its ballistic arsenal in civilian areas.”
Speaking last week at The Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference in the occupied city of al-Quds, Brig.-Gen. Ram Yavne, head of the Zionist army’s Strategic Division, warned that one-third of Hizbullah weapons are stashed in or under private homes in Shi’ite villages in southern Lebanon, the JP went on saying.
…”Israel” should prepare for a scenario in which it receives no help from the international community in extinguishing fires caused by Hizbullah rockets.
The fires of the last few days were a humbling reminder that, even under ideal diplomatic conditions, with “Israel” receiving support from abroad for its firefighting efforts, a large-scale fire can cause major damage.
“Israel” must begin preparing for a situation in which international aid is not forthcoming and firefighting efforts are being carried out in the midst of a rocket “offensive” launched by Hizbullah, the JP concluded.
Source: Jerusalem Post, Edited by website team
29-11-2016 | 13:07

“An Open Letter to American Jews”

Posted on  by mala114 
Originally published in Counterpunch November 25, 2016

“An Open Letter to American Jews”

by Stanley Cohen
Proud Jews are those that can look others in the face who commit or support crimes against humanity in Palestine and, with no hesitation whatsoever, shout-out “J’accuse” … the self hating ones are those that commit the crimes or simply walk away in boneless silence.
Israel and its sightless, obedient supporters have now come full circle in absolute perverse denial. For years they’ve successfully packaged and sold the fairy-tale that Zionism and Judaism were one in the same… an historic enlightened conflation of shared purpose and belief which, in reality, was born of little more than vicious political convenience (or is it connivance?) in eastern Europe.
Like Malcolm said, the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. It’s finally backfired. It’s about time.
Through massacre after massacre, outrage after outage, whenever anyone dares to condemn Israel’s systematic brutality of millions of Palestinians the indictment always comes down the same… “anti-Semite”.
Challenge the illegal occupation… you’re a Jew hater. Confront Israeli apartheid… you’re a Jew hater. Battle ethnic cleansing… you’re a Jew hater. Support BDS… you’re a Jew hater. And if you’re Jewish and hold Israel accountable for the grand obscenity it’s proven to be since day one, you are worst of all…a self hater. On and on and on the crafted diversion goes and long has, fleeing the very public reality of Israel’s enduring inhumanity to millions of stateless people.
Of course, when hundreds of Holocaust survivors who live in Israel called the most recent high tech carnage in Gaza in 2014 “genocide”, it drew the line. Even the Zionist state was not so crass or politically craven as to publicly label them Jew haters because they had the principled audacity to call it to task for the slaughter of thousands of defenseless women, children and elders. No, that would be exploiting the exploitation called the Holocaust that Zionist cheerleaders have employed for 70 years as so much cover for one of Israel’s own making… as it thumbs its nose at the world and commits unspeakable mayhem against Palestinians. To Zionists, survivors who screamed out with dignity and honor… “genocide,” were pathetic… just old and feeble.
For years, with little more than sleight of hand and a large Western rubber stamp, Zionists have been able to package and vend, with brazen bully success, the message that one cannot attack deadly and criminal Israeli policies without mechanically crossing the line into the hinterland of antisemitism. Well… those days are gone… as team Israel has finally foisted itself upon its own petard.
One need not have surgical precision in their view of the political universe to observe that as the world has become increasingly educated and, thus, more sympathetic to the desperate plight of Palestinians, Zionists have raced to develop new, even more brutish, strategies to recast a narrative based on little more than pure Hollywood fiction. Sorry… Exodus is very much an obsolete illusion, today, with all of its heroic figures long since passed on to old age.
The hallway of Zionist hard-sell is today very public. In its most glaring form it includes intimidating Western countries such as the UK, Canada, France, and Netherlands who shudder at the mere thought of being called “anti-Semitic” for the audacity of permitting their citizens to speak their minds openly and freely about the malevolence that is Israel. To them, and other states that seek to silence those who support BDS as a peaceful grassroots means of expressing opposition to a tyrannical state, Israel owes a great debt of thanks. After all it’s not easy to welcome, indeed embrace, conspicuous ignorance as you draw a deep cloud of denial around the object lesson of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. No matter what your flag, war crimes are still war crimes whether carried out against or by you.
In other ways, demonstrably racist activity has moved Israel into a leading role in the effort to stage-manage 21st Century cyberspace. For example, under the autocratic shine of national honor, it has inspired, if not empowered, Zionist hackers to attack pro Palestinian web sites worldwide spewing forth Islamaphobic rage at those with the temerity to seek an alternative view about unfolding events in Palestine otherwise largely ignored or censored by Western media.
So, too, it has employed an army of social media activists skilled enough to read jejune slogans but completely at a loss when confronted with the dark, fact-based truth that is Israel. After-all, how many times can a cue card equate Muslim with Jew hater before a mindless 18 year old paid $10.00 an hour finally says enough and saunters off to the beach?
Likewise, during its last two onslaughts upon Gaza, Israel moved quickly to shut down all of its internet passage-ways in an unmistakable effort to prevent the world from learning in real-time about the nature and extent of its brutal assault upon the enclave’s two million defenseless residents.
While these are but a few of the most recent public moves by Israel to intimidate or silence political or social opposition, with alarming frequency its policy has been to break bread with some of the most hateful, supremacist groups and activists in the world.
How long ago was it that neo-Nazis sought to march in Skokie Illinois, in Nazi uniforms screaming out zeig-heil while they carried placards that read “White Free Speech” and “Free Speech for the White Man” to a community with a population of thousands of stunned Holocaust survivors? And in that same year, the KKK sought to hold, in the same town, a rally for its brand of racist ideology.
Yet, today, Zionists seem to have no problem whatsoever sitting down strategizing with proud supporters of the Klan and other white supremacist groups. Indeed, the Zionist Organization of America will fete, this weekend, noted white supremacy and antisemitism promoter, Steven Bannon, at its yearly hate fest.
This celebration of religious and racial supremacy and intolerance should come as no surprise given the organization has signed onto the Trump plan of profiling Muslims, calls Black Lives Matter a “hate group” and has warned college students against inviting such notables as Noam Chomsky and former President Jimmy Carter to speak at campus assemblies lest they spread their “dangerous messages.”
Make no mistake about it Bannon and his fellow purveyors of hate have never been shy in exploiting abhorrence of Jews and a host of other minorities based upon race, religion, sexual identity or immigrant status. Nor have they been timid at all when it comes to exalting calls for violence to sweep clean an America they perceive as being too black, too immigrant, too Jewish, too Muslim and too soft.
Indeed Bannon is a member of a Facebook page that has openly featured explicit racist and violent material replete with overtures for deadly criminal activity. Thus, for example, their posts feature an image of the president dressed as an SS officer. In other places they celebrate the Confederate flag and urge a military coup in the United States. Elsewhere, they highlight a photo shopped picture of Obama with a watermelon and praise a police officer who called the President a “Fucking Nigger”… that ought to be “executed as a traitor.” This is the message that inspires the President’s chief advisor.
Yet, today, Zionists celebrate Bannon as he and his Klan buddies have finally figured out it doesn’t take much to get a free pass for their palpable hatred of Jews… all they need do is to offer up their much in demand backing of an Israeli state driven by the same treacherous supremacist views.
It seems to Zionists a healthy dose of unabashed antisemitism… directed at Jews… is suitable today as long as it’s dressed up in obedient support for Israel… especially when it comes from the mouth of the top advisor of the President-elect and his inner circle of friends.
Bannon has long been denounced by democrats, republicans and civil and human rights organizations, alike, for having made the Breitbart website a welcome forum for neo-nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites. Nevertheless, his appointment was welcomed by the Israeli Ambassador to the United States who noted that “… we look forward to working with the Trump administration… including Steve Bannon, in making the U.S.-Israel alliance stronger than ever.”
There is nothing at all new about the selective application of the all too expedient brand “anti-Semite”. Indeed, it is the mark of Cain quickly applied to principled students and faculty who support the peaceful effort of BDS to bring about justice for Palestine, yet is completely ignored when confronted by classic anti-Semitic vitriol coming from the mouths of pro Israel patrons.
Indeed, the net balance affect has long been a significant driving force in determining when blatant sign-posts of antisemitism were to be over-looked for the broader “good” of Israel; where those who challenge Israeli policies were to be vilified and those who praise them applauded no matter how much or long their distaste for Jews.
The late “Christian Zionist”, Jerry Falwell, is one such prime example. Denounced by Jewish critics for having said that he believed the “Antichrist” would be a Jew, despite this, and other like anti-Semitic statements, Falwell was ultimately resurrected by Zionists who found greater benefit in his overall political support of Israel than his marked distaste for Jews as a whole.
There is nothing remarkable about today’s Zionist reach to build hate fueled bonds with supremacist groups both in and outside of the United States. Zionists have shown a willingness, if not an ease, throughout their 130 plus year history of working with classic anti-Semitic governments and groups to further their revisionist self-centered view of history. There is abundant precedent.
Beginning long ago in Czarist Russia, the Zionist marriage of political convenience went on to flourish with some in the Axis powers during World War II. It later found comfort with its Balfour friends in Palestine, and has reached new heights in the West through an apparently unbreakable bond with the bigoted evangelical right.
Thus, parliamentary votes throughout the member states of the EU to recognize the sovereignty of the State of Palestine have been opposed by a unique marriage of Zionist and local neo-Nazi interests. This coalition of convenience and hatred should come as no surprise however given a joint effort to target a wave of desperate Muslim refugees and a shared aversion to any semblance of Justice for Palestinians.
In Ukraine, Israel abandoned the safety of its shrinking Jewish population to the political expedience it reaped from its support of the neo-Nazi putsch that ousted its elected pro-Russian president. In France, the National Front, with proud age old roots in French fascism has once again risen to significant power. Not at all shy about its racist and anti-Semitic image, the Front has found support nonetheless from Israel which paid one of its leaders a warm welcome when he traveled to the Holy Land to curry votes from French Jews who now call it home. Sound familiar?
There is nothing remarkable or new about Israel’s recent rapport with some of the worlds most repressive … indeed totalitarian and racist regimes. It has never shied from a march down a long passage way filled with the painful screams of political prisoners, dissidents, or those perceived by virtue of their race, religion or activism to pose a threat to the autocratic rule of the state, be it in Israel or elsewhere.
Israel’s support for South African apartheid, ’til literally its very end, is well known, providing materials for the building of its nuclear weapons. Long after UN-imposed sanctions against apartheid Rhodesia, it continued to provide Uzis and helicopters. In more than a dozen other African countries Israel funded and trained military repression of anti-colonial uprisings and/or dictatorship. It sold arms and provided training to Rwandan military and Hutu militia that carried out genocide against the Tutsis.
In South America, Israel armed Guatemalan death squads, Nicaraguan Contras, Pinochet’s Chile, and the military junta in Argentina which resulted in the “disappearance” of thousands of opponents of a regime which not only openly espoused anti-Semitic rhetoric, but specifically targeted and disappeared numerous Jewish civilians.
In Southeast Asia, Israel provided aid to the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia and, in the Pacific Region, funded the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines. In Iran, during the rule of the Shah, the secret death squad (SAVAK) received training from Israel and purchased over 150 million dollars in arms from it. Never known for its selfless virtue, Israel was to benefit… the Shah was one of the first leaders in the region to recognize it as a state.
These are but a few glaring examples of dozens of instances where Israel has supported, if not propped up, supremacist and racist regimes… many known for their utter and extreme anti-Semitic vitriol and manifest hatred of Jews. But, with remarkable agility, if not indifference, it has become practiced… indeed expert… at balancing the self interest of its own rapacious agenda with the reality of the often anti-Semitic neo-fascist regimes and movements its supports throughout the world.
With this practiced experience it seems that Zionists are eminently equipped to handle the emerging face of antisemitism, nay, overt odium for Jews which, with Steve Bannon and company, will soon move from the inner sanctum of Trump Towers to the inner circle of the White House.
Given its history of support for anti-Semitic allies it comes as no surprise that Zionists believe they will be able to stage manage overt hatred for Jews and other minorities from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. What is, however, stunning is that, for the first time in recent memory, they appear perfectly willing to abandon the false conflation of Zionism and Judaism by supporting a collective of white ethnocentric supremacists who support the Zionist agenda in Israel yet hate Jews in whose name it is claimed that agenda has been built.

Common israel/Zionist myths and how to deal with them

Israel targets a UN-run school in Beit Lahiya with white phosphorous munitions during 'Operation Cast Lead', January 17, 2009 (Iyad El-Baba/UNRWA)
Israel targets a UN-run school in Beit Lahiya with white phosphorous munitions during ‘Operation Cast Lead’, January 17, 2009 (Iyad El-Baba/UNRWA)
Here are ten popular arguments Zionists use to defend Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians and how to answer them effectively.
If you’re active in the struggle for peace and justice in the Middle East, you’ve no doubt frequently encountered Zionists who defend Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. You’re familiar with many of their talking points, and maybe you know how to answer many or most of them. Here are ten you’ve likely encountered, but perhaps didn’t know quite how to debate effectively–until now!

1. The Palestinian refugee problem is an unfortunate result of the Arab states launching a war of aggression in 1948 to wipe Israel off the map.

There are two principle fallacies in this argument:
One, it was not simply that Palestinians fled war. Many did flee, but this was encouraged by the Zionist forces, which also directly expelled many civilians from their homes and destroyed their villages so they could never return. It was the intent of the Zionists to ethnically cleanse Palestine of most of its Arab population in order for the demographically “Jewish state” of Israel to be established. Indeed, cleansing Palestine of Arabs was a prerequisite for this state to be created. This is why Israel refused to allow those refugees to return.
Two, this argument assumes that the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of the existence of Israel on May 14, 1948, was legitimate. It wasn’t. The Zionists had neither any legal nor moral authority to declare sovereignty over a land in which they were a minority and of which they owned only about 7 percent. While they cited UN Resolution 181 (the “partition plan” resolution) as granting such authority, in fact, this resolution neither partitioned Palestine nor conferred any legal authority to the Zionists for their unilateral declaration.
Fully arm yourself with the knowledge to defeat this Zionist hasbara (i.e., propaganda) by reading:
In Obstacle to Peace, see specifically:
  • Chapter 1, Subchapter “UN General Assembly Resolution 181”
  • Chapter 2, Subchapter “Resolution 194”
  • Chapter 9, Subchapter “The Bias of the New York Times”

2. Israel has a right to exist.

No state has a “right to exist”. This concept is a propaganda device invented by the US and Israel for a reason that will become clear momentarily.
One might be tempted to answer this argument with: “Well, Palestine has a right to exist, too!” But this is not the proper response!
Political entities defined by lines on maps do not have rights, individuals do. The proper framework for discussion is the right to self-determination. And it is manifestly Israel that has denied that right to the Palestinians since its founding (and indeed, by the Zionists even before Israel’s founding), and not vice versa.
The necessity of redefining the framework for discussion thus becomes obvious. To say that Israel has a “right to exist” is effectively to assert that the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of Israel’s existence and the ethnic cleansing by which Israel actually came into being were legitimate. Needless to say, these were not legitimate actions on the part of the Zionists.
For further discussion and specific examples of how this Zionist hasbara has been used to deny the equal rights of the Palestinians, see the index entry “Israel: ‘right to exist’” in Obstacle to Peace.

3. In 1967, Israel acted in self-defense by launching a preemptive attack on Egypt.

Israel’s attack on Egypt on the morning of June 5, 1967 — the event that started the “Six Day War” — was not preemptive.
Zionists will argue that Nasser’s threats, Egypt’s closing of the Straits of Tiran and Suez Canal to Israeli shipping, its movement of troops into the Sinai Peninsula, and its expelling of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) all essentially amounted to acts of war.
However, none of these actions constituted aggression under international law.
Egypt’s perspective was that the straits and Suez Canal were its territorial waterways so it had a right to deny passage to an enemy state that had already attacked it once, in 1956 (when Israel conspired with Britain and France to launch a war of aggression against Egypt). While legal scholars may debate the legitimacy of that point of view, the fact is that Israel had peaceful means available to it to seek redress for this grievance against Egypt. It did not, under international law, constitute a casus belli (justification for war).
Nasser wanted the UN peacekeeping force gone because he was being accused by Syria and Jordan of hiding behind it. His bellicose rhetoric was about saving face but was just that: rhetoric. The proposal was made to restation UNEF on Israel’s side of the border, but, instructively, Israel rejected this proposal.
Furthermore, the CIA observed that Egypt’s troops took up defensive positions in the Sinai, and Israel’s own intelligence assessed that Israel was under no threat of attack from Egypt.
In 1982, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Under international law, Israel’s attack on Egypt constituted aggression, defined at Nuremberg as “the supreme international crime”.
For more information about Israel’s aggression in 1967, see:

4. UN Resolution 242 did not require Israel to fully withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967.

This is a lie. Unfortunately, it is very effective Zionist hasbara and is widely believed even by supporters of Palestinians’ rights.
There are three main components of the Zionist argument:
  1. The absence of the article “the” before the words “territories occupied” in sub-paragraph (i) of the first operative paragraph of this Security Council resolution means only a partial withdrawal was required.
  2. Sub-paragraph (ii) requires that “secure and recognized borders” be established before Israel is required to withdraw.
  3. Officials responsible for creating and passing Resolution 242, like Lord Caradon (UK) and Arthur Goldberg (US) have said it did not require a full withdrawal.
Briefly, here are the flaws in these arguments:
First of all, this is nonsense even on its face: the resolution does not say Israel must withdraw from “the territories occupied” so we must understand it to mean Israel must withdraw from only “some territories occupied”? This self-defeating Zionist logic is prima facie nonsense.
In truth, the absence of the article has no effect on the meaning of the resolution inasmuch as the extent of withdraw is concerned. It calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces “from territories occupied”, plural. The Syrian Golan Heights, the Egyptian Sinai, and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank are all “territories occupied” during the 1967 war and thus territories from which Israel was required to withdraw under the clear and unambiguous wording of Resolution 242.
In fact, the preambulatory section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible — and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
As for sub-paragraph (ii), while it does call for the establishment of “secure and recognized borders”, it does not establish this as a precondition for the withdraw of Israeli forces. It says “both” Israeli withdrawal and establishment of such borders are required, conditioning neither one upon the other. It was not the Security Council’s intent that a people whose land was occupied be required to negotiate with the occupier over where to draw the border.
Zionists claim otherwise, but to do so, they quote Caradon and Goldberg from years after the resolution’s passage. But, first, UN resolutions are not open to unilateral interpretation, but must be understand according to the will of the Security Council as a whole; and, second, the relevant documentary record for understanding the will of the Council is from prior to and up until the resolution’s adoption.
And turning to that documentary record, it is absolutely clear that the Security Council was explicit and unanimous that Resolution 242 required Israel to return to the lines it held prior to June 5, 1967.
For a fuller discussion of the factual and logical errors of this Zionist hasbara, see Chapter 3, Subchapter “Resolution 242” in Obstacle to Peace.

5. The Palestinians have rejected every generous offer from Israel to have a state of their own.

This argument assumes that Israel accepts the two-state solution and had made generous concessions in each of those “offers”, such as that made at Camp David in 2000. Those assumptions are absolutely false.
In fact, every single concession made during each of the “offers” in question — throughout the entire so-called “peace process” — was demanded or made by the Palestinians.
This Zionist hasbara, frequently propagated by US government officials and media commentators, simply frames the discussion in terms of what Israel wants rather than what it has a right to under international law.
Zionists say things like, “Israel offered the Palestinians a state in 95 percent of the West Bank at Camp David”. First of all, this is false. Israel started out demanding to annex 12 percent of the West Bank, and by the end of the talks was still demanding 9 percent. Second, none of this land was Israel’s to give. Under international law, every inch of it is recognized as “occupied Palestinian territory”. So translated into meaningful terms, we see arguments like the above equate that Israel “offered” to take only 5 percent (really 9 percent) of the Palestinians’ land.
Furthermore, these demands to annex Palestinian territory were accompanied with other unreasonable demands, such as dividing the West Bank into Bantustan-like enclaves with Jewish-only highways connecting illegally constructed Israeli settlements and Israeli military control over Palestine’s borders and airspace. In other words, Israel demanded that the Palestinians surrender more of their land, rights, and sovereignty.
If a thief steals a $100 from you and then says he will give you back $91 if you agree to certain other demands requiring you to surrender your rights, would you describe it as a “generous offer” or a “concession”?
The truth is that while the Palestinian leadership has accepted the two-state solution since the late 1980s, Israel has always rejected it. In fact, the US-led so-called “peace process” is in reality the process by which Israel and its superpower benefactor have long blocked implementation of the two-state solution.
To arm yourself with the knowledge to defeat this Zionist hasbara, see especially Chapter 2, “The ‘Peace Process’”, from Obstacle to Peace.

6. Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal — the UN has said so.

Actually, the UN has repeatedly affirmed the illegality of Israel’s blockade, which amounts to a policy of collective punishment in violation of international law. This criminal policy has been condemned by numerous UN bodies; the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); and numerous international human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Israeli rights groups B’Tselem and Gisha. This blockade continues in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1860, which called on Israel to end it.
So what are Zionists talking about when they claim the UN has said Israel’s blockade is legal?
They are talking about a report commissioned by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon known as the “Palmer Report”. It’s true that this report expressed the opinion of its two chairmembers that Israel’s naval blockade was legal. But what Zionists don’t tell you is that they also noted in their report itself that this conclusion of theirs went beyond their mandate and that they had no authority to offer their legal opinion.
Furthermore, the arguments they employed to arrive at their conclusion were riddled with factual and logical errors. Essentially, they employed circular reasoning by adopting the conclusion as their premise: in short, they argued that the naval blockade was legal because it was not a policy of collective punishment. In fact, they went to great lengths to avoid inquiring whether the blockade constituted collective punishment under international law, and they resorted to demonstrable misrepresentations of what international law actually has to say in an effort to sustain their expressed opinion.
So why would they do that? Well, they stated the reason in their report: their mandate was not to inquire into the legality of the blockade, but the political objective of allowing Israel and Turkey to put the Mavi Marmara incident behind them.
That was the incident in May 2010 in which Israeli forces attacked the humanitarian “Freedom Flotilla” — which was seeking to break Israel’s illegal blockade and draw the world’s attention to it — in international waters and murdered nine Turkish activists on board.
Ban Ki-moon charged them with helping these two states to reconcile. Had they affirmed the international consensus that Israel’s blockade was illegal, it would have undermined their political objective. So they expressed the opinion it was not as a predetermined conclusion and then proceeded to manipulate the facts and employ fallacious reasoning to support it.
For more on Ban Ki-moon’s duplicitous role as UN Secretary-General, see “Ban Ki-moon’s Complicity in Israel’s Occupation and War Crimes“.For a thorough debunking of the Palmer Report, see Chapter 9, Subchapter “The Palmer Report” in Obstacle to Peace. For more about Israel’s criminal assault on the Mavi Marmara and how to answer the arguments of those who try to defend it, see Chapter 7, “Murder on the High Seas”.

7. Israel launched “Operation Cast Lead” only after thousands of rockets had been fired at Israeli towns from Gaza.

This Zionist hasbara — frequently parroted by the US government and mainstream media — is deceit by omission. It’s true that in the years prior to Israel’s 2008-09 “Operation Cast Lead” thousands of rockets were fired at Israel from Gaza — and indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli population centers are certainly war crimes. However, what the Zionists don’t tell you is that on June 19, Israel and Hamas entered into a ceasefire agreement that was repeatedly violated not by Hamas, but Israel.
The New York Times actually reported on the most serious of those Israeli violations on the day it occurred (November 4, 2008), but thereafter tossed this fact down the memory hole. Subsequently, when it referred to the ceasefire, it merely said that it “broke down” without stating the reason why: because it was violated by Israel. More frequently, that there had even been a ceasefire — much less that it was not Hamas but Israel who violated it — was completely omitted, replaced by a false narrative in which Israel was acting in self defense against Hamas rocket attacks.
As illustrated by Operation Cast Lead, it is a modus operandi of Israel’s to take actions to attempt to provoke a violent response from Palestinian militants in order to create pretexts for its own resorts to its own violence, which occurs on an incomparably greater scale.
For more on Israel’s violation of the ceasefire and the mainstream media’s disgraceful reporting on “Operation Cast Lead”, see: “The Role of the US Media in the Palestine Conflict”, which draws upon material from Obstacle to Peace.

8. Palestinian civilians were only killed during operations like “Cast Lead” because they were being used by Hamas as human shields.

This is a lie. The truth is that Israel engaged in deliberately disproportionate use of force during its 2008-09 (Operation Cast Lead), 2012 (Operation Pillar of Defense), and 2014 (Operation Protective Edge) assaults on Gaza. In fact, it openly declared its intention to commit what amount to war crimes with its so-called “Dahiya Doctrine” — a reference to the flattening of the Dahiya district of Beirut in 2006 to punish the civilian population.
To take the example of Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s war crimes are well documented and incontrovertible. It deliberately targeted the civilian infrastructure for destruction as part of a policy of punishing the people of Gaza, and the IDF routinely used indiscriminate force, such as attacks on UN schools being used as shelters, hospitals, and residential homes.
In fact, there is not a single documented case of a Palestinian civilian killed during Operation Cast Lead who was being used by Hamas at the time as a human shield.
This might seem like a shocking truth, given the US mainstream media’s mindless repetition of the IDF’s own propaganda about civilians dying only because Hamas was using them as human shields, but this operation has been extensively investigated by human rights organizations and the UN, all of which investigations have concluded that there is no evidence to support Israel’s claimed justifications for killing civilians.
On the other hand, these investigations did conclude that Israeli forces used Palestinian civilians as human shields during Operation Cast Lead, such as forcing children to walk in front of them as they cleared homes.
For the full details of what really happened before and during Operation Cast Lead, see Obstacle to Peace, especially:
  • Chapter 1, Subchapter “The Collapse of the Ceasefire”
  • Chapter 2, “‘Operation Cast Lead’”
  • Chapter 4, Subchapter “‘The Most Moral Army in the World’”
  • Chapter 5, “The Goldstone Report”
  • Chapter 6, Subchapter “Israel’s ‘Cast Lead’ Self-Exoneration: Update”
  • Chapter 7, Subchapter “Israel’s ‘Cast Lead’ Self-Exoneration: Second Update”

9. The finding of the UN “Goldstone Report” that Israel committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead has been debunked.

This is a lie. What Zionist apologists for Israeli war crimes are referring to, specifically, when they make this claim is an op-ed by one of the four chairs of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, Justice Richard Goldstone.
The so-called Goldstone Report did indeed conclude that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes — and these conclusions still stand.
For his part in that report, Goldstone came under intense pressure and heavy criticism from Zionists, including threats to protest outside of and bar him from attending his grandon’s bar mitzvah. His op-ed was a transparent attempt to appease his Zionist detractors. But further than that, it was a disgraceful betrayal of truth and justice, as Goldstone outright lied about the UN report’s findings in his attempt at appeasement.
The occasion for Goldstone’s betrayal was the report of a follow-up UN committee charged with inquiring into the credibility of Hamas’s and Israel’s self-investigations into the allegations of war crimes. In this context, Goldstone wrote that had the UN Fact-Finding Mission known then what was now known, it would not have arrived at the conclusions it did.
Goldstone, however, was lying about the contents of the both the Goldstone Report and the follow-up committee’s report. He claimed the Fact-Finding Mission had not examined any evidence presented by Israel. That was false. In fact, the Mission fully took into account Israel’s own reports of its self-investigations that had occurred.
Goldstone also set up his op-ed on the premise of a strawman argument: the claim was ostensibly now retracting was that Israel had a policy of deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians for death. In fact, this was not a finding of the Fact-Finding Mission’s report. Rather, the Mission concluded that Israel’s policy was to punish the civilian population through the deliberate use of disproportionate force. By setting up this strawman argument, Goldstone avoided having to “retract” the Mission’s actual findings.
Further, he quoted the follow-up committee’s finding that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza”, but he withheld from readers the fact that the committee found that these investigations lacked credibility.
After Goldstone’s disgraceful betrayal of justice, his three co-authors publicly criticized his op-ed and pointed out that information that had since come to light — including the findings of the follow-up committee Goldstone was  deceptively relying on to support his own argument — did not change the Mission’s conclusions, but bolstered them.
For a complete debunking of this Zionist hasbara talking point, see Chapter 7, Subchapter “Goldstone’s Betrayal” in Obstacle to Peace.

10. Hamas was responsible for initiating the round of violence that culminated in Israel’s launching of “Operation Pillar of Defense” in 2012.

As with Operation Cast Lead, the truth is dramatically different.
Israeli apologists — including US government officials and US mainstream media commentators — cited as the initiating event a Hamas attack on an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) jeep just days before Israel launched its operation. What was withheld from readers in this Zionist hasbara was the fact that this was an attack on IDF forces that had invaded Gaza and was in part retaliation for the IDF’s murder of a thirteen-year-old Palestinian boy shortly prior.
Furthermore, just the day before Israel launched its operation, once again Hamas had agreed to a ceasefire that was then violated by Israel. In fact, Israel took advantage of the opportunity created by Hamas’s acceptance of the ceasefire to draw out and assassinate a senior Hamas official, Ahmed al-Jabari one of the initiating events of its “Operation Pillar of Defense”. Israel’s Orwellian justification for this operation was that it was intended to re-establish calm — the very calm that was shattered by its launch of the operation and assassination of Jabari.
For a complete timeline of events leading up to “Operation Pillar of Defense” and details of events occurring during that assault on Gaza, including Israel’s commission of further war crimes, see Chapter 10, Subchapter “‘Operation Pillar of Defense’” in Obstacle to Peace.


For peace and justice to be realized, the lies have to be exposed and the true nature of the conflict must come to light. There needs to be a paradigm shift in which it is no longer feasible for mainstream media outlets — which effectively serve the role of manufacturing consent for the US policy of supporting Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians — to mindlessly parrot US and Israeli government claims and peddle deceitful propaganda.
Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian ConflictZionist apologists for Israel’s behavior employ numerous hasbara talking points to try to justify its crimes. Knowing how to effectively counter the propaganda is key to effecting the necessary paradigm shift for peace to be achieved.
You as an individual can play an important role in helping to effect that paradigm shift.
Empower yourself with the knowledge you need to become an effective voice for peace.
Educate yourself and gain the confidence you need to speak up and correct those around you who have been misinformed about the true nature of the conflict.
Challenge the Zionist apologists when you encounter them on Facebook or Twitter and know how to destroy their propagandistic talking points with the truth.
If we want peace, government isn’t going to get the job done. It’s up to us. Go to it!
My book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict systematically deconstructs mainstream narratives about the conflict, revealing its true causes, the real reasons for its persistence, and what needs to happen for peace and justice to be realized. Here is what a few others have had to say about it:“carefully documented and highly informative” — Noam Chomsky